/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240917.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, September 17, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 187 Headlines 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Benn Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Boheman Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Donaldson Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Gibbs Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Hoffman Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, McGraw Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Miles Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Smith Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Spane Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Wagner Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: Kimbrough Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Loveall Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Mazula Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Upchurch Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Weeks Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Young Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ALONZO WILLIAMS SR: Gardner Suit Remanded to Circuit Court ALTO INGREDIENTS: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing AM RETAIL: Court Stays Bid to Certify Class AMAZON STUDIOS: Appeals Remand Order in Tehrani Suit to 9th Circuit AMERICAN DETECTIVE: Smith Class Suit Removed to W.D. Mo. AMERICAN PAIN: Court Narrows Claims in Smith Suit AMICK FARMS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ANAR CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Oliveira Alleges ANTHONY ANNUCCI: Azaz Bid to Certify Class Tossed w/o Prejudice BASIC BURGER: Fails to Pay Proper wages, Chavez Alleges BAYADA HOME: Peeler Sues Over Mismanagement of Retirement Plans BLST SALES: Earle FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey BRITISH AIRWAYS: High Court Dismisses Delayed Flight Class Action BROOKLYN BEDDING: Grossman Suit Removed to C.D. California BROOKLYN BEDDING: Khan Sues Over Misleading Discount Sale Ads BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP: Ellisrainey Suit Removed to E.D. California C&S WHOLESALE: Goodman Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania CAPITAL GROUP: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Pover to 9th Cir. CD PROJEKT: Williams Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Information CEDAR REALTY: Fourth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Class Lawsuit CENTRAL ILL PIZZA: Anderson Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois CHARLES SCHWAB: Saunders Sues Over Improper Investment Scheme COASTAL MARINE: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Shurley Says COMMITTEE FOR POLICE: Shelton Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania CONNECTICUT GENERAL: Class Settlement in Glover Gets Initial OK CVS PHARMACY: Cough Products Contains Toxic Chemicals, Suit Says DAGGA LLC: Igartua Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DISCOVERFRESH FOODS: Spearman Seeks 60 Days Wages Under WARN Act ESQUIRE EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ramos Alleges FLAGLER MIAMI: Property Inaccessible to Disabled, Longhini Says FLORIDA MARINE: Arauz Sues Over Race & Disability Discrimination FOODSCIENCE LLC: Faces GlycoFlex False Advertising Class Suit FOODSCIENCE LLC: Kelly Sues Over Mislabeled Dog Supplements GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Appeals Summ Judgment Bid Denial in Trauernicht HUDSON CITY SAVINGS: Lin Appeals Denied Preliminary Injunction Bid KALAMAZOO, MI: Christman Brings Appeals to Mich. Ct. of Appeals KONTOOR BRANDS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Battle Says MACY'S INC: Temesgen Credit Card Suit Removed to D. Mass. MAR MULTISERVICES: Cortez Suit Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid OT MAS HOME: Fails to Pay Laborers' OT Wages Under FLSA, Sotelo Says MJD INDUSTRIES: Battle Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store NATASHA ACCESSORIES: Kaur Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action NDN COLLECTIVE: Retsel Corp. Sues Over RICO Violations NUTRACEUTICAL WELLNESS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Says OPPOSUITS USA: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Sumlin Suit Says PRESBYTERIAN HEALTH: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Pruess FLSA Suit PUBLIC HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Peebles Alleges RESTAURANT LAW: Fifth Circuit Vacates Tip Credit "Final Rule" RETSEL CORP: Appeals Partial Summary Judgment Rulings in NDN Suit RMS BEAUTY: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Fagnani Says RTZN BRANDS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Fagnani Suit Says S & L ISLAND: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Vega Alleges T.J. MAXX OF CA: Soriano Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. TARGET CORP: Rukaj Sues Over Adult Vitamin C Gummies' Label TARGET CORP: Stores' Shelf Prices "Deceptive," Ullrich Suit Alleges TERRAN ORBITAL: Mullen Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit TOMORROW FARMS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Fagnani Suit Alleges TOUCHLAND LLC: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Fagnani Claims TRIDENT RESTORATION: Ortega Allowed Leave to Amend Complaint TURO INC: Patterson Alleges Unlawful Collection of Biometrics TUSIMPLE HOLDINGS: $189-Mil. Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod TYSON FOODS: Pearson Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action UNITED SERVICES: Stott Files Suit Over Unfair MBA Automated Process UNIVIDA HALLANDALE: Faces Castera Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Fla. VBROADCAST CO: Faces Romero Suit Over Unlawful Debt Collection VIRGINIA HOSPITAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lewis Alleges WALGREENS BOOTS: Bandages Contain Toxic PFAS, Class Action Claims WEBTOON ENTERTAINMENT: Brookman Sues Over 38.2% Drop of Stock Price WELLS FARGO: Browne Balks at Unauthorized Electronic Fund Transfers WHITEPAGES INC: Misappropriates Consumers' Info, Carrera Suit Says WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Underpays Ramp Agents, Ulloa Suit Alleges YOUNG CONSULTING: Bishop Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info YOUNG CONSULTING: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, March Alleges YOUNG CONSULTING: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Albrigo Says ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Obtain Data Without Consent, Larock Says ********* 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Benn Class Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD BENN v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-04838-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. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufac-tured, 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, 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. Benn is a resident and citizen of Nassau County, 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. 11. Plaintiff was diagnosed with Kidney Cancer, 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 ear-ly 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, Boheman Class Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN BOHEMAN v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-04843-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 5, 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. 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, 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. Boheman is a resident and citizen of Minnehaha County, South Dakota. 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 Kidney Cancer, Enlarged Thyroid Glands 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; 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: 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, Donaldson Class Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ DANIEL DONALDSON v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-04837-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. 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, 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. Donaldson is a resident and citizen of Clarendon County, 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 Thyroid Disease 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, Gibbs Class Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- RICKY GIBBS v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-04844-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. 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, 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. Gibbs is a resident and citizen of Tarrant County, 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. 11. Plaintiff was diagnosed with Thyroid Disease, Liver 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, Hoffman Class Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- CRAIG HOFFMAN v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-04845-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 5, 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. 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, 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. Hoffman is a resident and citizen of Franklin County, Pennsylvania. 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 Kidney 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; 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, McGraw Class Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL MCGRAW III v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-04853-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 5, 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. 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, 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. McGraw is a resident and citizen of Ashtabula County, Ohio. 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; 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, Miles Class Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- JARED MILES v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-04842-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 5, 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. 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, 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. Miles is a resident and citizen of Salt Lake County, Utah. 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 Ulcerative Colitis 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; 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, Smith Class Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA SMITH v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-04840-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 5, 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. 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, 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. Plaintiff Smith is a resident and citizen of Stewart County, Tennessee. 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 Thyroid Cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF 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; 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, Spane Class Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL SPANE v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-04848-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. 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, 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. Spane is a resident and citizen of Lexington County, 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 Thyroid Disease 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 ear-ly 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, Wagner Class Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES WAGNER v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-04833-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 5, 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. 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, 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. Wagner is a resident and citizen of Kitsap County, Washington. 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 Renal Cell Carcinoma 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; 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: Kimbrough Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- Calvin Kimbrough, individually and as personal representative for Decedent, Joe Sandoval, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, Case No. 2:24-cv-04753-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 30, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendants' AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his military career and was diagnosed with Kidney Cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' PFAS-containing products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David L. Selby, II, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 3000 Riverchase Galleria, Suite 905 Birmingham, AL 35244 Phone: 205.988.9253 Fax: 205.788.4896 Email: dselby@baileyglasser.com 3M COMPANY: Loveall Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ------------------------------------------------------------- Artie Loveall, 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-04814-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 prostate 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 3M COMPANY: Mazula Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Mazula, 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-04759-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 liver and prostate 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: Upchurch Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------- Allan Upchurch, 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-04815-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: 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: Weeks Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Arnold Weeks, 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-04817-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 prostate cancer, kidney disease and the inability to produce Vitamin K 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: Young Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eduardo Young, 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-04812-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: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Phone: 216-815-9000 Facsimile: 216-274-9365 ALONZO WILLIAMS SR: Gardner Suit Remanded to Circuit Court ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORDANA GARDNER, individually and on behalf of herself as well as all other similarly situated employees v. DR. ALONZO WILLIAMS, SR., et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-00564-BSM (E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge Brian Miller entered an order granting Jordana Gardner's motion to remand: The case is immediately remanded to Pulaski County Circuit Court because federal jurisdiction is lacking. This is true because Gardner is alleging only state law violations and there is not complete diversity. Gardner is suing defendants under the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act (AMWA), Arkansas Civil Rights Act, and Arkansas Equal Pay Act, and is alleging illegal exaction and asking to pierce the corporate veil. The Defendants removed the case contending that Gardner’s AMWA claim triggers federal question jurisdiction. The Defendants' attempt to overcome remand is an uphill battle because they have the burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction. Although it may be unclear whether conditional certification is permitted for an AMWA claim, this does not disrupt the federal-state balance and invoke federal jurisdiction. This is true because federal courts will not be substantially impacted by how Arkansas courts handle class certifications in AMWA claims. Finally, if it is true that Gardner is seeking exclusively federal remedies to a state law claim, then the state court can simply decide against providing those remedies. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 3, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZLVuo7 at no extra charge.[CC] ALTO INGREDIENTS: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Alto Ingredients, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01269-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows: -- Rule 16 scheduling conference The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference approximately 30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is filed. The conference will generally be conducted by telephone. -- Discovery plan The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least three calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference. -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference If the parties agree on all matters contained in the discovery plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16 scheduling conference be cancelled. -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most hearings by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to appear for an in-person hearing. -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the discovery deadline has already passed The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all discovery disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even if the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to conduct discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the Court, they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived. -- Settlement conferences and mediation The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to Judge Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or mediation. Alto Ingredients is a producer of specialty alcohols and essential ingredients. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c7qEcE at no extra charge.[CC] AM RETAIL: Court Stays Bid to Certify Class ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Morris v. AM Retail Group, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-01113 (E.D. Wisc., Filed Sept. 2, 2024), the Hon. Judge Nancy Joseph entered an order on motion to stay bid to certify class. The plaintiff's motion to stay the motion for class certification and motion for relief from the Local Rules setting an automatic briefing schedule are granted. For administrative purposes, it is necessary that the Clerk terminate the plaintiff's motion for class certification3 . However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its protective purpose under Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011). The suit alleges violations of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA).[CC] AMAZON STUDIOS: Appeals Remand Order in Tehrani Suit to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- AMAZON STUDIOS, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion to remand in the lawsuit entitled Josephine Tehrani, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Amazon Studios, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-06385-CBM-JC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, is brought against the Defendants for unpaid wages and unfair business practices in violation of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code. On May 10, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's first amended complaint. On May 30, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to Los Angeles Superior Court. On Aug. 7, 2024, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand and denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss as moot through an Order entered by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The appellate case is captioned Tehrani v. Amazon Studios, LLC, et al., Case No. 24-5382, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on September 4, 2024. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants' Mediation Questionnaire was due on September 9, 2024; -- Appellants' Appeal Transcript Order was due on September 12, 2024; -- Appellants' Appeal Transcript is due on October 15, 2024; -- Appellants' Appeal Opening Brief is due on November 21, 2024; and -- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due December 23, 2024. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee JOSEPHINE TEHRANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Frank Hyung-Jin Kim, Esq. KIM LEGAL, APC 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (323) 482-3300 AMERICAN DETECTIVE: Smith Class Suit Removed to W.D. Mo. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JAMES SMITH, individually, and purportedly on behalf of all others, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN DETECTIVE SERVICES, INC. et al., and SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 24AC-CC06481, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cole County, State of Missouri, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-04149-WJE to the proceeding. This lawsuit involves issues that these parties previously litigated and which were decided in Scottsdale's favor by the Honorable Beth Phillips in Case Number 5:22-cv-06049. Specifically, therein, Scottsdale was awarded summary judgment when Judge Phillips declared that Scottsdale policy numbers CPS30624491, CPS2217911, CPS2424507, CPS2710396 and CPS3185703 afford no coverage for the underlying arbitration award and class action judgment. Plaintiff Smith appealed Judge Phillips' decision and ultimately dismissed his appeal, with prejudice, prior to the appeal being argued or submitted to a panel of Eighth Circuit judges. American Detective Services is an incorporated company existing under the laws of the State of North Carolina.[BN] Defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company is represented by: Russell F. Watters, Esq. John D. Cooney, Esq. Lucas J. Ude, Esq. WATTERS, WOLF, BUB & HANSMANN, LLC 600 Kellwood Parkway, Suite 120 St. Louis, MO 63017 Telephone: (636) 798-0570 Facsimile: (636) 798-0693 E-mail: rwatters@wwbhlaw.com jcooney@wwbhlaw.com lude@wwbhlaw.com AMERICAN PAIN: Court Narrows Claims in Smith Suit ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD SMITH and SHAE LOFTICE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN PAIN AND WELLNESS, PLLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00295-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Amos Mazzant entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's Rule 12(b)(1) and (6) motion to dismiss. Specifically, the Court enter an order that Plaintiffs Richard Smith's and Shae Loftice's claims for negligence per se are dismissed with prejudice. The Defendant American Pain and Wellness, PLLC's Rule 12(b)(1) and (6) Motion to Dismiss is denied in all other respects. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs sufficiently allege a concrete injury for standing purposes. Thus, the Plaintiffs sufficiently allege concrete and particularized injuries for standing purposes under Article III. Thus, the Court is satisfied that there is a substantial risk that the Named Plaintiffs will suffer identity theft as a result of the Data Breach. In conclusion, Named Plaintiffs sufficiently allege concrete and particularized injuries that are imminent or actual. On Nov. 10, 2022, cybercriminals are alleged to have breached American Pain’s systems and gained access to patient PII/PHI. American Pain is a healthcare provider. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 3, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Fbaq9P at no extra charge.[CC] AMICK FARMS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL DIAZ, JEAN-NICHOLE DIAZ, and DIAZ FAMILY FARMS, LLC, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMICK FARMS, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-01246-JDA (D.S.C.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending Amick's deadline, by 14 days, to file its response to the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification, issuance of notice, and equitable tolling. The parties are discussing possible avenues for resolution of this case, and this extension would allow counsel the opportunity to complete those discussions. With this extension, Amick's response would be due on Sept. 18, 2024. Amick Farms produces a diverse line of fresh and frozen chicken products. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Sept. 3, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JJTZX0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Angus H. Macaulay, Esq. Marguerite S. Willis, Esq. Bridget A. Blinn-Spears, Esq. Lindsey B. Nelson, Esq. MAYNARD NEXSEN, PC 1230 Main Street, Suite 700 (29201) Post Office Drawer 2426 Columbia, SC 29202 Telephone: (803) 253-8279 Facsimile: (803) 727-1465 E-mail: amacaulay@maynardnexsen.com mwillis@maynardnexsen.com bblinn-spears@maynardnexsen.com lnelson@maynardnexsen.com ANAR CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Oliveira Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- ADILSON DE OLIVEIRA; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ANAR CONSTRUCTION, LLC; ANAR CONSTRUCTION, LLC, MECO, INC.; ANA GAGA; JOHN A LUCAS; ARLINDO A LUCAS; and NANCI MARTA, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-09061 (D.N.J., Sept. 9, 2024) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor policies and practices. Plaintiff Oliveira was employed by the Defendant as a concrete laborer. Anar Construction, Llc is based in Middlesex county in New Jersey. The company operate in the construction industry, specifically in excavation work. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 Email: Aglenn@JaffeGlenn.com Jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com ANTHONY ANNUCCI: Azaz Bid to Certify Class Tossed w/o Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Azaz v. Annucci, et al., Case No. 9:24-cv-00549 (N.D.N.Y., Filed Sept. 8, 2023), the Hon. Judge Anne M. Nardacci entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to certify class as premature since no defendants have been served or appeared in the action, yet such that issue has not been joined. Additionally, a pro se party who is not an attorney may only represent himself. Court has also reviewed Plaintiff's letter request for a status report. The amended complaint is being reviewed for sufficiency under 28 USC Sections 1915 and 1915A. A decision on the sufficiency of the amended complaint will be issued in due course. The nature of suit states prisoner civil rights.[CC] BASIC BURGER: Fails to Pay Proper wages, Chavez Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN B. RODRIGUEZ CHAVEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BASIC BURGER PENTAGON ROW LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01573 (E.D. Va., Sept. 6, 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 Chavez was employed by the Defendant as an assistant manager. Basic Burger Pentagon Row LLC operates as a restaurant in Arlington, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew T. Sutter, Esq. SUTTER & TERPAK, PLLC 7540A Little River Turnpike Annandale, VA 22003 Telephone: (703) 256-1800 Facsimile: (703) 991-6116 Email: matt@sutterandterpak.com BAYADA HOME: Peeler Sues Over Mismanagement of Retirement Plans --------------------------------------------------------------- DONNA PEELER; and KATHLEEN HANLINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAYADA HOME HEALTH CARE, INC.; THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE BAYADA HOME HEALTH CARE 401(k) PLAN; John and Jane Does 1-30 in their capacities as members of the Administrative Committee, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00231 (W.D.N.C., Sept. 9, 2024) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, as fiduciaries to the Plan, the Defendants were obligated at all times to act prudently and for the exclusive benefit of participants and beneficiaries. The Defendants did not do so. As a result of the Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan and violations of ERISA, Peeler was subject to excessive fees and underperformance and, as such, suffered financial losses, says the suit. Bayada Home Health Care, Inc. is an international nonprofit home health care provider. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jon R. Moore, Esq. BROWN MOORE & ASSOCIATES PLLC 930 East Blvd. Charlotte, NC 28203 Telephone: (704) 335-1500 Facsimile: (704) 333-1636 Email: jmoore@brownmoorelaw.com - and - Paul J. Sharman, Esq. THE SHARMAN LAW FIRM LLC 11175 Cicero Drive, Suite 100 Alpharetta, GA 30022 Telephone: (678) 242-5297 Facsimile: (678) 802-2129 Email: paul@sharman-law.com - and - Lee Melchionni, Esq. LRJ Law Group 4062 Peachtree Rd NE, Box 167 Brookhaven, GA 30319 Telephone: (717) 380-7709 Email: lee@redwoodlg.com BLST SALES: Earle FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Felicia Ann Earle, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. BLST Sales, Marketing & Servicing LLC, Case No. ESX-L-005190-24 was removed from the Superior Court of Essex County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on Sept. 5, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-08983-CCC-MAH to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. BLST SALES, MARKETING & SERVICING, LLC is an Indiana Foreign Limited-Liability Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM, LLC 411 Hackensack Ave Ste 701 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 273-7117 Fax: (201) 273-7117 Email: ykim@kimlf.com The Defendants are represented by: Jennifer Montan, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH 600 Campus Dr. Florham Park, NJ 07932 Phone: (973) 549-7000 Email: jennifer.montan@faegredrinker.com BRITISH AIRWAYS: High Court Dismisses Delayed Flight Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hutcheon Law reports that in a significant ruling, the High Court has struck down a multi-million-pound class action aimed at British Airways and EasyJet over delayed flights. The case, Smyth v British Airways and another [2024] EWHC 2173 (KB), was brought by claimant Claire Smyth on behalf of millions of passengers who experienced delays across 116,000 flights. Against EasyJet alone, the claim was valued at GBP319 million. The action was backed by John Armour, Smyth's employer, who funded the claim. Smyth was set to receive 24% of any compensation awarded, a factor that became a key point of contention during the proceedings. Smyth's approach was to progressively reduce the class size by eliminating ineligible or defended claims through multiple stages. However, Master Davison raised concerns, noting that the case involved "novel and interesting points about the permissible scope of a representative action under CPR rule 19.8." Arguments from Both Sides The airlines, including British Airways and EasyJet, argued that: -- There was no common issue that unified the proposed class members. -- The proposed compensation arrangements presented "insuperable problems." -- They already operated compensation schemes for passengers. -- The primary motive behind the action was financial gain rather than consumer protection. In contrast, Smyth argued that her intention was to address the lack of awareness about consumer rights and improve transparency from airlines in providing information. She maintained that while class members had differing interests, there was no direct conflict, and the funding arrangement was not relevant to the case. The Court's Ruling The court found in favour of the airlines, concluding that the representative action did not satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of CPR rule 19.8. Master Davison explained that Smyth and the represented passengers did not share the same legal interest, and this fundamental issue could not be resolved through successive amendments to the class. Additionally, the judge exercised discretion to strike out the claim, citing the financial interests of the claim's backer, John Armour, as the dominant motive. The proposed arrangement, where Smyth would receive 24% of the compensation, was considered "excessive and disproportionate," particularly when compared to existing compensation schemes that would result in no such deduction for passengers. Summary of the Class Action Failure This case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in representative actions under UK law, particularly when financial motivations and class member interests come into question. The court's decision underscores the importance of shared interest amongst claimants in class actions and the need for transparency in funding arrangements. For more details on the ruling, you can access the full judgment in Smyth v British Airways and another [2024] EWHC 2173 (KB) via this link: Smyth v British Airways and another [2024] EWHC 2173 (KB). [GN] BROOKLYN BEDDING: Grossman Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Brynn Grossman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Brooklyn Bedding LLC, Case No. CIVSB2422475 was removed from the San Bernardino Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Sept. 5, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-01894 to the proceeding. Brooklyn Bedding -- https://brooklynbedding.com/ -- is an American made manufacturer of mattresses, differentiated by master craftsmanship, a wholly owned state-of-the art manufacturing facility.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Harrison Maxwell Brown, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (424) 239-3400 Fax: (424) 239-3434 Email: harrison.brown@blankrome.com BROOKLYN BEDDING: Khan Sues Over Misleading Discount Sale Ads ------------------------------------------------------------- BAASIL KHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BROOKLYN BEDDING LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-06271 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 5, 2024) alleges violation of the California's False Advertising Laws. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant sells and markets mattresses and bedding products online through the Brooklyn Bedding brand and website, www.brooklynbedding.com ("Brooklyn Bedding Products" or "Products"). The Defendant lists purported regular prices and advertises purported limited-time discounts from those regular prices. These include discounts offering "X% off mattresses" and "X% off sitewide" that allegedly are only valid through a certain date. These discounts are made available by using a discount code, such as "REFRESH25" or are automatically applied to the Products sitewide. Defendant also advertises that its Products have a lower discount price as compared to a higher, regular price shown in grey and/or strikethrough font. Far from being time-limited, however, the Defendant's discounts are routinely available. As a result, everything about Defendant's price and purported discount advertising is false. The regular prices the Defendant advertises are not actually the Defendant's regular prices, because the Defendant's Products are routinely available for less than that. The purported discounts Defendant advertises are not the true discounts the customer is receiving, and are often not discounts at all. Nor are the purported discounts limited in time or expiring soon—quite the opposite, they are consistently available, says the suit. Brooklyn Bedding LLC operates as a home furnishing store. The Company offers mattresses, pillows, sheets, blankets, covers, foundations, adjustable bases, and masks. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christin Cho, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. Grace Bennett, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 Email: christin@dovel.com simon@dovel.com grace@dovel.com BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP: Ellisrainey Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Alisia Ellisrainey, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CU24-05775 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Solano, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Sept. 5, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02419-DJC-JDP. The Plaintiff alleges she satisfies the numerosity requirement for class treatment, but does not allege any particular number of class or subclass members, only that the total exceeds 40. While Plaintiff alleges failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to timely pay all final wages, and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements among her other claims, she does not allege her or any putative class member's hourly rate of pay or even the minimum wage in effect at any relevant time.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alexandra Asterlin, Esq. Ace T. Tate, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916-840-3150 Facsimile: 916-840-3159 Email: alexandra.asterlin@ogletree.com ace.tate@ogletree.com C&S WHOLESALE: Goodman Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Ziego Goodman, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. C&S WHOLESALE GROCERS, INC., Case No. 240800971 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 5, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-04680. In the Complaint, Plaintiff claims that C&S violated the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"), by "failing to pay wages for time associated with certain work activities arising at the beginning and end of the workday and during unpaid meal breaks."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. Mark Gottesfeld, Esq. Deirdre A. Aaron, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Phone: 215-884-2491 The Defendants are represented by: Andrea M. Kirshenbaum, Esq. Joseph Carr, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Three Parkway 1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1400 Philadelphia, PA 19102.1321 Phone: 267.402.3000 Facsimile: 267.402.3131 Email: akirshenbaum@littler.com jmcarr@littler.com - and - Christian A. Angotti, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One PPG Pl., Suite 2400 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: 412.201.7623 Fax: 412.456-2377 Email: cangotti@littler.com CAPITAL GROUP: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Pover to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the amended complaint in the lawsuit entitled Cathy Pover, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Capital Group Companies, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-09657-GW-PVC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). On May 1, 2024, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On May 15, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the amended complaint, which the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge George H. Wu on Aug. 12, 2024. The appellate case is captioned Pover v. The Capital Group Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-5298, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on August 29, 2024. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants' Mediation Questionnaire was due on September 3, 2024; -- Appellants' Appeal Transcript Order was due on September 6, 2024; -- Appellants' Appeal Transcript is due on October 7, 2024; -- Appellants' Appeal Opening Brief is due on November 15, 2024; and -- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief Due is due December 16, 2024. [BN] CD PROJEKT: Williams Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Information ----------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CD Projekt S.A., Case No. 1:24-cv-06205 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 5, 2024), is brought against the Defendant's violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA") by disclosing its users' personally identifiable information to unauthorized third parties without first complying with the VPPA. The Defendant's Website offers a wide array of video games that can be purchased and downloaded on consumers' computers. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and the Class Members, however, Defendant knowingly and intentionally discloses its users' personally identifiable information--including a record of every video game purchased by the user--to unauthorized third parties without first complying with the VPPA. The Defendant's Website and applications use first-party and third-party cookies, software development kits ("SDK"), pixels, Facebook's Business Tools, including Advanced Matching and Conversion API, and related tracking tools to purposely track, record, and transmit its digital subscribers' interactions with Defendant's Website. The Defendant knowingly installed and used these tools, and it controlled which data was transmitted to unrelated third parties. In conjunction with this, Defendant purposefully and specifically chose to: track and record consumers' viewed video media, disclose that information to Facebook1 alongside its digital subscribers' individual Facebook ID ("FID") and other persistent identifiers, and did this without its users' knowledge or consent via surreptitious technology. Importantly, when Defendant transmitted Plaintiff's and other consumers' Personal Viewing Information--i.e., their persistent FID and viewed video content--that information was combined and sent to Facebook as one data point, thereby revealing the identity of the individual who requested or viewed a specific video. Because an FID is used to identify a specific individual and their corresponding Facebook account, Facebook or any ordinary person can use it to locate, access, and view a particular digital subscriber's Facebook profile, thereby revealing their identity. Put simply, the information Defendant shares with Facebook reveals each and every video game a particular digital subscriber has viewed or purchased. The Plaintiff and consumers were harmed by Defendant's unlawful conduct, which deprives them of their right to privacy in their own homes, and the disclosures at issue reveal highly personal details regarding their unique video requests and viewing habits, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has had an account with Defendant's Website, The Defendant, through its subsidiaries, owns and operates its online platform and mobile application, including www.gog.com (the "Website").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. Benjamin Rozenshteyn, Esq. Nathaniel Haim Sari, Esq. GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC 140 Broadway, FL 46 New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 884-4230 Email: adrian@gr-firm.com ben@gr-firm.com nsari@gr-firm.com CEDAR REALTY: Fourth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Class Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo!Finance reports that Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. (NYSE:CDRpB)(NYSE:CDRpC) ("Cedar") and Wheeler Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. (Nasdaq:WHLR) ("Wheeler") jointly announced that, on September 4, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the 2023 Order of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland dismissing a putative class action complaint, entitled Kim, et al., v. Cedar Realty Trust, Inc., et al., filed by purported holders of Cedar's preferred stock against Cedar, Wheeler and Cedar's former board of directors. In affirming the trial court's decision, the appellate court (in a published opinion) stated that "courts are not time machines for disgruntled buyers. We resolve legal claims. And [p]laintiffs do not adequately allege that [d]efendants violated any legal right or duty - they only allege that they regret the terms they bargained for." Wheeler acquired all of Cedar's outstanding common stock in August 2022. The complaint contained allegations against Cedar and its former directors for breach of contract related to the terms of the contract governing Cedar's preferred stock, breach of fiduciary duty against Cedar's former directors, and tort claims against Wheeler. "We are pleased that the Fourth Circuit upheld the District Court's decision, which represents a very positive outcome for both Wheeler and Cedar. With this matter behind us, both companies remain well-positioned to execute on their strategic plans," said M. Andrew Franklin, chief executive officer of both Cedar and Wheeler. About Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. Cedar Realty Trust, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wheeler Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., is a Maryland corporation (taxed as a real estate investment trust ("REIT")) that focuses on owning and operating income producing retail properties with a primary focus on grocery-anchored shopping centers in the Northeast. Cedar's portfolio comprises 18 properties, with approximately 2.7 million square feet of gross leasable area. About Wheeler Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. Headquartered in Virginia Beach, Virginia, Wheeler Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. is a Maryland corporation (taxed as a REIT) that is focused on owning and operating income-producing retail properties with a primary focus on grocery-anchored centers. For more information on Cedar and Wheeler, please visit www.whlr.us. Contact Information: Investor Relations (757) 627-9088 [GN] CENTRAL ILL PIZZA: Anderson Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Danny Anderson, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. MBR CENTRAL ILL PIZZA, LLC, d/b/a DOMINOS, Case No. 2024CH06953 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 5, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-08112. The Plaintiff filed a three-count Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") putative Class Action Complaint ("Complaint"). The Complaint further alleges that Defendant collected Plaintiff's biometric identifiers and biometric information (i.e., scans of his thumbprint) without first complying with Section 15(b)'s notice and consent requirements and failed to comply with Section 15(a)'s publicly available retention and destruction policy. The Complaint also asserts that Defendant failed to comply with Section 15(d) by allegedly disclosing, redisclosing or otherwise disseminating Plaintiff and the proposed class' biometric information to third party "Service Providers."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. 8401 Crawford Ave. Suite 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Email: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. 11 1/2 N. Franklin Street, Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Email: james@simonsayspay.com The Defendants are represented by: Jennifer L. Colvin, Esq. Amy R. Cortez, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 155 North Wacker Drive, Suite 4300 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312-558-1220 Facsimile: 312-307-3619 Email: jennifer.colvin@ogletree.com amy.cortez@ogletree.com CHARLES SCHWAB: Saunders Sues Over Improper Investment Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------- DONALD SAUNDERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC.; and THE CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-07638 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 6, 2024) is an action against the Defendants' improper investment scheme such as the cash sweep program. According to the complaint, Schwab, like many financial services companies, offers "cash sweep" programs to its clients. Cash sweep programs figuratively "sweep" clients' cash balances into interest-bearing accounts at a network of banks. Schwab makes more money when its clients' funds are invested in the Schwab cash sweep programs rather than in similar cash options and equivalents. The Defendant fails to pay to or secure for its clients a reasonable rate of interest on the cash balances in its cash sweep programs. As a result of Schwab's wrongful conduct, Plaintiff and the Class received lower interest payments on their cash and other deposits than they would have had they been paid a reasonable rate of interest. As a result of Schwab's wrongful conduct, Schwab was unjustly enriched and Plaintiff and the Class conferred a benefit upon Schwab because Schwab received significantly greater net interest income than it would have but for its wrongful conduct, the suit contends. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. provides financial solutions. The Company offers brokerage and trading, order execution, mutual funds, stocks, bonds, fixed income, accounts checking, savings, strategic borrowing, credit cards, thematic investing, transferring accounts, and financial planning services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Deborah R. Rosenthal, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLP 455 Market Street, Suite 1270 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 536-3986 Facsimile: (415) 537-4120 Email: drosenthal@simmonsfirm.com COASTAL MARINE: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Shurley Says ----------------------------------------------------------- DAVID SHURLEY, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COASTAL MARINE SERVICES, INC., a California for-profit corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-01373 (W.D. Wash., August 29, 2024) is a class and collective action brought by the Plaintiff to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Washington Minimum Wage Act, the Washington Industrial Welfare Act, and the Washington Wage Rebate Act. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant's violations of the federal and state law by failing to pay overtime wages, willfully withholding earned wages, and failing to provide bonafide meal and rest periods. Plaintiff Shurley was employed by the Defendant as a ship insulator and was classified as non-exempt paid on an hourly basis. Coastal Marine Services provides marine mechanical services. The Company offers pipe insulation, lagging, deck covering, and other related services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael C. Subit, Esq. FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS, LLP 705 Second Ave., Suite 1200 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 682-6711 E-mail: msubit@frankfreed.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com COMMITTEE FOR POLICE: Shelton Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against COMMITTEE FOR POLICE OFFICERS DEFENSE PAC. The case is styled as James E. Shelton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COMMITTEE FOR POLICE OFFICERS DEFENSE PAC, Case No. 2:24-cv-04679 (E.D. Pa., Sept. 5, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Committee for Police Officer's Defense -- https://committeeforpoliceofficersdefense.com/ -- is a 527 Committee designed to seek out radical prosecutors, judges and district attorneys.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mt. Carmel Ave Glenside, PA 19038 Phone: (215) 225-5529 Fax: (888) 329-0305 Email: a@perronglaw.com CONNECTICUT GENERAL: Class Settlement in Glover Gets Initial OK --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAULETTE T. GLOVER and JOHN T. WAREHIME, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and THE LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:16-cv-00827-MPS (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Michael Shea entered an order: -- denying the motion to intervene as moot; -- granting the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement; and -- denying without prejudice the Objectors' motion to seal their opposition memorandum and exhibits. The case, involving an alleged breach of life insurance policy provisions governing "cost of insurance" deductions from the investment portion of the policy, has been pending for over eight years. The plaintiffs have moved for preliminary approval of a proposed settlement between the defendants and the following class of plaintiffs: "All persons who own or owned a life insurance policy, that was active on or after May 27, 2010, and was issued or administered by either Defendant, or their predecessors in interest, the terms of which provide or provided for: 1) a cost of insurance charge calculated using a rate that is determined based on expectations as to future mortality experience; 2) additional but separate policy charges, deductions, or expenses; 3) an investment, interest-bearing, or savings component; and 4) a death benefit." Connecticut General Life offers life, dental, and medical insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 4, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tRsrnA at no extra charge.[CC] CVS PHARMACY: Cough Products Contains Toxic Chemicals, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHERI LEONARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CVS PHARMACY, INC.; AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; and AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-06280 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 5, 2024) is an action against the Defendants' manufacturing, distribution, and sale of guaifenesin-containing medications with inactive ingredient carbomer manufactured by Defendant Amneal that contain dangerously high levels of benzene, a carcinogenic impurity that has been linked to leukemia, lymphoma, and other cancers. The Plaintiff allege in the complaint that the Defendants failed to disclose the presence of benzene in its guaifenesin-containing medications on the Products' labeling, or in any advertising or website promoting the Products. Defendants did not disclose the presence of benzene in the products to Plaintiffs or Class members at the point of sale or at any time before the point of sale. The Plaintiff and Class members were allegedly injured by the full purchase price of the Products because the Products are worthless, as they contain harmful levels of benzene and Defendants have failed to warn consumers of this fact. CVS Pharmacy Inc. distributes pharmaceutical products. The Company offers prescription, drugs, vitamins, beauty aids, diaper, health supplement, and other medical products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com - and - Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq. Max S. Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: jarisohn@bursor.com aobergfell@bursor.com mroberts@bursor.com DAGGA LLC: Igartua Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dagga LLC. The case is styled as Juan Igartua, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Dagga LLC doing business as: Just a Little Higher Upper West Side, Case No. 1:24-cv-06749 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 5, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Dagga LLC doing business as Just a Little Higher Upper West Side -- https://justalittlehigher.com/ -- is a cannabis store in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq. JON L. NORINSBERG, ESQ., PLLC 110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 791-5396 Fax: (212) 406-6890 Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com DISCOVERFRESH FOODS: Spearman Seeks 60 Days Wages Under WARN Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Spearman, Adam Hill, & Mitchell Hipp; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. DiscoverFresh Foods, LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-04835-DCC (D.S.C., Sept. 5, 2024) seeks to recover 60 days wages and benefits, pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act from the Defendant. The Plaintiffs brings this action on behalf of themselves, and the other similarly situated former employees of the Defendant who worked at, reported to, or received assignments from Defendant's facility in Pickens County, South Carolina, located at 211 Pine Road, Easley, South Carolina 29642, who were terminated without cause, as part of, or as the foreseeable result of, plant closings or mass layoffs ordered by the Defendant on Aug. 1, 2024, and who were not provided 60 days advance written notice of their terminations by the Defendant, as required by the WARN Act. The Defendant allegedly failed to pay the Plaintiffs and each of the Class Members their respective wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay and accrued vacation for 60 days following their respective terminations, and failed to make the pension and 401(k) contributions and provide employee benefits under COBRA for 60 days from and after the dates of their respective terminations. On Aug. 1, 2024, the Defendant terminated without notice the employment of 53 employees who worked at, reported to, or received assignments from the Facility. The Plaintiffs were employees of the Defendant and worked at the facility until their termination on Aug. 1, 2024. DiscoverFresh Foods produces ready-to-eat spreads and dips that are sold in grocery retail.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew R. Ozment, Esq. William E. Grove, Esq. GROVE OZMENT, L.L.C. 100 Williams Street Greenville, SC 29601 Telephone: (864) 516-2222 E-mail: Matt@go-lawyers.com Will@go-lawyers.com ESQUIRE EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ramos Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- ROBERTO A. RAMOS; and EMIGDIO JIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ESQUIRE EXPRESS, INC. a/k/a Piggy Express a/k/a PiggyShip, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-23461-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 6, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as delivery drivers. Esquire Express, Inc. a/k/a Piggy Express a/k/a PiggyShip is a logistic company providing warehousing and delivery services to importers, wholesalers, distributors, and merchants such as Alibaba, TikTok, Temu, Shein, and others. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com FLAGLER MIAMI: Property Inaccessible to Disabled, Longhini Says --------------------------------------------------------------- DOUGLAS LONGHINI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLAGLER MIAMI PLAZA LLC; and ASHOKA INDIAN CUISINE INC d/b/a ASHOKA INDIAN CUISINE, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-23423-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 5, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' commercial property located at 241-295 NW 82nd Avenue, Miami, Florida 33126, is not accessible to mobility-impaired individuals in violation of ADA. Flagler Miami Plaza LLC owns and operates commercial properties in Miami, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com FLORIDA MARINE: Arauz Sues Over Race & Disability Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------------- JORGE ARAUZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLORIDA MARINE, LLC, DUANE CHAISSON, and TREY CARNEGIE, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-03310 (S.D. Tex., September 6, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Title VII of the U.S. Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act and/or the ADA Amendments Act, Texas Labor Code, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Arauz was employed by the Defendants as a shore tankerman from April 1, 2015, until he was involuntarily terminated from his employment on or about September 19, 2023. Florida Marine, LLC is a national inland marine company doing business in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Quan, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DAVID J. QUAN 5444 Westheimer Road, Suite 1700 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 225-5300 Facsimile: (713) 625-9222 Email: dquan@davidquanlaw.com FOODSCIENCE LLC: Faces GlycoFlex False Advertising Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action alleges the GlycoFlex Plus and GlycoFlex Stage 3 canine joint supplements sold by VetriScience Laboratories are falsely advertised as "clinically proven" to treat all joint problems in dogs and provide an up to 41-percent boost in hind leg strength in "just 4 weeks." The 27-page GlycoFlex lawsuit against manufacturer FoodScience LLC, which does business as VetriScience Labs, alleges the company has never clinically tested the canine supplement and that the product has been examined in only a self-described "pilot study" in 2006 that focused on just seven dogs subjected to "an artificial, surgical and chemically induced ‘stable stifle [osteoarthritis model].'" The dogs in the so-called pilot study were artificially "made lame," as though they suffered from osteoarthritis, and then administered GlycoFlex, the suit alleges. Ultimately, the study found that only three of the seven dogs "had a significant improvement in lameness," with an average 41-percent increase in hind leg strength, while the majority of the subjects "had no significant increase in hind leg strength," the complaint contends. According to the lawsuit, VetriScience's "clinically proven" claim is "demonstrably false" given that no clinical study has been done, the company misrepresented what the small pilot study found, and VetriScience hid the fact that the study focused only on GlycoFlex's purported effect on osteoarthritis, and not all canine joint issues. "No reputable researcher would claim that a positive result in only three of seven animals indicates anything about the efficacy of the treatment, much less that it proves an efficacy claim," the suit scathes. To make matters worse, the case continues, VetriScience "never believed" its own clinically proven marketing claim, as the company apparently waited eight years after the 2006 pilot study to "timidly claim in 2014" that GlycoFlex was clinically researched. Yet in 2018, the suit says, VetriScience "threw all caution and honesty to the wind" when it claimed that the 2006 study in fact clinically proved that GlycoFlex was effective at treating all canine joint issues. "Obviously, if VetriScience believed that claim, it would have made it soon after the 2006 Pilot Study," the complaint argues. The suit stresses that the National Advertising Division of BBB National Programs has repeatedly asserted that representations concerning a product's apparent efficacy being "clinically proven" must closely match underlying scientific evidence, as such a claim "conveys an especially strong message to consumers." "The title of the study obviously admits that it is pilot study, not a clinical study, and the omission of ‘A Pilot Study' from its reference in the marketing of GlycoFlex is materially misleading in and of itself. A pilot study cannot be used to claim it proves anything." Further still, the case points out that osteoarthritis, the condition at the center of the pilot study, is not the only kind of joint problem a dog can suffer and is not even the most common canine joint problem. Consumers looking to help treat and minimize their dogs' joint issues are "particularly vulnerable targets for unscrupulous manufacturers and advertisers," the case emphasizes. In a crowded marketplace rife with joint-health dog products, being able to convince consumers about the efficacy of supplements is critical, the suit reads. The GlycoFlex lawsuit looks to cover all consumers who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, bought in New York any of the following products marketed, distributed and/or sold by VetriScience: -- GlycoFlex Plus chews for Small Dogs in bacon, peanut butter and duck flavors; -- GlycoFlex Plus chews for Medium and Large Dogs in bacon, peanut butter and duck flavors; -- GlycoFlex Plus chewable tablets; -- GlycoFlex Stage 3 chews; and/or -- GlycoFlex Stage 3 chewable tablets. [GN] FOODSCIENCE LLC: Kelly Sues Over Mislabeled Dog Supplements ----------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN KELLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FOODSCIENCE LLC D/B/A VETRISCIENCE LABORATORIES, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06222 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 5, 2024) seeks to redress the false, misleading, and deceptive advertising and packaging claims that the Defendant has made in connection with the sale of its GlycoFlex Plus and GlycoFlex Stage 3 canine joint support supplements that purports to be "clinically proven" to treat all joint problems in dogs and, specifically, to provide "up to 41% increase in hind leg strength in just 4 weeks." The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's claim on clinical study proving that its GlycoFlex supplement will treat all canine joint conditions in dogs and increase hind leg strength is false. VetriScience has never clinically tested its GlycoFlex supplement. Instead, GlycoFlex has only been examined in a self-described "pilot study" in 2006 (the "2006 Pilot Study") that involved a mere seven dogs which were subjected to an artificial, surgical and chemically induced "stable stifle OA [osteoarthritis] model,"1 meaning the dogs were made lame as if they suffered from osteoarthritis and then administered the GlycoFlex supplement. Had the Plaintiff known that GlycoFlex was not clinically proven to provide joint support or that it has only been preliminarily studied for osteoarthritis, he would not have purchased it. At the very least, Kelly would not have paid the exorbitant price premium charged for GlycoFlex that purported to be clinically proven to help with all joint issues in dogs, says the suit. Foodscience LLC D/B/A Vetriscience Laboratories provides nutritional supplements for animals and humans. The Company markets natural productsoffers fatty acids, multiple vitamins, minerals, connective tissue, joint support formulas, and immune support formulas, herbal extracts, probiotics, and other related products to retail outlets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Denlea, Esq. Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq. DENLEA & CARTON LLP 2 Westchester Park Drive, Suite 410 White Plains, NY 10604 Telephone: (914) 331-0100 Facsimile: (914) 331-0105 Email: jdenlea@denleacarton.com jcarton@denleacarton.com - and - Philip M. Smith, Esq. KRAVIT SMITH LLP 75 South Broadway, Suite 400 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (646) 493-8004 Facsimile: (917) 858-7101 Email: psmith@kravitsmithllp.com GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Appeals Summ Judgment Bid Denial in Trauernicht ------------------------------------------------------------------- GENWORTH FINANCIAL INC. is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Peter Trauernicht, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Genworth Financial Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00532-REP, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint alleges that Genworth breached its fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") by selecting, retaining, and otherwise ratifying poorly-performing investments for participants of the Genworth Financial Inc. Retirement and Savings Plan. On Feb. 20, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge Robert E. Payne on Aug. 29, 2024. The Court finds that the Defendant's evidence falls short of the threshold for summary judgment and a genuine dispute of material fact exists on the issue of loss causation. The appellate case is captioned Genworth Financial Inc. v. Peter Trauernicht, Case No. 24-220, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on August 30, 2024. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents PETER TRAUERNICHT, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq. Alec Berin, Esq. John Claude Roberts, Esq. James C. Shah, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 1845 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (610) 891-9880 (866) 540-5505 - and - Glenn Edward Chappell, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20006 - and - James Edward Miller, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 65 Main Street Chester, CT 06412 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Defendant-Petitioner GENWORTH FINANCIAL INCORPORATED is represented by: Brian Emory Pumphrey, Esq. Heidi Elizabeth Siegmund, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS, LLP 800 East Canal Street Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 775-7745 (804) 775-1049 - and - Eugene Scalia, Esq. Max Elias Schulman, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 955-8206 (202) 777-9550 HUDSON CITY SAVINGS: Lin Appeals Denied Preliminary Injunction Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAY LIN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motions for order to show cause, preliminary injunction, and sanctions in the lawsuit entitled Jay Lin, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Hudson City Savings Bank, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3-18-cv-15387, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for monetary damages, out-of-pocket expenses, damages, restitution, injunctive relief and penalties. On Aug. 2, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed motions for order to show cause, preliminary injunction, and sanctions, which the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge Robert Kirsch on Aug. 12, 2024. The Court finds that a preliminary injunction is not warranted in this case, thus the Plaintiffs' request that the Defendants "show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue" is denied. Finally, because neither the Supreme Clause nor the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") apply, there is no basis to sanction the Defendants for alleged violation of same, rules the court. The appellate case is captioned Jay Lin, et al. v. Hudson City Savings Bank, et al., Case No. 24-2603, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on September 3, 2024. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JAY J. LIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appears pro se. Defendants-Appellees HUDSON CITY SAVINGS BANK, et al. are represented by: James P. Berg, Esq. Scott W. Parker, Esq. PARKER IBRAHIM & BERG 270 Davidson Avenue, 5th Floor Somerset, NJ 08873 Telephone: (908) 333-6219 (908) 333-6220 - and – Marissa Edwards, Esq. Fred W. Hoensch, Esq. PARKER IBRAHIM & BERG 1635 Market Street 7 Penn Center, 11th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 908-9800 (267) 908-9808 - and – Andrew C. Sayles, Esq. MOREIRA SAYLES RAMIREZ 712 Kearny Avenue Kearny, NJ 07032 Telephone: (973) 201-9001 KALAMAZOO, MI: Christman Brings Appeals to Mich. Ct. of Appeals --------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM LEO CHRISTMAN, et al. have filed an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled William Leo Christman, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Kalamazoo County, et al., Defendants, in the 9th Circuit Court for the County of Kalamazoo, Michigan. The appellate case is captioned William Leo Christman vs. Kalamazoo County, Case No: 372343 in the Michigan Court of Appeals, filed on September 4, 2024. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants WILLIAM LEO CHRISTMAN, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Donald R. Visser, Esq. VISSER AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC 2480 44th St. SE, Suite 150 Kentwood, MI 49512 Telephone: (616) 531-9860 Facsimile: (616) 531-9870 Defendants-Appellees KALAMAZOO COUNTY, et al. are represented by: Allan C. Vander Laan, Esq. CUMMINGS, MCCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO P.L.C 2851 Charlevoix Drive, S.E., Suite 203 Grand Rapids, MI 49546 Telephone: (616) 975-7470 KONTOOR BRANDS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Battle Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE BATTLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KONTOOR BRANDS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08069 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 5, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.wrangler.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. Kontoor Brands, Inc. is a global lifestyle apparel company. The Company designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes apparel products through online, specialty, mid-tier and traditional department, mass merchants, and company-operated stores. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. HOROWITZ LAW PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com MACY'S INC: Temesgen Credit Card Suit Removed to D. Mass. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled Bereket Temesgen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Macy's, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2484CV01680-BLS2, was removed from the Suffolk County Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on August 29, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-12237 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff purports to bring this action individually and on behalf of a class of all other similarly situated consumers. The number of putative class members is calculated by looking at the number of people in Massachusetts who have made online purchases from Macy's in the last four years and used a Macy's or third-party credit card. There were far in excess of 100 people who made online credit card purchases in Massachusetts in the last four years, which is the operative limitations period under the statute of limitations for the Plaintiff's claim under Massachusetts General Laws Ch. 93A. I Macy's, Inc. is an American holding company of department stores.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Edward D. Shoulkin, Esq. Derek M. Gillis, Esq. BARTON GILMAN LLP 75 Federal Street, 9th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 654-8200 Facsimile: (617) 482-5350 E-mail: eshoulkin@bglaw.com dgillis@bglaw.com MAR MULTISERVICES: Cortez Suit Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- YOANA LUNA CORTEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAR MULTISERVICES LLC, J.R. RESTAURANT LLC, A.R. RESTAURANT LLC, AAA RESTAURANT, LLC, ARC RESTAURANT LLC, J.R.R. RESTAURANT LLC, JJJ RESTAURANTS LLC, T.R. RESTAURANT LLC, TUCSON AR RESTAURANT LLC, JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS I-XX, AND ARTURO RUBIO CERVANTES and GUADALUPE RUBIO ARROYO, a married couple, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02335-DMF (D. Ariz., September 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a prep cook at Filiberto's Mexican Food restaurants in Arizona from approximately February 5, 2024, through approximately August 25, 2024. Mar Multiservices LLC is a restaurant owner and operator under the name Filiberto's Mexican Food, doing business in Maricopa County, Arizona. J.R. Restaurant LLC is a restaurant owner and operator under the name Filiberto's Mexican Food, doing business in Maricopa County, Arizona. A.R. Restaurant LLC is a restaurant owner and operator under the name Filiberto's Mexican Food, doing business in Maricopa County, Arizona. AAA Restaurant, LLC is a restaurant owner and operator under the name Filiberto's Mexican Food, doing business in Maricopa County, Arizona. ARC Restaurant LLC is a restaurant owner and operator under the name Filiberto's Mexican Food, doing business in Maricopa County, Arizona. J.R.R. Restaurant LLC is a restaurant owner and operator under the name Filiberto's Mexican Food, doing business in Maricopa County, Arizona. JJJ Restaurants LLC is a restaurant owner and operator under the name Filiberto's Mexican Food, doing business in Maricopa County, Arizona. T.R. Restaurant LLC is a restaurant owner and operator under the name Filiberto's Mexican Food, doing business in Maricopa County, Arizona. Tucson AR Restaurant LLC is a restaurant owner and operator under the name Filiberto's Mexican Food, doing business in Maricopa County, Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq. Christopher J. Bendau, Esq. BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC P.O. Box 97066 Phoenix, AZ 85060 Telephone: (480) 382-5176 Facsimile: (480) 304-3805 Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com chris@bendaulaw.com MAS HOME: Fails to Pay Laborers' OT Wages Under FLSA, Sotelo Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARCOS SOTELO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. M.A.S. HOME SERVICES, LLC a/k/a EHC HOME SERVICES LLC and BRUNO FERREIRA, Case No. 1:24-cv-06224 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 5, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants his full payment of all unpaid overtime compensation under the applicable provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants allegedly required the Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work, more than 40 hours per week. However, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff at the overtime rate of pay of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for each hour that Plaintiffs worked per week in excess of 40. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks for damages and equitable relief based upon Defendants' flagrant and willful violations of the Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by: the overtime provisions of the FLSA, NYLL and NYCCRR; the frequency of payment for manual workers provisions of NYLL section 190, et seq.; NYLL's requirement that employers provide on each payday proper wage statements to their employees containing specific categories of accurate information; the requirement that employers furnish employees with wage statements on each payday containing specific categories of information under the NYLL section 195(3); and the requirement that employers furnish employees with a wage notice at the time of hiring containing specific categories of accurate information. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against Defendants pursuant to the collective action provisions of the FLSA, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all other persons similarly-situated during the applicable FLSA limitations period who suffered damages as a result of Defendants' willful violations of the FLSA. The Plaintiff further brings this lawsuit as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated during the applicable NYLL limitations period who suffered damages as a result of the Defendants' violations of the NYLL and the supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations. From Oct. 13, 2020, through Jan. 22, 2022 (the "First Employment") and later from May 4, 2023 through Nov. 30, 2023 (the "Second Employment"), the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a laborer. MAS is a construction company providing services throughout New York including Brooklyn.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis M. Leon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO 108 West 39th Street, Suite 602 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 583-7400 E-mail: LLeon@Cafaroesq.com MJD INDUSTRIES: Battle Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MJD INDUSTRIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08067 (N.D. Ill., September 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.arestool.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. MJD Industries, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com NATASHA ACCESSORIES: Kaur Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASWINDER KAUR on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NATASHA ACCESSORIES LTD., GOKORAN SINGH a/k/a RAVIE SINGH, Case No. 1:23-cv-06948-JPO-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff shall move the Court for an entry of an order: (1) conditionally certifying the proposed collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA); (2) compelling the Defendants to furnish the names, titles, compensation rates, last known mailing addresses, email addresses, all known telephone numbers (including cell phone numbers), social security numbers, and dates of employment of all covered employees; (3) authorizing the Plaintiff to circulate a Court Authorized Notice of Lawsuit and Consent to Join form by regular mail, email and text message to all covered employees; (4) authorizing the Plaintiff to circulate a reminder notice by regular mail, email and text message to all covered employees; (5) directing that the proposed court authorized notice of lawsuit and consent to join form be posted in a conspicuous place at the work locations of all covered employees for the duration of the opt-in notice period; (6) directing that the opt-in notice period for all covered employees to opt-in to the lawsuit as Plaintiffs remain open for 60 days; (7) ordering the statute of limitations of potential opt-in Plaintiffs’ claims be tolled from the date of filing of this motion until such time that Plaintiff is able to send notice to all covered employees; and (8) granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Natasha is a full accessories company, manufacturing jewelry, hair goods, scarfs, belts, cold weather, hats, and evening bags. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 6, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6zDLm9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amit Kumar, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO 108 West 39th Street, Suite 602 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 583-7400 Facsimile: (212) 583-7401 E-mail: AKumar@Cafaroesq.com NDN COLLECTIVE: Retsel Corp. Sues Over RICO Violations ------------------------------------------------------ RETSEL CORPORATION, d/b/a GRAND GATEWAY HOTEL and d/b/a CHEERS SPORTS LOUNGE AND CASINO; CONNIE UHRE; and NICHOLAS UHRE, Plaintiffs v. NDN COLLECTIVE; SUNNY RED BEAR; NICK TILSEN; MARY BOWMAN; NICK COTTIER; ALBERTA EAGLE; BRE JACKSON; GEORGE BETTELYOUN; BOOKING HOLDINGS, INC., d/b/a Booking.com; EXPEDIA, INC., d/b/a Expedia.com; and THE RAPID CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-05070-CCT (D.S.D., Sept. 6, 2024) alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, NDN Collective, acting through its members, attempted to paint a public image that Gateway, along with the other businesses owned and operated by Retsel Coiporation, were racist and exercised discriminatory practices, to destroy their business and divert individuals from becoming customers and consumers of Gateway. NDN Collective, through its lawsuit, sought to intentionally bring bad publicity, defame and destroy Gateway's business. Multiple NDN members took to social media, defaming Gateway and other businesses owned and operated by the Retsel Corporation. Gateway has lost business from false publicity on social media that was drafted, authored, published, and circulated by NDN Collective members, says the suit. NDN Collective is an indigenous-led activist and advocacy organization based in Rapid City, South Dakota, United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John M. Pierce, Esq. JOHN PIERCE LAW 21550 Oxnard Street, 3rd Floor PMB #172 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (213) 400-0725 Email: jpierce@johnpiercelaw.com - and - Paul J. Andrews, Esq. ANDREWS LAW OFFICE, LLC 528 Kansas City St., Suite 5 Rapid City, SD 57701 Telephone: (605) 718-4001 Email: paul@andrewslawofficellc.com NUTRACEUTICAL WELLNESS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- MYKAYKLA FAGNANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NUTRACEUTICAL WELLNESS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06821 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 9, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://nutrafol.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. Nutraceutical Wellness, Inc., doing business as Nutrafol, offers nutritional products. The Company provides nutraceutical supplement for hair growth for men and women. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal OPPOSUITS USA: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Sumlin Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS SUMLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OPPOSUITS USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06807 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 9, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.opposuits.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. OppoSuits USA, Inc. is an apparel company that produces clothing, such as suits, blazers, shirts, shorts, sweaters and onesies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Asher Cohen, Esq. ASHER COHEN PLLC 2377 56th Dr. Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (718) 914-9694 Email: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com PRESBYTERIAN HEALTH: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Pruess FLSA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ PRESBYTERIAN HEALTH PLAN, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court granting class certification in the lawsuit entitled Dania Pruess, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Presbyterian Health Plan, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-CV-00629-DHU-JFR, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. On June 16, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which the Defendants moved to decertify on the same day. On Aug. 16, 2024, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class and denied the Defendants' motion to decertify through an Order entered by Judge David H. Urias. The Court finds that fairness and procedural considerations support certification when the members of the collective share a common issue. Thus, the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is granted. The appellate case is captioned Presbyterian Health Plan, Inc., et al. v. Pruess, et al., Case No. 24-705, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on September 3, 2024. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents DANIA PRUESS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Sarah Jean Arendt, Esq. Maureen Salas, Esq. Douglas Michael Werman, Esq. WERMAN SALAS 77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 - and – Travis Hedgpeth, Esq. THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC 3050 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 510 Houston, TX 77056 - and – Jack Siegel, Esq. Stacy Wisner Thomsen, Esq. SIEGEL LAW GROUP 5706 East Mockingbird Lane, Suite 115 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 790-4454 Defendants-Petitioners PRESBYTERIAN HEALTH PLAN, INC., et al. are represented by: Meghan Frei Berglind, Esq. Jessica G. Scott, Esq. Iva Velickovic, Esq. Michael T. Williams, Esq. Frederick Richard Yarger, Esq. WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL 370 Seventeenth Street, Suite 4500 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 244-1800 - and – Douglas Lynn, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS 2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 778-3700 PUBLIC HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Peebles Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA PEEBLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PUBLIC HEALTH MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 240900686 (Pa. Comm. Pleas, Sept. 6, 2024) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Peebles was employed by the Defendant as a support coordinator. Public Health Management Corporation operates as a non-profit organization. The Organization provides outreach, health promotion, education, research, planning, technical assistance, and direct services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. Deirdre Aaron, Esq, WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 RESTAURANT LAW: Fifth Circuit Vacates Tip Credit "Final Rule" ------------------------------------------------------------- Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Emilee N. Crowther, and Derrick Fong-Stempel of DuaneMorris.com report that in Restaurant Law Center et al v. U.S. Department of Labor, No. 23-50562, 2024 WL 3911308 (5th Cir. Aug. 23, 2024), the Fifth Circuit reversed a decision of Judge Robert L. Pitman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas that had upheld the U.S. Department of Labor's final rule that stated that an employer could only take a "tip credit" against the federal minimum wage for work performed by a tipped employee that was part of the employee's tipped occupation. The Fifth Circuit held that, pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244, 2273 (2024) (which the Fifth Circuit expressly noted was rendered after Judge Pitman's trial court decision), it was not required to defer to the DOL's interpretation of the Federal Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, it found the Final Rule contrary to the express language of the FLSA, and that it should be vacated because it was arbitrary and capricious. This case previews the likely new federal circuit court regime regarding agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes post-Loper Bright. The ruling is also a required read for all hospitality industry organizations. Case Background The Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") permits employers to take a "tip credit" when paying the wages of any "tipped employee," such that employers may pay tipped employees $2.13 per hour "under the theory that a large portion of such employees' total earnings comes from tips." If the difference between the $2.13 wage and the general minimum wage of $7.25 per hour is not paid by tips, the FLSA requires the employer to pay the remainder to ensure that the tipped employee makes at least $7.25 an hour. Id. The DOL is permitted to promulgate rules interpreting and clarifying the FLSA, and issued an 80/20 guidance concerning the tip credit in its sub-regulatory Field Operations Handbook in 1988. The 80/20 guidance provided that an employer was permitted to take a full tip credit for employees that provided both tipped and non-tipped work, so long as the employee's non-tipped work did not constitute more than 20% of that employee's work. In 2021, the DOL issued a "Final Rule" concerning the 80/20 guidance, which mandated that "[a]n employer may only take a tip credit for work performed by a tipped employee that is part of the employee's tipped occupation." (citing 29 C.F.R. Section 531.56(f) (2021)). Notably, the term "tipped occupation" is not defined in the FLSA. However, the Final Rule demarcated three categories of work, including: (a) directly tip-producing work (e.g., a server); (b) directly supporting work (e.g., bussing tables); and (c) work not part of the tipped occupation (e.g., preparing food). The Final Rule stated that an employer could take the tip credit for "tip-producing work," but that if more than 20 percent of an employee's workweek is spent on "directly supporting work," then the employer cannot claim the tip credit for the excess. Moreover, the Tip Credit stated that any "directly supporting work" could not be performed for more than 30 minutes at a time. Thereafter, in December 2021, the Restaurant Law Center and the Texas Restaurant Association (collectively, the "Associations") filed suit against the DOL, seeking to permanently enjoin the DOL's enforcement of the Final Rule, and moved for a preliminary injunction. The district court denied the preliminary injunction, and the Associations appealed to the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit's Decision The Fifth Circuit held that the DOL's 2021 Final Rule was contrary to the FLSA's text, was arbitrary and capricious, and should be vacated. In so holding, the Fifth Circuit first focused on the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent holding in Loper Bright. Prior to Loper Bright, "[u]nder Chevron, a court reviewing agency action for compliance with [a] relevant statute had to defer to ‘permissible' agency interpretations, ‘even if not the reading the court would have reached if the question initially had arisen in a judicial proceeding.'" However, post-Loper Bright, the Fifth Circuit noted that it was required "to return to the APA's basic textual command: independently interpret [an ambiguous] statute and effectuate the will of Congress" and "use every tool at [its] disposal to determine the best reading of the statute and resolve the ambiguity."" And, since the Supreme Court's holding in Loper Bright came out after the district court's holding, the Fifth Circuit reasoned that it was required "to depart from the district court's analysis at the very start." As such, the Fifth Circuit's analysis started with the express text of the FLSA, which states that a "tipped employee" means "any employee engaged in an occupation in which he customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips." Importantly, the FLSA does not define the terms "engaged in" or "occupation." Since the terms were not expressly defined, the "ordinary meaning of these terms in 1966, when the tip credit was added to the FLSA, controls." Id. After reviewing the "contemporary dictionary definitions" of the words "engaged" and "occupation," the Fifth Circuit found that the phrase "‘engaged in an occupation' most naturally indicate[d] a focus ‘on the field of work and the job as a whole,' rather than specific tasks." Importantly, the Fifth Circuit noted that "[t]he FLSA does not ask whether duties composing [a] given occupation are themselves each individually tip-producing." Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit held that "the Final Rule applies the tip credit in a manner inconsistent with the FLSA's text." Id. Finally, the Fifth Circuit noted that the plain language of the FLSA "asked only whether the employee is engaged in an occupation in which he receives tips." As such, the Fifth Circuit determined that the Final Rule "replace[d] the Congressionally chosen touchstone of the tip-credit analysis -- the occupation -- with one of the DOL's making -- the timesheet." For these reasons, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the Final Rule was arbitrary and capricious. Implications For Employers This decision has wide-ranging implications. The Fifth Circuit's ruling in Restaurant Law Center sets aside 36 years of precedent upholding the 80/20 standard contained in the Final Rule. It arms employers with additional ammunition to fight wage & hour class and collective actions brought by private plaintiffs who have relied on the DOL's Final Rule to position their lawsuits. It also previews what could be the new federal circuit court regime regarding agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes post-Loper Bright. As the Fifth Circuit stated, Congressional intent controls, and "while longstanding agency practice might have the power to persuade, it has never had the power to control." [GN] RETSEL CORP: Appeals Partial Summary Judgment Rulings in NDN Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- RETSEL CORPORATION, et al. are taking an appeal from court orders granting in part and denying in part motions for partial summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled NDN Collective, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Retsel Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:22-cv-05027-LLP, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for alleged civil rights violation. In their first amended complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged claims of discrimination by employees of Retsel in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 seeking class action status, declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and other appropriate relief. The Plaintiffs' second amended complaint repeats the claims and adds claims for assault and battery. On July 8, 2024, and July 15, 2024, the Defendants and the Plaintiffs filed motions for partial summary judgment, respectively. On Aug. 20, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment through an Order entered by Judge Lawrence L. Piersol. Specifically, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment was denied on George Bettelyoun's claims under Sec. 1981 (Counts 1 and 2), on the claims of Sunny Red Bear, Alberta Eagle, Mary Bowman, Nick Cottier, and Bre Jackson under Sec. 1981, on the claims of NDN Collective under Sec. 1981, and on the claims under Sec. 1981 against Connie Uhre and Nick Uhre individually. The Defendants' motion to strike the class action allegations was granted. On Aug. 22, 2024, Judge Piersol granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and ruled that the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment establishing that NDN Collective has a racial identity as Native American and is a member of a protected class and Plaintiff Red Bear's motion for summary judgment with respect to the claim against Connie Uhre for assault were granted. However, the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the following were denied: elements of the Sec. 1981 claim establishing that Defendants' intent was discriminatory and that Plaintiffs were engaging in a protected activity is denied; on the claim of battery against Connie Uhre; and on the claims of assault and battery against Retsel Corp. Moreover, Plaintiff (counterclaim defendant) NDN Collective's motions for summary judgment on the counterclaims of intentional interference with business relations, defamation, trespass, and civil conspiracy were granted and Defendants' counter-motions for same were denied. Plaintiff (counterclaim defendant) NDN Collective's motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim of nuisance was granted in part and denied in part, and the Defendants' counter-motion was denied. The appellate case is captioned NDN Collective, et al v. Retsel Corporation, et al., Case No. 24-2788, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on September 4, 2024. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees NDN COLLECTIVE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Timothy W. Billion, Esq. Brendan V. Johnson, Esq. ROBINS & KAPLAN 150 E. Fourth Place, Suite 704 Sioux Falls, SD 57104 Telephone: (605) 335-1300 Defendants-Appellants RETSEL CORPORATION, doing business as Grand Gateway Hotel, doing business as Cheers Sports Lounge and Casino., et al. are represented by: Haylee Culver, Esq. GORDON & REES P.O. Box 2099 Dickinson, ND 58602 Telephone: (701) 300-3449 - and – Sara Anderson Frey, Esq. GORDON & REES Three Logan Square 1717 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 717-4009 - and – Kathleen Mary Kushi Carter, Esq. Heather E. Stern, Esq. MESSNER & REEVES 611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 450 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (949) 612-9128 RMS BEAUTY: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Fagnani Says ---------------------------------------------------------- MYKAYKLA FAGNANI, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RMS BEAUTY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06784 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 6, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://rmsbeauty.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. RMS Beauty LLC is a cosmetics company located in Charleston. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal RTZN BRANDS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Fagnani Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MYKAYKLA FAGNANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RTZN BRANDS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06783 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 6, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://righteousfelon.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. RTZN Brands, LLC is a boutique distributor intent on changing the way businesses discover, source, and receive artisan food products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal S & L ISLAND: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Vega Alleges ----------------------------------------------------- ANTONIO LOPEZ VEGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. S & L ISLAND INVESTMENTS, INC. d/b/a GLASS OF MARCO; and BRIAN J. PRUSHA, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00811 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 5, 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 Vega was employed by the Defendant as a glass installer. S & L Island Investments, Inc. d/b/a Glass of Marco is a construction company based in Naples, FL and specializes in Glass and Glazing. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com T.J. MAXX OF CA: Soriano Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled FAITH SORIANO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. T.J. MAXX OF CA, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company; THE TJX COMPANIES, INC., a Virginia corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV13970, was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on August 29, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-07386 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts causes of action under the California Labor Code, specifically: (1) rest period violations; (2) unpaid wage violations; (3) sick pay violations; (4) final pay violations; (5) wage statement violations; and (6) violations of the Unfair Competition Law. T.J. MAXX OF CA, LLC is an American department store chain.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Bradley E. Schwan, Esq. Jannine E. Kranz, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107 Telephone: (310) 553-0308 Facsimile: (310) 553-5583 E-mail: bschwan@littler.com jkranz@littler.com - and - Brittany L. McCarthy, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101-3577 Telephone: (619) 232-0441 Facsimile: (619) 232-4302 E-mail: blmccarthy@littler.com TARGET CORP: Rukaj Sues Over Adult Vitamin C Gummies' Label ----------------------------------------------------------- DAVID RUKAJ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 718273/2024 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., September 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of New York General Business Law. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Adult Vitamin C Gummies. According to the complaint, the product is misbranded and misleads consumers, because the labeling and packaging, promoting 150 gummies and 282 mg vitamin C per serving, fails to reveal facts material in light of such representations, because the front label does not disclose it requires three gummies to obtain this serving quantity, such that the container only has 50 servings. As a result of the false and misleading representations and omissions, the product is sold at a premium price, says the suit. Target Corporation is a company that operates retail stores, headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 412 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com TARGET CORP: Stores' Shelf Prices "Deceptive," Ullrich Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW ULLRICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-08979 (D.N.J., September 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the New Jersey Truth in Consumer Contract Notice and Warranty Act, and New Jersey common law. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising of shelf prices. According to the complaint, the Defendant's shelf prices frequently do not reflect the item's selling price at checkout. The Defendant's practice constitutes a bait and switch scheme in which it baits the consumer with low shelf prices and then switches to a higher price charged at checkout. As a result, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered damages. Target Corporation is a company that operates retail stores, headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jan Meyer, Esq. Jordan Gottheim, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAN MEYER & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1029 Teaneck Road, Second Floor Teaneck, NJ 07666 Telephone: (201) 862-9500 - and - Stanley D. Bernstein, Esq. Sandy A. Liebhard, Esq. Michael S. Bigin, Esq. Stephanie M. Beige, Esq. Jeffrey McEachern, Esq. Hairong Basil, Esq. BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP 10 East 40th Street New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 779-1414 Facsimile: (212) 779-3218 - and - Scott H. Gingold, Esq. GINGOLD LEGAL 1326 Isabella Street Evanston, IL 60201 Telephone: (773) 793-9093 TERRAN ORBITAL: Mullen Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------ JEFFREY MULLEN is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Jeffrey Mullen, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Terran Orbital, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-1394, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendants by the Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons who were non-insider owners of shares in pre-merger Terran Orbital, Inc. ("Legacy TOC") (a now publicly traded Company hereinafter referred to as "New TOC") through their employment with Legacy TOC and who were induced to vote in favor of the merger via a materially false and misleading Proxy Prospectus but later were restricted from, or otherwise unable to, sell or dispose of their post-merger Terran Orbital ("New TOC") common stock because of the misfeasance and/or malfeasance of the Defendants. On July 7, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On Dec. 18, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Jesse M. Furman on July 26, 2024. The Court ruled that in sum, the Plaintiffs do not plausibly allege either an unexculpated breach of the duty of loyalty or that any of the Defendants' alleged actions or omissions reflected an abuse of discretion sufficient to overcome the deference owed to their business judgments. Accordingly, their claim for breach of fiduciary duty must be dismissed. It follows that the aiding-and-abetting claim also fails as a matter of law, adds Judge Furman. The appellate case is captioned Mullen v. Terran Orbital, Inc., Case No. 24-2291, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on September 3, 2024. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JEFFREY MULLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Esq. SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP 32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor New York, NY 10022 Defendants-Appellees TERRAN ORBITAL OPERATING CORPORATION, et al. are represented by: Jessica C. Benvenisty, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 - and – Gary Hobart, Esq. 6800 Broken South Pkwy NW Boca Raton, FL 33487 TOMORROW FARMS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Fagnani Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- MYKAYKLA FAGNANI, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. TOMORROW FARMS LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-06762 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 5, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://tryboredcow.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on Aug. 24, 2024, in an attempt to purchase Chocolate Milk from the Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied her a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public, the suit says. The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on the Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue to contribute to Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Ms. Fagnani is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. The Defendant offers, through its website, hand sanitizers, aromatic scents & accessories.[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 TOUCHLAND LLC: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Fagnani Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- MYKAYKLA FAGNANI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOUCHLAND LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06755 (S.D.N.Y., September 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://touchland.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text) or a text equivalent, empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Touchland LLC is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal TRIDENT RESTORATION: Ortega Allowed Leave to Amend Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGEL ORTEGA, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals, et al., v. TRIDENT RESTORATION, INC., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01927-JGLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend as discussed at the case management conference on Sept. 3, 2024. The Court said, the Plaintiffs have demonstrated good cause that leave should be granted under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15 and 16. Whether good cause exists depends on the "diligence of the moving party." The Court "also may consider other relevant factors including, in particular, whether allowing the amendment of the pleading at this stage of the litigation will prejudice defendants." The Court finds good cause because Plaintiffs only learned of the information required for the Amended Complaint through fact discovery, including through a deposition that took place in July 2014. The Plaintiffs sought leave to amend approximately one month later. Furthermore, the Defendants have not identified any prejudice they will face. Granting leave to amend the Complaint will not broaden the case or require the extension of discovery. Also as discussed at the case management conference, the close of expert discovery is set for 45 days after the Court's decision on Plaintiffs' forthcoming class certification motion. The Plaintiffs' disclosures shall be due 15 days after the Court's decision, Defendants' disclosures shall be due 30 days after the Court's decision, and all expert discovery shall be concluded 45 days after the Court's decision. Trident Restoration specializes in Insurance Restoration Services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 3, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6oI7tq at no extra charge.[CC] TURO INC: Patterson Alleges Unlawful Collection of Biometrics ------------------------------------------------------------- VIOLA PATTERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TURO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08220 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 9, 2024) alleges violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant is engaged in unlawful collections, obtainments, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiff's sensitive and proprietary biometric identifiers and/or biometric information. Moreover, the Defendant did not inform the Plaintiff in writing of the specific purpose and length of term for which her biometric information was being collected, stored, and used. The Defendant collected, stored, and used Plaintiff's biometric information without ever receiving a written release executed by the Plaintiff which would consent to or authorize the Defendant to do the same, says the suit. Turo Inc. is an American peer-to-peer car sharing marketplace that allows private car owners to rent out their vehicles to another individual via online and/or mobile application. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. 8401 Crawford Ave., Ste.104 Skokie, IL 60076 Telephone: (847) 986-5889 Facsimile: (847) 673-1228 Email: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 11 1/2 N. Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 816-8696 Email: james@simonsayspay.com TUSIMPLE HOLDINGS: $189-Mil. Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- KSF News reports that on September 5, in Dicker v. TuSimple, et al., 3:22-cv-01300 (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Roger T. Benitez preliminarily approved a $189,000,000 class action settlement on behalf of person who purchased TuSimple securities between April 15, 2021 and December 20, 2022, inclusive. The Court also set a final approval hearing for the Settlement for December 2, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. [GN] TYSON FOODS: Pearson Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAHA PEARSON, for herself and all other similarly situated individuals, V. TYSON FOODS, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-01080-BSM (E.D. Ark.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- certifying the class as defined in Count III of the Class Action Complaint, and -- granting Plaintiff all other proper and just relief. The Plaintiff requests an evidentiary hearing for the Court to take additional evidence regarding this motion. This is a cause of action for failure to accommodate a religious belief under federal (Title VII) and state law (ACRA). Tyson produces, distributes, and markets chicken, beef, pork, prepared foods, and related allied products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 3, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G5SFNf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian A. Vandiver, Esq. COX, STERLING, VANDIVER & BOTTEICHER, PLLC 8201 Cantrell Rd. Ste. #330 Little Rock, AR 72227 Telephone: (501) 954-8073 E-mail: bavandiver@csmfirm.com UNITED SERVICES: Stott Files Suit Over Unfair MBA Automated Process ------------------------------------------------------------------- DENISE STOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, GARRISON PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, AND CCC INTELLIGENT SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-07395 (C.D. Cal., August 29, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants to recover monetary damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and other remedies for breach of contract, fraud by deceit and conspiracy to commit fraud by deceit, violations of California Insurance Code and conspiracy to violate California Insurance Code, conspiracy to violate the California Business Practices Act, and negligence and negligence per se. This action concerns USAA's alleged improper conspiracy and scheme designed to systematically, wrongfully, and arbitrarily deny its insureds first-party medical payments (MedPay) insurance benefits owed them under their USAA insurance policies. Instead of fulfilling its duty to investigate each bill for medical expenses submitted by its California insureds, USAA engages in a multifaceted scheme whereby USAA improperly delegates its insurance claims adjustment duties to AIS, who arbitrarily and improperly reduces or denies MedPay claims using its automated Medical Bill Audit process, says the suit. Moreover, in furtherance of its scheme to deny or reduce the payment of MedPay benefits, USAA relies on AIS' automated review process using preset "flags" or "codes" that deny a MedPay claim on the basis that the provider treatment is not causally related to the accident if the provider does not check the box "Auto Accident" on the standard "Health Insurance Claim Form" under the inquiry: "IS PATIENT'S CONDITION RELATED TO:". The USAA adjuster does not conduct any adjustment of the claim and does not investigate whether the treatment was causally related to the accident, but instead denies reimbursement of the MedPay claim based only on the MBA automated process, the suit alleges. Plaintiff Stott is a resident of Merced, California, who was injured in an automobile collision on January 21, 2020. At the time of the collision, the Plaintiff was insured under a USAA-CIC policy that included $100,000 in MedPay coverage. United Services Automobile Association is a reciprocal interinsurance exchange licensed to do business in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Bidart, Esq. Ricardo Echeverria, Esq. Danica Crittenden, Esq. SHERNOFF BIDART ECHEVERRIA LLP 600 South Indian Hill Boulevard Claremont, CA 91711 Telephone: (909) 621-4935 Facsimile: (909) 625-6915 E-mail: mbidart@shernoff.com recheverria@shernoff.com dcrittenden@shernoff.com UNIVIDA HALLANDALE: Faces Castera Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Fla. ----------------------------------------------------------------- RODOLFO CASTERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVIDA HALLANDALE MEDICAL CENTER LLC, HERMANN J. LANGE, and HERMANN A. LANGE, JR., individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-61646 (S.D. Fla., September 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Castera worked for the Defendants as a sales insurance employee from approximately September 25, 20231 to July 12, 2024. Univida Hallandale Medical Center LLC is a provider of comprehensive primary and specialty medical services, with its principal place of business in Hallandale, Broward County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com VBROADCAST CO: Faces Romero Suit Over Unlawful Debt Collection -------------------------------------------------------------- ANA LUCIA ROMERO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VBROADCAST CO., LTD D/B/A WONDERSHARE, Defendant, Case No. 24-003979-CI (Fla. Cir. Ct., 6th Jud. Cir., Pinellas Cty., September 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of Florida's Consumer Collection Practices Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending communications to consumers, including the Plaintiff, in connection with collecting a debt between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the debtor's time zone without prior consent in violation of FCCPA. vBroadcast Co., Ltd., doing business as Wondershare, is a debt collector, with its principal place of business in New Castle, Delaware. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Faaris K. Uddin, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com faaris@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com VIRGINIA HOSPITAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lewis Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- JASMINE LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VIRGINIA HOSPITAL CENTER ARLINGTON HEALTH SYSTEM d/b/a VIRGINIA HOSPITAL CENTER d/b/a VHC HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01564 (E.D. Va., Sept. 5, 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 Lewis was employed by the Defendant as a registered nurse. Virginia Hospital Center Arlington Health System d/b/a Virginia Hospital Center d/b/a VHC Health provides medical services to the Washington, DC metropolitan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy Coffield, Esq. COFFIELD PLC 106-F Melbourne Park Circle Charlottesville, VA 22901 Telephone: (434) 218-3133 Facsimile: (434) 321-1636 Email: tc@coffieldlaw.com - and - Zev Antell, Esq. BUTLERCURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 WALGREENS BOOTS: Bandages Contain Toxic PFAS, Class Action Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges Walgreens has failed to warn consumers that its adhesive bandages contain "extremely high levels" of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), often referred to as "forever chemicals." The 26-page false advertising lawsuit says that Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., the retail pharmacy chain’s parent company, has ubiquitously represented that its bandages are safe and support health and recovery, with packaging that claims the "Pharmacist recommended" products "keep out dirt & contaminants" and "[p]romote[] up to 2x faster healing." However, despite these representations, independent testing has determined that the bandages contain PFAS -- a group of synthetic chemicals linked to serious environmental effects and human health issues, including cancer, thyroid and liver diseases, immunodeficiency and infertility, the suit contends. According to the case, there is no safe level of exposure to these "forever chemicals" because of the significant risk they pose to humans, particularly children and the elderly. "Worst yet, because PFAS essentially never degrade, they continue to accumulate in the body, making even trace exposure harmful," the complaint shares. Per the filing, the analysis of the Walgreens products detected "extremely high levels" of organic fluorine, a compound that reliably indicates the presence of PFAS. The lawsuit charges that the tests revealed the bandages contained up to 243 parts per million (ppm) organic fluorine -- six million times the PFAS limit set by new federal standards, which cap the presence of the toxic chemicals at just 0.00004 ppm. The fraud suit alleges that by failing to warn consumers of the presence of PFAS in its bandages, Walgreens has misled shoppers and induced them to buy a product they otherwise would not have purchased had they known it would be harmful to their health. The Walgreens lawsuit takes issue with the following products: -- Flexible Fabric Bandages; -- Strong Fabric Bandages; -- Soft Fabric Bandages; -- Smart-Flex Adhesive Bandages; -- Clear Spot Bandages; -- Antibacterial Clear Bandages; -- Strong Strip Bandages; -- Sheer Adhesive Pads; -- Antibacterial Adhesive Pads; -- Hydrocolloid Gel Bandages; -- Hydrocolloid Gel Bandages Large; -- Hydrocolloid Spot Bandages; and -- Hydrocolloid Bandages Finger & Toe Assorted. The lawsuit looks to represent any Illinois residents who purchased any of the bandages listed on this page. [GN] WEBTOON ENTERTAINMENT: Brookman Sues Over 38.2% Drop of Stock Price ------------------------------------------------------------------- COY BROOKMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEBTOON ENTERTAINMENT INC., JUNKOO KIM, DAVID J. LEE, HAEJIN LEE, NAMSUN KIM, JUN MASUDA, ISABELLE WINKLES, NANCY DUBUC, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, EVERCORE GROUP L.L.C., DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., UBS SECURITIES LLC, HSBC SECURITIES (USA) INC., RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., and LIONTREE ADVISORS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-07553 (C.D. Cal., September 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading registration statements in connection with Webtoon's June 2024 initial public offering (IPO). Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (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, the Defendants' positive statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the truth emerged, Webtoon's stock fell $7.88 or 38.2 percent, to close at $12.75 per share on August 9, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, which caused the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's common shares, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant economic losses and damages. Webtoon Entertainment Inc. is an entertainment company based in Los Angeles, California. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC is an investment management company based in New York, New York. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC is a capital market company based in New York, New York. J.P. Morgan Securities LLC is a capital market company based in New York, New York. Evercore Group L.L.C. is a capital market company based in New York, New York. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. is a capital market company based in New York, New York. UBS Securities LLC is a capital market company based in New York, New York. HSBC Securities (USA) Inc. is a capital market company based in New York, New York. Raymond James & Associates, Inc. is a capital market company based in Florida. LionTree Advisors LLC is a capital market company based in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 Email: clinehan@glancylaw.com - and - Frank R. Cruz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 WELLS FARGO: Browne Balks at Unauthorized Electronic Fund Transfers ------------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER BROWNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02359-CKD (E.D. Cal., August 29, 2024) is a class action brought against the Defendants for violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, California Commercial Code, and Unfair Competition Law, and for negligence/gross negligence. The Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, brings this Complaint for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant routinely holding consumers liable for unauthorized electronic fund transfers made out of their deposit accounts held with Defendant, thereby violating the EFTA. Plaintiff Brown maintained two checking accounts, a savings account, and a credit card with Defendant. Wells Fargo Bank is an American multinational financial services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Matthew R. Snyder, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21031 Ventura Blvd, Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com msnyder@toddflaw.com WHITEPAGES INC: Misappropriates Consumers' Info, Carrera Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JENNIFER CARRERA, CAROL ANDERSON, and BECKY JO PALMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WHITEPAGES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-01408 (W.D. Wash., September 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Washington's Personality Rights Act, the California Right of Publicity Law, the Illinois Right of Publicity Act, and the Ohio Right of Publicity in Individual's Persona Act. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of misappropriating the names, identities, and other personally identifying information it has collected on millions of Americans, including the Plaintiffs, to advertise and promote paid subscriptions to its platform and related products and services. Specifically, the Defendant has created, published, and disseminated publicly accessible free-preview "profile" pages for each of the millions of Americans, including each of the Plaintiffs and proposed Class members, whose personal information appears in its database. The Defendant used the names and identities of the Plaintiffs and Class members without providing prior notice to, much less obtaining consent from, any of these people. As a result, the rights of the Plaintiffs and Class members have been violated, says the suit. Whitepages, Inc. is a company that owns and operates the website www.whitepages.com, headquartered in Seattle, Washington. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nick Major, Esq. NICK MAJOR LAW 450 Alaskan Way S. #200 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 410-5688 Email: nick@nickmajorlaw.com - and - Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Ave, Suite 610 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Email: fhedin@hedinllp.com - and - Tyler K. Somes, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1100 15th Street NW, Ste 04-108 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 900-3331 Email: tsomes@hedinllp.com WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Underpays Ramp Agents, Ulloa Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- ALFONSO ULLOA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WORLDWIDE FLIGHT SERVICES, INC., a/k/a AMR SERVICES CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-23431 (S.D. Fla., September 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Ulloa worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt, full-time ramp agent from approximately September 10, 2010, to May 21, 2024. Worldwide Flight Services, Inc., also known as AMR Services Corporation, is an international shipping and air transportation logistics company based in Miami, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com YOUNG CONSULTING: Bishop Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info -------------------------------------------------------------- SAMUEL BISHOP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YOUNG CONSULTING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-07584 (C.D. Cal., September 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, breach of contract, and violations of California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, California Unfair Competition Law, and California Customer Records Act. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated customers stored within its network systems following a data breach between April 10, 2024, and April 13, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Young Consulting, LLC is a provider of risk management services, with a principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. David J. McGlothlin, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com david@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com YOUNG CONSULTING: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, March Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- AUTUMN MARSH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YOUNG CONSULTING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08068 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its clients' customers. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' personally identifiable information or "PII" from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Defendant maintained, used, and shared the PII in a reckless manner. In particular, the PII was used and transmitted by Defendant in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. The mechanism of the cyberattack and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was a known risk to Defendant, and thus, the Defendant was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure the PII from those risks left that property in a dangerous condition, says the suit. Young Consulting specializes in the development of integrated software solutions for marketing underwriting and administrators. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com YOUNG CONSULTING: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Albrigo Says --------------------------------------------------------------- LAURA ALBRIGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YOUNG CONSULTING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08059 (N.D. Ill., September 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, violations of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and personal health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated customers stored within its network systems following a data breach between April 10, 2024, and April 13, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, the suit says. Young Consulting, LLC is a provider of risk management services, with a principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katrina Carroll, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 750-1265 Email: katrina@lcllp.com - and - Steven A. Schwartz, Esq. Beena M. McDonald, Esq. Alex M. Kashurba, Esq. Marissa N. Pembroke, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP One Haverford Centre 361 Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 Email: steveschwartz@chimicles.com bmm@chimicles.com amk@chimicles.com mnp@chimicles.com ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Obtain Data Without Consent, Larock Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MEMARY LAROCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-05745 (W.D. Wash., Sept. 5, 2024) alleges violation of the Washington's Personality Rights Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant's business model is selling subscriptions to its Zoominfo.com platform, which provide access to a vast database of personally identifying information and a suite of other related business-development products. To maximize the revenue it generates from paid subscriptions, the Defendant misappropriates the names of everyone whose personal information it has amassed in its database, and then uses these individuals' names and corresponding personally identifying information to advertise and promote subscriptions to its platform and other related products and services -- without asking for, let alone obtaining consent from, any of these individuals prior to doing so. Upon learning that her name and corresponding personally identifying information as were being used by the Defendant to sell its products and services on the open market for its own financial gain, the Plaintiff became worried, frustrated, and concerned, disturbing their peace of mind in a meaningful way -- just as would occur to any reasonable person (including members of the "Free Trial" Class) under the same or similar circumstances, the suit says. ZoomInfo Technologies Inc. provides marketing solutions. The Company offers sales and marketing, account management, prospecting, demand generation, and data management and custom solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nick Major, Esq. NICK MAJOR LAW 450 Alaskan Way S. #200 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 410-5688 Email: nick@nickmajorlaw.com - and - Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Ave, Suite 610 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Email: fhedin@hedinllp.com - and - Tyler K. Somes, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1100 15th Street NW, Ste 04-108 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 900-3331 Email: tsomes@hedinllp.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***