/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240924.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, September 24, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 192
Headlines
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Bielanski Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Johnson Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: Gottsaker Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
A&P SUPERMARKETS: N.Y. Supreme Court Certifies Overtime Class Suit
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Gutierrez Alleges Mislabeled Toddler Drinks
AETNA LIFE: Faces Gordon Suit Over Health Insurance Coverage
AETNA LIFE: Faces Suit For Denying Gender-Affirming Facial Ops
ALLINA HEALTH SYSTEMS: Gonzales Files Suit in D. Minnesota
ALLSTATE FIRE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Dorazio Suit Due Nov. 15
ALLY FINANCIAL: Faces Data Breach Class Suit Over Cyberattack
ANCIENT ORGANICS: Effinger Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
APPLE INC: Costa Seeks to Certify California, New York Classes
ASCENSION MICHIGAN: Moskwa Appeals Denied Bid to Intervene
ASR GROUP: Mathisen Sues Over Price Fixing of Granulated Sugar
ATOMIC WALLET: Court Dismisses Class Suit Over $100M Data Breach
AVFUEL CORP: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Hupper Alleges
AW DISTRIBUTING: Causes Inhalant Addiction/Death, Kendrick Claims
AXIP ENERGY: Fails to Secure Sensitive Info, Garner Says
AYVAZ PIZZA: Class Cert. Discovery in Savannah Extended by 50 Days
AZCO INC: Fails to Pay Electricians' Overtime, Varble Says
BEYOND BETTER: Hunter Sues Over Enlightened Products' Deceptive Ads
BEYOND BETTER: Products Contain Saturated Fat, Hunter Alleges
BIOTE CORP: Faces Class Action Over Hormone Pellets' Side Effects
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Noel Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty
CALIBRATED HEALTHCARE: Holden Sues Over Failure to Secure Info
CAMBER ENERGY: Faces Rowe Securities Suit Over Merger Deal
CANNABIS PLACE: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Igartua Suit Alleges
CANNABIS REALM: Igartua Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
CAPPELLO'S LLC: Faces Hunter Suit Over Products' Deceptive Ads
CBIZ INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Marcum LLP
CDK GLOBAL LLC: Coombs Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
CENTRAL TRANSPORT: Kietsathit Removed From State Court to E.D. Cal.
CENTRAL TRANSPORT: Kietsathit Removed from State Ct. to E.D. Cal.
CHELSEA PANTRY: Fails to Pay Deliverers' OT Wages, Rodriguez Says
CL CONCOURSE VILLAGE: Feltzin Sues Over Denied Access to Property
CLOOPEN GROUP: Court Dismisses St. John Securities Suit
COINBASE GLOBAL: Castle Sues Over False and Misleading Statements
COMPEX LEGAL SERVICES: Markee Files Suit in C.D. California
COSMOPOLITAN CORP: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Mallory Suit Says
CSX TRANSPORTATION: Class Settlement in Shongo Suit Gets Final Nod
DANIEL MARKUS: Plaintiff Must File Bid for Approval of Settlement
DORMIFY INC: Visually Impaired Can't Access Website, Ortiz Claims
DRIVE PLANNING: Broker Faces Class Suit Over Investment Scheme
DRIVELINE RETAIL: Judge Suggests Arbitration on OT Wage Class Suit
ECMD INC: Madison Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
EQT CORP: Faces Water Contamination Class Action Suit
EQUIFAX INFO: Hines Bid to Certify Class Deferred in Part
FAVORITE WORLD: Minor Suit Seeks to Modify Scheduling Order
FOCUS LLC: Court Stays Class Cert Deadline in Harris
GETZ INDUSTRIAL: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Liggins
GRAND AMERICA: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Jan. 20, 2025
HALLIBURTON CO: Jandres Balks at Unprotected Personal, Health Info
HERSHEY SALTY: Bogren Sues Over SkinnyPop Popcorn's False Ads
IMA FINANCIAL: Zerbe Appeals Class Suit Dismissal to 10th Circuit
INTEGRATED DECISIONS: Faces Suit Over Room Rental Prices Conspiracy
INTEGRATED MAINTENANCE: Violates ADA, Reyes Suit Claims
IOWA: Athletes Join Suit Over Rights' Violation in Gambling Probe
KD CREATIVES: Discloses Customers' Viewing Info, Carruth Alleges
KD CREATIVES: Discloses Customers' Viewing Info, Carruth Says
LECTRIC EBIKES: Faces Cabot Suit Over Deceptive Sales Practices
LEHIGH VALLEY: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $65MM
LIFECORE BIOMEDICAL: Faces Carew Securities Suit Over Disclosures
LLOYD'S OF LONDON: Court Relieves Defense in BIPA Class Action
MAVERIK INC: Court Tosses Dillard Bid to Stay Discovery
MDL 2873: AFFF Products Harmful to Human Health, Koniecki Claims
MDL 2873: Faces Leon Suit Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
MDL 2873: Lancaon Sues Over Side Effects of Using AFFF Products
MDL 2873: Monhollen Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products
MDL 2873: Pardee Suit Claims Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Discloses Info to Meta, Gittings-Barrera Says
MOBILE MEDIC: Class Cert Discovery in Oliver Suit Due Feb. 10, 2025
MONTERREY SECURITY: Fails to Pay Officers' OT Wages, Glenn Claims
NEW SOUTH WALES: Faces Class Action Suit Over Bus Crash
NEW YORK LIFE: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Owens Suit Alleges
NORTH CAROLINA: Caretakers Sue Over Inefficient Foster System
NORTHEAST GROCERY: Collins Appeals ERISA Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
ORACLE AMERICA: Settles Data Privacy Class Suit for $115-Mil.
ORTHOFIX MEDICAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set November 8
PAC HOUSING: Hills Seeks More Time to Complete Class Cert Discovery
PAYLOCITY CORP: Jordan Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Commissions
PORT IMPERIAL: Mayors Class Action Referred to Magistrate Judge
RALEIGH, NC: Edwards Bid to Certify Class Partly OK'd
RECKITT BENCKISER: K-Y Brand Lubricant Contains PFAS, Beckles Says
RED BULL: Lautenslager Sues Over Unpaid OT, Retaliatory Discharge
RETAIL DATA: Pierre-Louis Sues Over Customers' Compromised Info
RICE DRILLING: Filing of Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 31
SCHNADER HARRISON: Bennett Seeks Dec. 6 Class Cert Bid Extension
SEE TICKETS: Settles 2023 Data Breach Class Suit For $3.25-Mil.
SENTINELONE INC: Court Dismisses Consolidated Shareholder Suit
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Court Certifies Nationwide Damages Class
STAPLES INC: Faces Class Action Over Lie Detector Ban in Hiring
STARBUCKS CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiffs Deadline Set Oct 28
TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Class Action Suit Over Sun Pharma Merger
TESLA INC: Nachman Appeals Dismissal of False Ad Suit to 2nd Cir.
TFORCE LOGISTICS: Hadwah Alleges Discrimination, Retaliation
TIDES CENTER: Face Class Action Suit Over Traffic Blockade
UNITED STATES: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss Sexual Assault Suit
UNITED STATES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Charles FAC
VISA INC: Agrees to Settle ATM Fees' Class Suit for $197.5MM
VOLATO INC: Layoffs Employees Without Notice, Newsteder Alleges
WACKER CHEMICAL: McCowan Suit Seeks Shipping Staff's Unpaid Wages
WEND NEW JERSEY: Property Violates ADA, Cheli Class Suit Alleges
WHITEHORSE, YT: Faces Suit Over Inaccessible Parking Spaces
XOOM ENERGY: Bid to Exclude Mirkin's Original Report Partly Granted
YOUNG CONSULTING: Henson Balks at Unprotected Personal Info
[*] California Taxpayers Paid More Than $1,900 in Tort Taxes
[*] Technology Class Action-Related Lawsuits Escalate in Europe
*********
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Bielanski Class Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
FILIP BIELANSKI v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; Et al. (RE:
AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION), Case No.
2:24-cv-04967-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 12, 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 with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff
contends.
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 bind 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. Bielanski is a current resident of Noblesville, Indiana. He
regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in
training and during Plaintiff's service in the United States Army.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from the Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately,
caused the Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications, and to suffer severe personal injuries, pain,
suffering, and emotional distress.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by
Plaintiff, and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem
appropriate for bodily injury arising from the intentional,
malicious, knowing, reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions
of Defendants in connection with the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Defendants include AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS
CORP., INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.;
CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX
CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY
APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE
DEFENDANTS 1-20.
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone (305) 375-0111
E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Johnson Class Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL JOHNSON v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; Et al. (RE:
AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION), Case No.
2:24-cv-04961-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 12, 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 with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff
contends.
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 bind 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. Johnson is a current resident of Coleman, Michigan. He
regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in
training and during his service in the United States Army. The
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from the Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately,
caused the Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications, and to suffer severe personal injuries, pain,
suffering, and emotional distress.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by
Plaintiff, and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem
appropriate for bodily injury arising from the intentional,
malicious, knowing, reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions
of Defendants in connection with the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Defendants include AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS
CORP., INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.;
CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX
CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY
APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE
DEFENDANTS 1-20.
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone (305) 375-0111
E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Gottsaker Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Gottsaker, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL
COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No.
2:24-cv-04971-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 12, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
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.
PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist
biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in
people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air,
and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire
suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to
extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS,
PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS.
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 man-made compounds that are
persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the
environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and
safety. 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.
Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required
to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades
by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in
training and in response to Class B fires.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff,
and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate
for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing,
reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in
connection with 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 during the Plaintiff's service in the United
States Army.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone (305) 375-0111
Email: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
james@ferrarolaw.com
A&P SUPERMARKETS: N.Y. Supreme Court Certifies Overtime Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Elliot Zwiebach of Supermarket News reports that a New York State
Supreme Court judge has entered an order granting class
certification to claims by a trio of A&P employees that the company
systematically and knowingly denied overtime pay to hourly
employees.
The certification means the case will continue on behalf of
thousands of clerks, cashiers, bakery workers, deli personnel and
other hourly paid workers in New York state who are challenging
A&P's policies dating back to 1998.
No trial date has been set. The next step in the legal process will
involve notifying workers of their rights to join in the class
action, Rachel Geman, a partner at Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein, one of two New York-based law firms representing the
three principal plaintiffs, told SN.
An A&P spokeswoman told SN the chain never comments on pending
litigation.
"We are pleased the court recognized that the workers' claims
against A&P for willfully forcing employees to work 'off the clock'
to reduce payroll expenditures are suitable for review on a
classwide basis," Geman said. [GN]
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Gutierrez Alleges Mislabeled Toddler Drinks
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALANA GUTIERREZ, individually, and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES,
an Illinois corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02427-TLN-SCR
(E.D. Cal., Sept. 5, 2024) seeks redress for Defendant's deceptive
and unlawful practices in labeling and marketing Go & Grow 360
Total Care by Similac Toddler Drink pursuant to the California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False
Advertising Law.
According to the complaint, intending to profit from parents'
increasing desire to purchase food for their young children that
provides physical health benefits, the Defendants misbrand the
product by making nutrient content claims on the product packages
that are strictly prohibited by the Food and Drug Administration.
Moreover, the nutrient content claims on the product misleads
purchasers into believing that the products provide physical health
benefits for children under two years of age in order to induce
parents into purchasing Defendant's product. In fact, the product
is harmful both nutritionally and developmentally for children
under two.
Had Defendant not unlawfully and misleadingly labeled the product,
Plaintiff would not have purchased it or, at minimum, would have
paid less for the product, says the suit.
Abbott Laboratories is an American multinational medical devices
and health care company with headquarters in Green Oaks,
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
Laura E. Goolsby, Esq.
Nathan N. Kiyam, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
E-mail: Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
Laura.Goolsby@capstonelawyers.com
Nate.Kiyam@capstonelawyers.com
AETNA LIFE: Faces Gordon Suit Over Health Insurance Coverage
------------------------------------------------------------
BINAH GORDON, KAY MAYERS, and S.N., individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated individuals, v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 3:24-cv-01447 (D. Conn., Sept. 10, 2024) alleges
that the Defendant denies health insurance coverage for medically
necessary gender-affirming facial reconstruction surgeries and
procedures (collectively, "GAFR") under Aetna's categorical
coverage exclusion on such treatments, in violation of the
prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sex in federally
funded health programs and activities under Section 1557 of the
Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C. section 18116 ("Section 1557").
According to the complaint, Aetna's treatment of GAFR as "not
medically necessary" in all instances is at odds with the
prevailing standards of care for gender dysphoria and further
belied by the fact that Aetna is required to cover GAFR in several
states—and, under state-specific addenda to CPB 0615, applies
objective medical necessity criteria to coverage requests for GAFR
by transgender beneficiaries in those place. Contrary to Aetna's
blanket characterization of GAFR as "cosmetic," GAFR procedures are
considered reconstructive and, therefore, medically necessary when
used to treat gender dysphoria in transgender people, the suit
says.
By enforcing CPB 0615 to deny insurance coverage for GAFR to the
Plaintiffs and other transfeminine plan holders, Aetna has forced
these individuals to experience delayed or denied medically
necessary health care for gender dysphoria, exposing them to
prolonged, avoidable, and often severe suffering, distress, social
stigma, discrimination and harassment, and impaired life
functioning, asserts the suit.
Through this action, the Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment
that Aetna's GAFR coverage exclusion in CPB 0615 violates Section
1557; a permanent injunction barring Aetna from enforcing the CPB
0615 exclusion, or any other policy, practice, or procedure that
categorically excludes coverage for GAFR under health insurance
plans offered or administered by Aetna; compensatory damages for
all Aetna plan holders who have been forced to pay for GAFR
treatments out of pocket because of Aetna's refusal to cover those
treatments; and their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
Ms. Gordon was enrolled in the Aetna HealthFund (TM) High
Deductible Health Plan (HDHP) – Self Only health insurance plan
through the Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) program, for
which she was eligible to enroll through her tribal employer.
Ms. Mayers is, and has been enrolled in a self-funded Aetna Open
Choice PPO through her employer. Ms. Mayers's health plan was
designed, offered, and administered by Defendant Aetna Life
Insurance Company.
Aetna designs, markets, sells, supplies, issues, underwrites, and
administers health insurance plans to individuals, employers,
universities, and government agencies throughout the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph J. Wardenski, Esq.
WARDENSKI P.C.
134 West 29th Street, Suite 709
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (347) 913-3311
Facsimile: (347) 467-7237
E-mail: joe@wardenskilaw.com
- and -
Gabriel Arkles, Esq.
Ezra Cukor, Esq.
Sydney Duncan, Esq.
Fiadh McKenna, Esq.
TRANSGENDER LEGAL DEFENSE &
EDUCATION FUND, INC.
520 Eighth Avenue, Suite 2204
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (646) 862-9396
Facsimile: (646) 993-1686
E-mail: garkles@transgenderlegal.org
ecukor@transgenderlegal.org
sduncan@transgenderlegal.org
fmckenna@transgenderlegal.org
- and -
Christine E. Webber, Esq.
Aniko R. Schwarcz, Esq.
Harini Srinivasan, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave, NW, Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: cwebber@cohenmilstein.com
aschwarcz@cohenmilstein.com
hsrinivasan@cohenmilstein.com
AETNA LIFE: Faces Suit For Denying Gender-Affirming Facial Ops
--------------------------------------------------------------
On September 10, 2024, Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund
(TLDEF), now known as Advocates for Trans Equality (A4TE),
Wardenski P.C., and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, filed a
federal class action civil rights lawsuit against Aetna Life
Insurance Company (Aetna) in the United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut on behalf of three transgender women --
Binah Gordon, Kay Mayers, and S.N. -- denied coverage for medically
necessary gender-affirming facial reconstruction procedures.
"With my job, I am on the road every week, spending a lot of time
in places that are not as safe for trans people as the community
where I am blessed to work. For years, I struggled with fear and
anxiety around the danger my facial features put me in while
traveling and finding lodging, and even leaving my home, which made
me less effective at work and impacted my weekends and all my
relationships. My doctors knew I was desperate to improve my
quality of life," said Binah Gordon, who is a plaintiff in the
case. "When I was finally able to get the gender-affirming
surgeries that I needed, it was like my life finally began. When I
looked in the mirror, I used to see an obstacle, a laughingstock, a
target, or a victim. Today in the mirror I see a capable, socially
and spiritually connected, empowered and confident professional,
partner, sister and aunt."
"For transgender women, gender-affirming facial surgeries are not
about vanity or appearance – they are about providing lifesaving
medical care that enable them to live full authentic lives and
reduce distress caused by gender dysphoria," said Gabriel Arkles,
Co-Interim Legal Director at Advocates for Trans Equality (A4TE).
"Aetna's refusal to cover gender-affirming healthcare, despite the
medical necessity, forces many trans women to continue to suffer,
and a minority to assume the major financial burden of paying
out-of-pocket."
Each of the plaintiffs have been deeply impacted by Aetna's policy:
-- Kay Mayers, a 52-year-old resident of Alaska, has been unable
to afford the necessary facial surgery due to Aetna's refusal to
cover the costs. She continues to experience severe gender
dysphoria and fear for her safety.
-- Binah Gordon, a 42-year-old resident of Nebraska, was forced
to cover the cost of her facial surgery herself, spending
approximately $35,000 after Aetna refused to cover the surgery,
causing her to experience a long, painful delay in obtaining this
medically necessary care.
-- S.N., a 48-year-old from Pennsylvania, paid nearly $50,000 out
of pocket for gender affirming facial and voice surgeries. Her
appeals to Aetna were denied, forcing her to bear the financial
burden for gender-affirming healthcare that her medical providers
had deemed medically necessary.
Gender-affirming facial surgeries are essential components of the
medical treatment for gender dysphoria, a serious medical condition
that arises from the incongruence between a person's gender
identity and their physical sex characteristics. Despite covering
similar reconstructive surgeries for cisgender patients, Aetna
categorically excludes these procedures for transgender people,
classifying them as cosmetic, thus violating the Affordable Care
Act.
"All of our clients, and thousands of others like them, were denied
insurance coverage by Aetna for gender-affirming facial surgeries
that their treating providers determined were medically necessary
to treat their gender dysphoria and improve their overall
well-being," said Joseph Wardenski, Principal of Wardenski P.C.
"Aetna has ignored the medical consensus and wrongly treated this
critical health care as ‘'cosmetic.' Aetna's refusal to recognize
the medical necessity of this critical health care is causing
unnecessary harm to many transgender women on Aetna health plans."
In 2021, Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund (TLDEF), now
known as A4TE, and Cohen Milstein worked on behalf of four women
denied coverage by Aetna for medically necessary breast
augmentation. The insurance company eventually updated their policy
and expanded their coverage to include the procedure.
"We are disappointed that Aetna retains this outdated exclusion and
are filing this lawsuit as a crucial step towards ensuring that the
tens of thousands of transgender people who rely on Aetna receive
the care they need without facing additional barriers solely
because they are trans," said Harini Srinivasan, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC Associate. "This lawsuit is a crucial step
toward ensuring that the tens of thousands of transgender people
who are customers of Aetna receive the care they need without
facing additional barriers based solely on their gender identity."
A4TE filed the complaint today against Aetna for violating Section
1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits discrimination
based on sex in federally funded healthcare programs. The lawsuit
seeks a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief to end Aetna's
exclusionary policy, and compensatory damages for all policyholders
who have had to pay out of pocket for gender-affirming facial
surgery because of Aetna's discriminatory exclusion.
To learn more about the lawsuit or to sign up to potentially
participate in the class action lawsuit, click through to Gordon,
et al. v. Aetna Life Insurance (D.Conn.)
Plaintiffs in Gordon, et al. v. Aetna are represented by Gabriel
Arkles, Ezra Cukor, Sydney Duncan, and Fiadh McKenna of Advocates
for Trans Equality; Joseph Wardenski and Alexandra Vance of
Wardenski PC; and Christine E. Webber, Harini Srinivasan, and Aniko
R. Schwarcz of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.
Advocates for Trans Equality (A4TE) is an organization that fights
for the legal and political rights of transgender people in the
United States. Introduced in July 2024 after the Transgender Legal
Defense & Education Fund and National Center for Trans Equality
merged, A4TE is the largest trans-led advocacy organization in the
U.S. and brings together experts, advocates, and communities to
shift government and society toward an equitable future where trans
people live joyful lives without barriers.
Wardenski P.C. is a civil rights law firm based in New York. The
firm represents plaintiffs in civil rights lawsuits around the
country challenging discrimination in education, housing, and
health care, with a particular focus on the rights of the LGBTQ+
community.
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs' law
firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the
causes of real people -- workers, consumers, small business owners,
investors, and whistleblowers -- working to deliver corporate
reforms and fair markets for the common good. We have litigated
landmark civil rights and employment disputes before the highest
courts in the nation and continue to actively shape civil rights
and employment law in the United States. For more information,
please visit https://www.cohenmilstein.com. [GN]
ALLINA HEALTH SYSTEMS: Gonzales Files Suit in D. Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allina Health
Systems. The case is styled as Linda Gonzales, Michelle Streich,
individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Allina
Health Systems, Case No. 0:24-cv-03651 (D. Minn., Sept. 13, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Wire or Oral
Communications.
Allina Health -- https://www.allinahealth.org/ -- is a nonprofit
health care system based in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christiaan Van Lierop, Esq.
JOHNSON//BECKER PLLC
444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
St. Paul, MN 55101
Phone: (952) 486-0353
Email: cvanlierop@johnsonbecker.com
ALLSTATE FIRE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Dorazio Suit Due Nov. 15
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brian Dorazio, v. Allstate
Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-00017-KML (D.
Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Krissa Lanham entered an order denying the
parties' motion for Rule 16 hearing.
The parties shall comply with the deadlines set forth below:
Deadline Current New
Motion for class certification 09/16/2024 11/15/2024
Response to class certification 10/16/2024 12/31/2024
Reply to class certification 11/16/2024 1/31/2025
Class fact discovery 11/16/2024 1/31/2025
All discovery to be completed 03/17/2025 4/17/2025
Good faith settlement 12/16/2024 2/28/2025
discussions to be held
All dispositive motions, 03/24/2025 5/1/2025
including Daubert motions,
to be filed
Allstate Fire operates as an insurance firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7mWr96 at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALLY FINANCIAL: Faces Data Breach Class Suit Over Cyberattack
-------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Jensen of National Mortgage Professional reports that the
class members claim Ally Financial was negligent in safeguarding
consumers' personal information.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
-- Ally Financial faces a proposed class action lawsuit, filed
September 7, stemming from a cyberattack and data breach.
-- Class members allege that Ally Financial was negligent and
failed to implement "reasonable industry standard security
practices."
-- In 2023, there were 3,205 data compromises -- up 78%.
-- Victims of the cyberattack assert claims of negligence, breach
of implied contract, and unjust enrichment.
Cyberattacks on mortgage lenders continue, and without taking
extensive measures to safeguard borrowers' information, expect
lawsuits follow. Stemming from a cyberattack and data breach that
occurred at the end of August, Ally Financial Inc. and its
subsidiary, Ally Bank, face a proposed class action lawsuit, filed
September 7 in North Carolina federal court.
The plaintiff, Robert Hamilton, and class members allege that Ally
Financial was negligent and failed to implement "reasonable
industry standard security practices." The plaintiff received a
Notice of Data Breach letter dated Aug. 30, 2024, that occurred on
an unspecified date. An unauthorized actor was able to access the
Plaintiff's private information through a vendor's system,
including the plaintiff's name, social security number, date of
birth, address, driver's license number, email address, and phone
number.
However, plaintiffs state in the lawsuit that Ally Financial and
Ally Bank became aware of the cyberattack and data breach on Aug.
1, 2024, prompting the lawsuit alleging negligence, breach of
implied contract, and unjust enrichment.
An attorney representing the defendants did not provide an
immediate response to a request for comment.
The complaint also suggests that clients' stolen personal
information could be sold on the dark web, stating, "numerous
sources cite dark web pricing for stolen identity credentials." The
complaint lists dark-web prices on credit card details and bank
logins as averaging from $40 to $200.
Martin Walter, senior director at cybersecurity firm RedSeal, says
that the stolen information and customer data from Ally Bank is
actually much more valuable. "[C]ompared to credit card
information, personally identifiable information and Social
Security Numbers are worth more than 10x on the black market," he
explained.
The class members allege that the data breach was foreseeable,
given the recent high profile data breaches at other leading
financial firms, including Mr. Cooper, Fidelity National Financial,
First American Financial Corporation, and loanDepot. Such cases
have raised both the public's and businesses' awareness of the
heightened risk that financial services companies face.
"Given the nature of Defendant's Data Breach, as well as the long
delay in notification to Class Members, it is foreseeable that the
compromised PII has been or will be used by hackers and
cybercriminals in a variety of devastating ways. Indeed, the
cybercriminals who possess Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII may
easily obtain Plaintiffs' and Class Members' tax returns or open
fraudulent credit card accounts in Class Members' names," the
lawsuit reads.
The plaintiff and class members are seeking equitable relief
pertaining to the "misuse and/or disclosure of private
information," and from "refusing to issue prompt, complete, any
accurate disclosures." The plaintiff, individually and on behalf of
all class members, demands a trial by jury on all issues so
triable.
According to the 2023 Annual Data Breach Report, there were 3,205
data compromises in 2023, up 78% from 2022 (1,801 data
compromises). The Identity Theft Resource Center set a new record
for the number of data compromises tracked in a year, up 72% from
the previous all-time high in 2021 (1,860). [GN]
ANCIENT ORGANICS: Effinger Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY EFFINGER,
individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. ANCIENT
ORGANICS, Case No. 3:22-cv-03596-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
will move the Court to certify a nationwide class and a California
subclass:
Nationwide:
"All persons in the United States who purchased the Products in
the United States from June 17, 2018 until the date of
certification"; and
California:
"All persons in California who purchased the Products in
California from June 17, 2018 until the date of
certification."
Excluded from the Class are: governmental entities; the
Defendant;
the Defendant's officers, agents, legal representatives,
employees, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns; and any judge
presiding over this matter and members of their immediate
families
and judicial staff.
The Class will pursue claims under California's Unfair Competition
Law; False Advertising Law; and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
The Plaintiff further requests that the Court appoint (1) Plaintiff
Kelly Effinger as the class representative on all claims, and (2)
Pope McGlamry PC, Good Gustafson Aumais LLP, and The Keeton Firm
LLC as co-lead counsel for the class.
Ancient use of health-focused and nutrition-focused claims on the
Product's label is deceptive and misleading, the suit alleges.
Ancient Organics manufactures, markets, and sells ghee.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 11, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cWj1aq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. McGlamry, Esq.
Caroline G. McGlamry, Esq.
POPE MCGLAMRY PC
3391 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone: (404) 523-7706
E-mail: efile@pmkm.com
- and -
J. Ryan Gustafson, Esq.
GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP
2330 Westwood Blvd., No. 103
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Telephone: (310) 274-4663
E-mail: jrg@ggallp.com
- and -
Steffan T. Keeton, Esq.
THE KEETON FIRM LLC
100 S Commons, Ste 102
Pittsburgh PA 15212
Telephone: (888) 412-5291
E-mail: stkeeton@keetonfirm.com
APPLE INC: Costa Seeks to Certify California, New York Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Francis Costa, Amanda
Hoffman, and Olivia McIlravy-Ackert, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, v. Apple, Inc., Case No.
3:23-cv-01353-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court
on Nov. 6, 2024, for an order:
(1) granting their motion and certifying the Rule 23 California
and
New York classes;
(2) approving the form of class notice to be distributed; and
(3) directing that Defendant Apple, Inc. within 14 days, produce
to
Plaintiffs' Counsel and the administrator two separate lists
(one for the California class and one for the New York
class)
with class members' name, unique employee identifier used
during their employment, address, phone number, and last
known
email address.
On March 23, 2023, Francis Costa filed a putative Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) collective action because Apple did not
include the value of vested restricted stock unit remuneration in
the regular rate used to calculate overtime pay.
On Nov. 21, 2023, the Court authorized notice to the FLSA
collective.
The Plaintiffs seek certification of the California class as
follows:
"All current and former California employees who Apple, Inc.
classified as non-exempt/overtime eligible who received
restricted
stock units that vested on or after June 14, 2019, and recorded
more than forty hours of work in a workweek or more than eight
hours of work in a workday after receiving an RSU but before the
RSU vested. This excludes those who signed an arbitration
agreement."
The Plaintiffs seek certification of the New York class as
follows:
"All current and former New York employees who Apple, Inc.
classified as non-exempt/overtime eligible who received
restricted
stock units that vested on or after Aug. 11, 2017, and recorded
more than forty hours of work in a workweek after receiving an
RSU
but before the RSU vested. This excludes those who signed an
arbitration agreement."
Apple designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal
computers, tablets, wearables and accessories.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 11, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ib4eeh at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
235 Montgomery St., Suite 810
San Francisco, CA 94104
E-mail: dbrome@nka.com
fisher@nka.com
- and -
Loren B. Donnell, Esq.
Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Rd. Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
E-mail: ldonnell@shavitzlaw.com
mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com
ASCENSION MICHIGAN: Moskwa Appeals Denied Bid to Intervene
----------------------------------------------------------
LAURA MOSKWA, et al., interested parties, are taking an appeal from
a court order in the lawsuit entitled Karen Albright, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. Ascension Michigan, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00638,
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
filed a four-count complaint against the Defendants for alleged
violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. The Plaintiffs later
filed a First and Second Amended Complaint. In each complaint, the
Plaintiffs alleged that Ascension and its various related entities
unlawfully denied their religious accommodation requests and
retaliated against employees who sought religious exemptions from
Ascension's COVID-19 Vaccination Policy. The Plaintiffs claimed
that they were suspended or forced to resign.
On Sept. 21, 2023, Plaintiff Karen Albright filed a motion for
settlement, which the Court granted through an Order entered by
Judge Jane M. Beckering on Oct. 6, 2023.
On Nov. 2, 2023, the Court entered a final order and judgment. The
Court concluded that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate, and that all requirements for approval of the settlement
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 have been met.
On June 25, 2024, Laura Moskwa and Kristin Evans, interested
parties, filed an expedited joint motion to intervene. On July 12,
2024, they filed a motion for leave to file reply in support of
their motion to intervene. On July 23, 2024, they filed a motion to
stay proceedings regarding their renewed motion for final approval
of class settlement agreement and to be heard in opposition to
proposed class action settlement.
On Aug. 1, 2024, Judge Jane M. Beckering denied the interested
parties' motion to intervene and motion for leave, and dismissed as
moot their motion to stay.
The appellate case is captioned Karen Albright, et al. v. Ascension
Michigan, et al., Case No. 24-1750, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on September 6, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees KAREN ALBRIGHT, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Brendan John Childress, Esq.
HURWITZ LAW
340 Beakes Street, Suite 125
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Telephone: (248) 933-5121
Interested Parties-Appellants LAURA MOSKWA, et al. are represented
by:
William Bock, III, Esq.
KROGER, GARDIS & REGAS
111 Monument Circle, Suite 900
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 692-9000
Defendants-Appellees ASCENSION MICHIGAN, et al. are represented
by:
Elyse K. Culberson, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS
2000 Town Center, Suite 1650
Southfield, MI 48075
Telephone: (248) 936-1900
- and -
Zachary J. LeCompte, Esq.
TAFT, STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER
425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 381-2838
ASR GROUP: Mathisen Sues Over Price Fixing of Granulated Sugar
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW MATHISEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASR GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC., AMERICAN
SUGAR REFINING, INC., DOMINO FOODS, INC., MICHIGAN SUGAR COMPANY,
UNITED SUGAR PRODUCERS & REFINERS COOPERATIVE F/K/A UNITED SUGARS
CORPORATION, COMMODITY INFORMATION, INC., and RICHARD WISTISEN,
Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-03636 (D. Minn., September 12, 2024)
is a class action against the Defendants for price fixing, unjust
enrichment, and violations of antitrust laws and consumer
protection laws of various states in the United States.
The case arises from the Defendants' unlawful agreement to
artificially raise, fix, maintain, or stabilize prices of
granulated sugar throughout the Class Period. The Defendants have
implemented their agreement by sharing accurate, competitively
sensitive, non-public information with one another, including
through Commodity. Commodity provided this reciprocal information
to the Defendants rapidly, often within hours of having received
it. The Defendants then used the information they received from
Commodity when deciding how much to charge for their products, says
the suit.
ASR Group International, Inc. is a global producer and seller of
granulated sugar based in West Palm Beach, Florida.
American Sugar Refining, Inc. is a sugar producer based in West
Palm Beach, Florida.
Domino Foods, Inc. is a marketing and sales subsidiary of ASR Group
in Florida.
United Sugar Producers & Refiners Cooperative, formerly known as
United Sugars Corporation, is a marketing cooperative based in
Edina, Minnesota.
Michigan Sugar Company is a cooperative of sugar beet owners,
headquartered in Bay City, Michigan.
Commodity Information, Inc. is corporation based in Orem, Utah.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stacey P. Slaughter, Esq.
Caitlin E. Keiper, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 349-8500
Facsimile: (612) 339-4181
Email: sslaughter@robinskaplan.com
ckeiper@robinskaplan.com
ATOMIC WALLET: Court Dismisses Class Suit Over $100M Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leon Okwatch, writing for CoinSpeaker, reports that while the
class-action lawsuit has been dismissed, Atomic Wallet still faces
ongoing challenges as users work to reclaim their lost funds and
explore additional legal options.
Key Notes
-- A federal judge has dismissed the class-action lawsuit against
Atomic Wallet due to lack of jurisdiction.
-- The court deemed the plaintiffs' arguments about targeting
Colorado residents insufficient.
-- Plaintiffs have 21 days to strengthen claims against Ilia
Brusov, a key defendant.
A federal judge in the United States has dismissed a class-action
lawsuit against Atomic Wallet, an Estonian-based crypto firm,
citing insufficient grounds for jurisdiction.
The lawsuit was brought forward by a group of users following a
$100 million hack that targeted the self-custody wallet provider in
June 2023.
Insufficient Ties to Colorado
On September 10, Judge Philip Brimmer of the Colorado District
Court determined that the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong
enough link between Atomic Wallet and the state of Colorado to
warrant the court's jurisdiction over the case. The lawsuit was
filed against Atomic Wallet, its CEO Konstantin Gladyshev,
shareholder Pavel Sokolov, and Evercode Infinite, the company
responsible for developing the wallet software.
The plaintiffs contended that the availability of Atomic Wallet's
app for download in Colorado, along with its advertisements on
platforms such as X (formerly Twitter), should have been sufficient
to establish jurisdiction. Graham Dickinson, a Colorado resident
and one of the plaintiffs, argued that his regular interactions
with Atomic Wallet's customer support from his home in the state
further demonstrated the company's connection to Colorado.
However, Judge Brimmer rejected these arguments, stating that the
digital nature of Atomic Wallet's products did not imply that the
company was specifically targeting residents of Colorado. He noted
that because the products in question were software applications,
it was even less likely that Atomic Wallet had intentionally
focused on the Colorado market.
Atomic Wallet's Defense
In November, Atomic Wallet filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit,
asserting that it lacked substantial connections to the United
States. The company highlighted that only one of the 21 plaintiffs
resided in Colorado, where the lawsuit was initiated. They also
argued that merely making the app available for download in
Colorado or displaying ads on social media did not provide adequate
grounds for establishing jurisdiction.
Judge Brimmer agreed with Atomic Wallet's defense, noting that the
contact between the company and Colorado was too minimal to warrant
the court's involvement. The judge emphasized that unlike physical
products that need to be shipped to customers in a specific state,
digital products like Atomic Wallet's software can reach users
globally without the company knowing their exact locations.
Next Steps for the Plaintiffs
Despite the dismissal of most claims, the judge granted the
plaintiffs an extra 21 days to strengthen their case against Ilia
Brusov, a shareholder and founder of Evercode Infinite. Brusov,
like Sokolov, owns a 12.8% share in Atomic Wallet, while CEO
Konstantin Gladyshev holds the remaining 74.4%.
This decision represents a major legal victory for Atomic Wallet as
it navigates the aftermath of the security breach that affected
approximately 5,500 wallets. While the class-action lawsuit has
been dismissed, Atomic Wallet still faces ongoing challenges as
users work to reclaim their lost funds and explore additional legal
options. [GN]
AVFUEL CORP: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Hupper Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
DENNY F. HUPPERT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AVFUEL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
5:24-cv-12323-LVP-KGA (E.D. Mich., Sept. 5, 2024) arises out of the
data breach wherein an unauthorized actor accessed Avfuel's
computer systems and that Avfuel discovered on or about January 24,
2024.
The Defendant received Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally
identifiable information as a condition of their employment with
Defendant. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit
from the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed
legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and
safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint against Defendant for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard the PII that it collected
and maintained as part of its employment relationship with
Plaintiff and Class Members. Upon information and belief, such
sensitive information includes, but is not limited to, Plaintiff's
and Class Members' names and Social Security numbers. The data
breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement
adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols
necessary to protect individuals' PII. As a result of Defendant's
unreasonable and inadequate data security practices, Plaintiff and
Class Members have suffered numerous actual and concrete injuries
and damages, says the suit.
Avfuel Corp. is a global supplier of aviation fuel with thousands
of locations around the United States and the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Steven Sukert, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 332-4200
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
sukert@kolawyers.com
AW DISTRIBUTING: Causes Inhalant Addiction/Death, Kendrick Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KENDRICK, individually and as Administrator of the Estate
of Jonathan M. Kendrick, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AW DISTRIBUTING, INC., AW PRODUCT SALES &
MARKETING, INC., NORAZZA, INC., TECHNICAL CHEMICAL CO., MICRO
ELECTRONICS, INC., MICRO CENTER SALES CORPORATION, INTERNATIONAL
PRODUCT SOURCING GROUP, INC., THE ODP CORPORATION, ODP BUSINESS
SOLUTIONS, LLC, OFFICE DEPOT, LLC, WALMART, INC., WAL-MART STORES
EAST, L.P., and WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.L.C., Defendants, Case No.
4:24-cv-00596-HFS (W.D. Mo., September 12, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for strict products liability, negligence,
wrongful death, survivorship, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, breach of express warranty, and punitive
and/aggravating circumstances.
The case arises from the Defendants' design, manufacturing,
testing, labeling, marketing, and distribution of computer dusters
without feature warnings about inhalant addiction or guidance to
prevent inhalant abuse. According to the complaint, the Defendants
have worked to ensure that dusters continue to be sold without
regard to a purchaser's age and without restriction on the number
of cans purchased. As a result of the Defendants'
misrepresentations and omissions, consumers of dusters may face
deadly addiction, injuries, and subsequent death, says the suit.
AW Distributing, Inc. is a distributor based in California.
AW Product Sales & Marketing, Inc. is a distributor based in
California.
Norazza, Inc. is a manufacturer of consumer brands based in New
York.
Technical Chemical Co. is a chemical company based in Texas.
Micro Electronics, Inc. is an electronics company based in Ohio.
Micro Center Sales Corporation is an electronics products retailer
in Ohio.
International Product Sourcing Group, Inc. is a computer company in
Ohio.
The ODP Corporation is a furniture stores company in Florida.
ODP Business Solutions, LLC is a provider of products and solutions
in Florida.
Office Depot, LLC is an American office supply retailer
headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida.
Walmart, Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation based
in Arkansas.
Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. is a retail stores operator in
Arkansas.
Wal-Mart Stores East, L.L.C. is a retail stores operator in
Arkansas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ruth Anne French-Hodson, Esq.
Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
Sarah T. Bradshaw, Esq.
SHARP LAW, LLP
4820 W. 75th St.
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Telephone: (913) 901-0505
Facsimile: (913) 261-7564
Email: rsharp@midwest-law.com
rafrenchhodson@midwest-law.com
sbradshaw@midwest-law.com
AXIP ENERGY: Fails to Secure Sensitive Info, Garner Says
--------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT S. GARNER a/k/a SCOTT GARNER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AXIP ENERGY SERVICES,
LP, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-03300 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 5, 2024) is
a data breach class action against Defendant for its failure to
adequately secure and safeguard confidential and sensitive
information held throughout the typical course of business of
Plaintiff and the Class.
Sometime between March 1, 2024, and May 6, 2024, an unauthorized
actor gained access to the Defendant's network and computer systems
and obtained unauthorized access to Defendant's files. The
information exposed or otherwise accessed by an authorized
third-party in the data breach included Plaintiff's and the Class'
full names, date of birth, Social Security number, passport number,
driver's license number, and health insurance information. As a
result of Defendant's delayed response to the data breach,
Plaintiff and the Class had no idea their personal identifiable
information had been compromised, and that they were, and continue
to be, at significant and imminent risk of identity theft, fraud,
and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm,
says the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose PII
was compromised in the data breach as a direct consequence for
Defendant's failure to: (i) adequately protect consumers' PII
entrusted to it; (ii) warn its current and former customers,
potential customers, and current and former employees of their
inadequate information security practices; and (iii) effectively
monitor their websites and platforms for security vulnerabilities
and incidents.
Axip Energy Services, LP provides natural gas compression
equipment, rental, and field services to optimize hydrocarbon
production, processing, and transportation for the oil and gas
industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
- and -
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-7300
Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com
AYVAZ PIZZA: Class Cert. Discovery in Savannah Extended by 50 Days
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALESHA SAVANNAH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AYVAZ PIZZA, LLC; and DOES 1 to 25, Case No. 1:23-cv-00933-VMC
(N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Victoria Calvert entered an order that
the deadlines for class certification discovery, and the subsequent
briefing schedule are extended by 50 days, or by 50 days from the
Court's Order on Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the
complaint.
Ayvaz is the second largest Pizza Hut franchisee in the US.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RhzLTa at no extra
charge.[CC]
AZCO INC: Fails to Pay Electricians' Overtime, Varble Says
----------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY VARBLE and NICOLE CORZINE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AZCO, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01130-WCG (E.D. Wis., Sept. 5, 2024) arises from
the Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Wisconsin Wage Payment and Collection
Act, and the Wis. Adm. Code.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the putative class
members were, and continue to be, paid overtime wages when they
worked or work hours in excess of 40 in a workweek, however,
Defendant failed to properly calculate their regular rate of pay
when determining overtime wages. Specifically, Defendant failed to
include bonus payments in its computation of the regular rate for
overtime pay to Plaintiffs and the putative class members. As a
result, Plaintiffs and the putative class members were and are
regularly denied earned overtime wages, says the suit.
Plaintiff Varble began working for Defendant AZCO on a project for
the Tennessee Valley Authority in New Johnsonville as an
electrician in November of 2022, and continues work for AZCO on
that project through the present.
Plaintiff Corzine began working for Defendant AZCO on the TVA
project as a laborer in January of 2024 through February of 2024,
and then worked as an apprentice electrician for AZCO on that
project from April 2024 through June 2024.
AZCO, Inc. provides heavy industrial construction and fabrication
solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Martin D. Holmes, Esq.
Autumn L. Gentry, Esq.
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
Fifth Third Center
424 Church Street, Suite 800
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-6538
E-mail: mdholmes@dickinsonwright.com
agentry@dickinsonwright.com
BEYOND BETTER: Hunter Sues Over Enlightened Products' Deceptive Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Hunter, individually, and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. BEYOND BETTER FOODS, LLC, Case No. 2:24-at-01168 (E.D.
Cal., Sept. 12, 2024) alleges that the Defendant engages in
unlawful and deceptive marketing and sales practices by labeling
its "Enlightened" branded Products with nutrient content claims on
the Product packaging while omitting mandatory disclosure
statements that alert consumers to the high, dangerous levels of
saturated fat contained within the Products.
The Defendant prominently labels its Products with nutrient content
claims, such as "No Added Sugar," "0g added sugar," "No Sugar
Added," "X% less sugar," "X Calories," and "Xg net carbs" on the
Products.
However, the Defendant's use of nutrient content claims is
unlawful, misleading, and deceptive because Defendant's Products
contain high amounts of unsafe fats which increase the risk of
severe health issues, including coronary heart disease – the
number one killer of Americans every year, the suit contends.
The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated and seeks to represent a Nationwide Class
and a California Class. The Plaintiff seeks damages, interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, restitution, other equitable
relief, and disgorgement of all benefits Defendant has enjoyed from
its unlawful and/or deceptive business practices.
In addition, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to stop the
Defendant's unlawful conduct in the labeling and marketing of the
Products and conduct a corrective advertising campaign.
The Plaintiff has purchased the Mint Chocolate Chunk Pint within
the past three years from retailers throughout Sacramento County
including Sprouts, Safeway, and Whole Foods.
Beyond Better is a developer, manufacturer and distributor of
Enlightened ice cream and chips, Cloud 10 snacks and super
treats.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. McGlamry, Esq.
Caroline G. McGlamry, Esq.
POPE MCGLAMRY, P.C.
3391 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone: (404) 523-7706
E-mail: efile@pmkm.com
BEYOND BETTER: Products Contain Saturated Fat, Hunter Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Hunter, individually, and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. BEYOND BETTER FOODS, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02486-SCR
(E.D. Cal., Sept. 12, 2024) alleges that the Defendant engages in
unlawful and deceptive marketing and sales practices by labeling
its "Enlightened" branded ice cream and chip products with nutrient
content claims on the Product packaging while omitting mandatory
disclosure statements that alert consumers to the high, dangerous
levels of saturated fat contained within the Products.
The Defendant prominently labels its Products with nutrient content
claims, such as "No Added Sugar," "0g added sugar," "No Sugar
Added," "X% less sugar," "X Calories," and "Xg net carbs" on the
Products. However, the Defendant's use of nutrient content claims
is unlawful, misleading, and deceptive because Defendant's Products
contain high amounts of unsafe fats which increase the risk of
severe health issues, including coronary heart disease -- the
number one killer of Americans every year, the suit contends.
The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated and seeks to represent a Nationwide Class
and a California Class. She seeks damages, interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, restitution, other equitable relief, and
disgorgement of all benefits Defendant has enjoyed from its
unlawful and/or deceptive business practices. She further seeks
injunctive relief to stop the Defendant's unlawful conduct in the
labeling and marketing of the Products and conduct a corrective
advertising campaign.
The Plaintiff has purchased the Mint Chocolate Chunk Pint within
the past three years from retailers throughout Sacramento County
including Sprouts, Safeway, and Whole Foods.
Beyond Better is a developer, manufacturer and distributor of
Enlightened ice cream and chips, Cloud 10 snacks and super
treats.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. McGlamry, Esq.
Caroline G. McGlamry, Esq.
POPE MCGLAMRY, P.C.
3391 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone: (404) 523-7706
E-mail: efile@pmkm.com
BIOTE CORP: Faces Class Action Over Hormone Pellets' Side Effects
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Dickerson, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that a
potential class action lawsuit claims hormone replacement pellets
caused a Charleston severe injury that led to multiple surgeries.
Timothy Koontz is the named plaintiff in the complaint filed August
30 in Kanawha Circuit Court against BioTE Corp., BioTE Holdings,
BioTE Medical and Dr. Gary S. Donovitz, who is the founder of
BioTE.
The potential class, according to the complaint, would be other men
and women who have undergone hormone replacement therapy with
BioTE.
According to the 111-page complaint, Koontz went to a BioTE
certified provider on December 13, 2023. He was 60 years old at the
time and was a past recipient of FDA-approved forms of testosterone
therapy. His most severe symptoms were physical exhaustion, sleep
problems, difficulty with memory, headaches and sexual health
complaints.
BioTE has 19 certified providers in West Virginia as of August.
Koontz had bloodwork done December 15, showing his testosterone
level at 188 ng/dl. During prior testosterone therapy, his highest
level was 600 ng/dl. The bloodwork also showed hemoglobin and
hematocrit were elevated., measuring 18.1 g/dL and 54.6 percent,
respectively.
"Tim's information and lab results were entered into BioTE's
Proprietary Dosing Algorithm," the complaint states. "Despite his
already existing erythrocytosis, Tim was deemed to be a candidate
for the Biote Method of HRT . . . . BioTE's Proprietary Dosing
Algorithm concluded that the proper dose of testosterone for Tim
was 1700 mg via nine implanted testosterone pellets. BioTE's P.D.A
also advised that Time should take five additional BioTE
nutraceuticals, including DIM."
Four days later, Koontz received his first and only pellet
implantation, having nine 200 mg testosterone pellets implanted
into his right hip.
"Following the implantation of the nine testosterone pellets, Tim
experienced almost non-stop headaches," the complaint states. "On
January 15, 2024, Tim returned to LabCorp to have blood drawn.
According to his LabCorp results, Tim's testosterone had risen from
188 to 1201 ng/dL. Tim's testosterone level had reached a
supraphysiologic level."
His hemoglobin and hematocrit levels also remained elevated, and
his red blood cell count, which had been in the normal range before
BioTE therapy, was also elevated.
Consistent with BioTE protocols, Koontz was advised to donate blood
to continue treatment. He tried to do so on February 20, but the
American Red Cross refused to accept his donation because of the
elevated hemoglobin level.
BioTE told him to go to Charleston Area Medical Center's Memorial
Hospital to have one unit of blood phlebotomized.
One week later, Koontz presented to the Emergency Room with severe,
acute abdominal pain, tachypnea, and tachycardia. He ultimately was
diagnosed with acute mesenteric vein thrombosis, small bowel
ischemia and sepsis.
"Tim had developed a blood clot in his superior mesenteric vein, a
large abdominal vein that serves to drain most of the organs in the
abdominal cavity," the complaint states. "Tim underwent multiple
surgeries during his hospitalization, including a small bowel
resection."
He was hospitalized until March 15, and CAMC staff told him to
discontinue testosterone.
"As a result of the testosterone pellets that Tim received through
the Biote Method, his testosterone level increased to a level more
than six times his pre-therapy level and approximately two to three
times the normal level for a sixty-year-old man," the complaint
states. "As a direct result of the BioTE Method of HRT, Tim
developed multiple health conditions that required hospitalization
and underwent extensive medical treatment.
"Tim has experienced severe and permanent injuries including, but
not limited to, additional and unnecessary medical treatment,
extreme pain and suffering, past and future medical expenses, past
and future lost wages, severe emotional distress, embarrassment,
humiliation, a loss of life's pleasures, the inability to function
as a whole person, and other incidental damages."
The complaint says BioTE has defrauded and injured Koontz and
others.
"As a fundamental matter, BioTE has developed and marketed a system
dubbed the BioTE Method of Hormone Replacement Therapy that is
facially dishonest," the complaint states. "Contrary to its claims,
BioTE does not seek to ‘replace' patients' hormones. BioTE
instead seeks to achieve supraphysiologic levels of testosterone
and estrogen in the patients enrolled in the BioTE Method.
"Similarly, BioTE labels entirely normal testosterone and estrogen
levels as deficient. BioTE engages in this conduct to expand its
Certified Provider network and expand the BioTE patient base.
"BioTE also dishonestly suggests to the public that BioTE itself
manufactures the hormone pellets used in the BioTE Method. Through
its dishonest and supraphysiologic practices, the self-described
‘world leader in hormone optimization' has knowingly preyed on a
vulnerable group of the population, including those that are
struggling with legitimate medical problems entirely unrelated to
hormones, those who have genuine hormonal imbalances and
deficiencies, and individuals dealing with the natural aging
process."
According to the complaint, from January 2013 through March 2018,
there were more than 200 cancer cases (breast, prostate and
endometrial), more than 100 cases involving blood flow or clotting
issues (heart attacks, strokes and deep vein thrombosis), more than
500 cases of cellulitis and 427 cases of "other" unspecified
adverse events reported to BioTE. Of the 3,584 adverse events, the
FDA says BioTE only investigated 62 of them.
The complaint says the defendants know and have known
supraphysiologic levels of hormones are dangerous and cause serious
injuries and unwanted side effects.
It accuses the defendants of fraud, negligence, misrepresentation,
violations of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act,
violation of Federal Trade Commission Act, violation of WV Patient
Brokering Act, failure to warn, strict products liability, unjust
enrichment, fraudulent concealment, breach of express warranty and
breach of implied warranty.
It says the defendants fraudulently represented what the BioTE
Method of HRT is designed to do, fraudulently misrepresented that
the BioTE Method is individually tailored to each patient,
fraudulently represented its role in the manufacturing process of
the pellets and fraudulently represented the safety and efficacy of
the BioTE Method of HRT.
The class seeks medical monitoring in addition to compensatory
damages, punitive damages, court costs, attorney fees, expenses and
other relief.
Koontz and the potential class are being represented by Brian J.
Headley and Paul A. Kettering of Headley Law Firm in Daniels
Island, S.C. The case has been assigned to Circuit Judge Jennifer
Bailey.
Headley Law Firm also has three other actions pending against BioTE
in Kanawha Circuit Court.
Kanawha Circuit Court case number 24-C-936 [GN]
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Noel Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL J. NOEL, individually and as a representative on behalf of
a class of similarly situated person v. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB
COMPANY (d/b/a BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB), BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY
PENSION COMMITTEE, BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPENSATION AND MANAGEMENT
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, STATE STREET GLOBAL ADVISORS TRUST COMPANY,
and JOHN DOES 1–10, Case No. 1:24-cv-06858 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 11,
2024) sues the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duty and other
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
Between August and October 2019, the Defendants completed the
transfer of over $2.6 billion of BMS's pension obligations to
either Athene Annuity and Life Co. or Athene Annuity & Life
Assurance Company of New York, a highly risky private
equity-controlled insurance company with a complex and opaque
structure. In connection with this transfer, BMS terminated the
Plan, thereby causing BMS retirees and their beneficiaries to lose
their status as "participants" in the Plan, and, thus, their
associated protections under ERISA, the suit says.
In transferring the Plaintiff's pension benefits to Athene, the
Defendants put BMS retirees' and their beneficiaries' future
retirement benefits at substantial risk of default without
appropriate compensation. Because the market devalues annuities
when accounting for such risk, it is also likely that BMS saved a
substantial amount of money by selecting a group annuity contract
(or group annuity contracts) ("GAC") from Athene instead of the
actual safest annuity available, the suit alleges.
To remedy these fiduciary breaches, the Plaintiff, individually and
as a representative of a class of similarly situated participants
and beneficiaries of the Plan, brings this action to obtain
appropriate relief for Defendants' ERISA violations, including
disgorgement of the sums involved in the improper transaction and
the posting of security to assure receipt by the Plaintiff and
class members of their full retirement benefits, plus prejudgment
interest.
Mr. Noel was a participant in the Plan. He began his employment
with DuPont in 1984. He worked in BMS's Cardiovascular Sales
Department, retiring from his position as Senior Territory Manager
in 2019. Mr. Noel currently receives his pension payments from
Athene.
BMS is a publicly traded pharmaceutical corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew D. Schlichter, Esq.
Kurt C. Struckhoff, Esq.
Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
Sean E. Soyars, Esq.
Patrick R. Kutz, Esq.
Terrence W. Scudieri, Jr., Esq.
SCHLICHTER BOGARD LLP
100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 621-6115
Facsimile: (314) 621-5934
E-mail: aschlichter@uselaws.com
kstruckhoff@uselaws.com
jschlichter@uselaws.com
ssoyars@uselaws.com
pkutz@uselaws.com
tscudieri@uselaws.com
CALIBRATED HEALTHCARE: Holden Sues Over Failure to Secure Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
TREVOR HOLDEN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CALIBRATED HEALTHCARE, LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-01946
(C.D. Cal., Sept. 12, 2024) seeks monetary damages and injunctive
and declaratory relief arising from Defendant's failure to
safeguard the Personally Identifiable Information and Protected
Health Information of its customers, which resulted in unauthorized
access to its information systems between February 25 and February
26, 2024.
To obtain healthcare services, Customers, including the Plaintiff
and Class members, were required to provide sensitive and
confidential Private Information, including their names, dates of
birth, health records, insurance information, and other sensitive
information, that would be held by Calibrated in its computer
systems.
The suit says that the stolen information includes name, date of
birth, medical information, health insurance information, and
health benefit plan number. The Plaintiff and Class members now
face a lifetime risk of identity theft due to the nature of the
information lost, which they cannot change, and which cannot be
made private again, the suit asserts.
The Defendant's harmful conduct has allegedly injured the Plaintiff
and Class members in multiple ways, including: (i) the lost or
diminished value of their Private Information; (ii) costs
associated with the prevention, detection, and recovery from
identity theft, tax fraud, and other unauthorized use of their
data; (iii) lost opportunity costs to mitigate the Data Breach's
consequences, including lost time; and (iv) emotional distress
associated with the loss of control over their highly sensitive
Private Information.
On behalf of himself and the Class, the Plaintiff brings causes of
action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se,
breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, invasion of
privacy, and unjust enrichment seeking an award of monetary
damages, resulting from the Defendant's failure to adequately
protect their highly sensitive Private Information.
Calibrated Healthcare is a healthcare management company that
provides administrative and clinical healthcare services to
entities across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
1925 Century Park E No. 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
CAMBER ENERGY: Faces Rowe Securities Suit Over Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------
Camber Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K/A for the fiscal
year ended: December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 24, 2024, that on February 9, 2024,
plaintiff Lawrence Rowe, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated former public minority shareholders of Viking,
filed against the Company and its CEO a putative class action
complaint (C.A. No.4:24-cv-00489) styled "Lawrence Rowe,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
James A. Doris and Camber Energy, Inc.," in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.
The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with
the merger between Viking Energy Group, Inc. and the company and
seek to recover damages for the alleged breaches.
Camber Energy, Inc. is an energy company based in Texas. On August
1, 2023, the company completed the merger with Viking pursuant to
the terms and conditions of the Agreement and Plan of Merger
between Camber and Viking dated February 15, 2021, which was
amended on April 18, 2023, with Viking surviving the Merger as a
wholly owned subsidiary of Camber.
CANNABIS PLACE: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Igartua Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN IGARTUA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. THE CANNABIS PLACE LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-06898
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 12, 2024) sues the Defendant for their failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's Website,
www.thecannabisplace.org, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The Plaintiff discovered the Defendant's Website around Aug. 5,
2024, as a result of a glowing recommendation by a close friend.
Therefore, on this same day, the Plaintiff accessed the Defendant's
Website for the first time with a sighted relative and was very
impressed with the companies thoroughness of each product sold
online.
However, despite the Websites apparent thoroughness and
transparency, the Plaintiff encountered significant accessibility
barriers that prevented him from fully utilizing its services, when
he attempted to access the site by himself to discover crucial
information regarding the presence of any contraindications. This
has not only limited his ability to make informed decisions but
also infringed on his rights as a consumer and individual with a
disability, the suit contends.
Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would
provide Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal
access to the Website, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has
engaged in acts of intentional discrimination. The Plaintiff seeks
a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's
corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the
Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Mr. Igartua is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content while
using his computer.
Cannabis Place is licensed cannabis dispensary & delivery in New
York & New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
CANNABIS REALM: Igartua Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Igartua, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CANNABIS REALM OF NEW YORK, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-06944
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 13, 2024), is brought against Defendant for their
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's
Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website,
www.cannabisrealmny.com and therefore its denial of the goods and
services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").
The Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and
visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation
of the ADA. Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content while
using the computer.
CANNABIS REALM OF NEW YORK, LLC is a New York Limited Liability
company that owns and maintains the Website,
www.cannabisrealmny.com.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (212) 227-5700
Fax: (212) 656-1889
Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
CAPPELLO'S LLC: Faces Hunter Suit Over Products' Deceptive Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Hunter, individually, and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Cappello's LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02487-AC (E.D. Cal.,
Sept. 12, 2024) alleges that the Defendant engages in unlawful and
deceptive marketing and sales practices by labeling its
"Cappello's" branded products with nutrient content claims on the
Product packaging while omitting mandatory disclosure statements
that alert consumers to the high, dangerous levels of saturated fat
contained within the Product.
The Defendant prominently labels its Products with the "Xg
PROTEIN," "Xg SUGAR," and "Xg NET CARBS" nutrient content claims.
However, the Defendant's use of nutrient content claims is
unlawful, misleading, and deceptive because the Defendant's
Products contain high amounts of unsafe fats which increase the
risk of severe health issues, including coronary heart disease –
the number one killer of Americans every year, the suit contends.
The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated and seeks to represent a Nationwide Class
and a California Class. She seeks damages, interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, restitution, other equitable relief, and
disgorgement of all benefits Defendant has enjoyed from its
unlawful and/or deceptive business practices. She also seeks
injunctive relief to stop the Defendant's unlawful conduct in the
labeling and marketing of the Products and conduct a corrective
advertising campaign.
Ms. Hunter has purchased the Products on multiple occasions within
the past three years from Whole Foods stores located in Sacramento
County, where she purchased the Margherita Pizza and Cheese Pizza
flavors.
Cappello's is a Colorado-based gourmet food company specializing in
high-end, gluten-free, grain-free products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. McGlamry, Esq.
Caroline G. McGlamry, Esq.
POPE MCGLAMRY, P.C.
3391 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone: (404) 523-7706
E-mail: efile@pmkm.com
CBIZ INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Marcum LLP
----------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating CBIZ, Inc. (NYSE: CBZ), relating to its proposed
merger with Marcum, LLP. Under the terms of the agreement, it is
anticipated that approximately half of the transaction
consideration will be paid in cash, and the remainder in shares of
CBIZ stock.
NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to
obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our
website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
CDK GLOBAL LLC: Coombs Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CDK Global LLC. The
case is styled as Victoria Coombs, Brian Jurgensmeyer, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CDK Global LLC,
Case No. 1:24-cv-08365 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 12, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
CDK Global Inc. -- https://www.cdkglobal.com/ -- is an American
multinational corporation based in Austin, Texas, providing data
and technology to the automotive, heavy truck, recreation, and
heavy equipment industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
CENTRAL TRANSPORT: Kietsathit Removed From State Court to E.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMOND KIETSATHIT and ANDREW
OCON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. CENTRAL TRANSPORT LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case
No. 24CV015239 (Filed July 30, 2024), was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California, on Sept. 12, 2024.
The Eastern California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:24-at-01172 to the proceeding.
The suit alleges California Labor Code violations and unfair
business practices stemming from the Defendants' failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide
meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure
to maintain accurate records of hours worked and meal periods,
failure to timely pay all wages to terminated employees, failure to
indemnify necessary business expenses, and failure to furnish
accurate wage statements.
The proposed Class consists of and is defined as:
"All persons who worked for any Defendant in California as
non-
exempt employees, any time during the period beginning four
years before the filing of the initial complaint in this action
and ending when notice to the Class is sent."
Central Transport is a regional & national LTL carrier serving the
United States, Canada and Mexico.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Christian J. Keeney, Esq.
Alis M. Moon, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 885-1360
Facsimile: (949) 885-1380
E-mail: Christian.Keeney@jacksonlewis.com
Alis.Moon@jacksonlewis.com
CENTRAL TRANSPORT: Kietsathit Removed from State Ct. to E.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMOND KIETSATHIT and ANDREW
OCON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. CENTRAL TRANSPORT LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case
No. 24CV015239 (Filed July 30, 2024) was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California, on Sept. 12, 2024.
The Eastern California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-02493-KJM-JDP to the proceeding.
The suit alleges California Labor Code violations and unfair
business practices stemming from the Defendants' failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide
meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure
to maintain accurate records of hours worked and meal periods,
failure to timely pay all wages to terminated employees, failure to
indemnify necessary business expenses, and failure to furnish
accurate wage statements.
The proposed Class consists of and is defined as:
"All persons who worked for any Defendant in California as
non-
exempt employees, any time during the period beginning four
years before the filing of the initial complaint in this action
and ending when notice to the Class is sent."
Central Transport is a regional & national LTL carrier serving the
United States, Canada and Mexico.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Christian J. Keeney, Esq.
Alis M. Moon, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 885-1360
Facsimile: (949) 885-1380
E-mail: Christian.Keeney@jacksonlewis.com
Alis.Moon@jacksonlewis.com
CHELSEA PANTRY: Fails to Pay Deliverers' OT Wages, Rodriguez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, and the Class v. CHELSEA PANTRY CORP., KATSU-HAMA USA,
LLC d/b/a KATSU-HAMA, and BYUNG SIK LIM a/k/a BRUCE LIM, Case No.
1:24-cv-06856 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 11, 2024) seeks to recover from
Defendants unpaid wages, including overtime, due to time shaving,
liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to Fair
Labor Standards Act and to recover from Defendants unpaid wages,
including overtime, due to time-shaving, statutory penalties,
liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to New
York Labor Law.
Throughout the Plaintiff's employment, the Defendants would require
the Plaintiff to clock out prior to his last delivery at least
twice a week. Each delivery would usually take around one hour to
complete. Therefore, the Plaintiff worked at least two completely
uncompensated, off-the-clock hours a week throughout the entirety
of his employment. Further, the Plaintiff, on an individual basis,
alleges that Defendants violated the New York City Earned Safe and
Sick Time Act, when they denied his request for sick leave, the
suit claims.
In January 2004, the Plaintiff was employed as a catering deliverer
at Defendants' Cafe Alice located at 5 East 47th Street, New York.
The Plaintiff's employment with Cafe Alice terminated in December
2023 when Cafe Alice permanently closed. In December 2023, after
Cafe Alice permanently closed, the Plaintiff was sent to work by
Individual Defendant LIM for two weeks at Chelsea Pantry Cafe
located at 405 W 23rd St New York.
Chelsea Pantry operates restaurants in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
CL CONCOURSE VILLAGE: Feltzin Sues Over Denied Access to Property
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Feltzin, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. CL CONCOURSE VILLAGE FL LLC, Case No.
9:24-cv-81110-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 12, 2024), is brought for
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result
of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff
by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the Commercial Property and businesses located
therein.
The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability and
requires landlords and tenants to be liable for compliance. The
subject Commercial Property is open to the public. The individual
Plaintiff visits the Commercial Property and businesses located
within the commercial property, to include a visit to the
Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial
Property in September 3, 2024, and encountered multiple violations
of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the
Commercial Property. He often visits the Commercial Property in
order to avail himself of the goods and services offered there, and
because it is approximately 36 miles from his residence and is near
other businesses and restaurants he frequents as a patron. He plans
to return to the Commercial Property within 2 months of the filing
of this Complaint, in order to avail himself of the goods and
services offered at the place of public accommodation and check if
it has been remediated of the ADA violations he encountered.
The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the business named
herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA
violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the
Commercial Property, and business named herein located within the
Commercial Property, and wishes to continue his patronage and use
of each of the premises, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate.
The Defendant owns, operates, and oversees the Commercial Property,
its general parking lot/or and parking spots specific to the
business therein, located in Palm Beach County, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beverly Virues, Esq.
Armando Mejias, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, Fl 33134
Phone: (305) 553-3464
Primary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com
Secondary Emails: amejias@lawgmp.com
jacosta@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL, 33155
Phone: (305) 350-3103
Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com
CLOOPEN GROUP: Court Dismisses St. John Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Cloopen Group Holding Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 29, 2024, that on January 23, 2024,
the Supreme Court of the State of New York issued an order granting
final approval of a settlement and dismissing all claims in "Sonny
St. John v. Cloopen Group Holding Limited et al.," Index No.
652617/2021 (N.Y. Sup.).
On April 19, 2021, the company and certain of its current and
former directors and officers, the underwriters in its initial
public offering (IPO) and its agent for service of process in the
United States were named as defendants in a securities class action
filed in said court.
The plaintiff alleged that its registration statement on Form F-1
in connection with the IPO contained material misstatements and
omissions in violation of the U.S. federal securities laws,
including those relating to its estimates on financial results of
the fourth quarter of 2020. On December 3, 2021, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint, and on August 10, 2022, the
Supreme Court of the State of New York denied that motion to
dismiss.
On June 5, 2023, the company, as well as all parties, executed a
binding term sheet for the settlement. On June 6, 2023, the parties
informed the courts that they had reached an agreement-in-principle
to settle the claims in the class action lawsuits, and, the same
day, the court discontinued and closed said action. On August 16,
2023, the company entered into a stipulation of settlement with all
parties to the suits reflecting the terms of the settlement. The
settlement required the company to pay a total of US$12.0 million
in cash to the plaintiff class. On October 5, 2023, the Supreme
Court of the State of New York preliminarily approved the
settlement.
Cloopen is a multi-capability cloud-based communications solution
provider in China offering a full suite of cloud-based
communications solutions, covering communications platform as a
service, cloud-based contact centers, or cloud-based CC, and
cloud-based unified communications and collaborations.
COINBASE GLOBAL: Castle Sues Over False and Misleading Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Castle, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC., BRIAN ARMSTRONG, and ALESIA J.
HAAS, Case No. 2:24-cv-04850 (E.D. Pa., Sept. 13, 2024), is brought
on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded Coinbase securities between April 14, 2021
and July 25, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period") and to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") as a result of materially false and/or misleading
statements.
The statements were materially false and/or misleading because they
misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts
pertaining to the Company's business, operations and prospects,
which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: In 2020, after investigation, the
United Kingdom's Financial Conduct Authority ("FCA") had deemed
efforts by the Company's British unit, CB Payments Limited
("CBPL"), to prevent criminals from using its platform, to be
inadequate; as a result, the FCA reached an agreement with CBPL,
which put requirements in place that were designed to prevent high
risk customers from using CBPL's platform; CBPL then breached that
agreement, which resulted in 13,416 high risk individuals receiving
services; the foregoing resulted in an undisclosed heightened
regulatory risk; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements about
its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
On this news, the price of Coinbase's common stock fell by $13.52
per share, or 5.52%, to close at $231.52 on July 25, 2024. As a
result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common
shares, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant
losses and damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Coinbase securities during the Class Period
and was economically damaged thereby.
Coinbase Group operates a prominent cryptoasset trading platform
that is accessible globally.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
Jenkintown, PA 19046
Phone: (215) 600-2817
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Email: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com
- and -
Phillip Kim, Esq.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 686-1060
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Email: philkim@rosenlegal.com
COMPEX LEGAL SERVICES: Markee Files Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Compex Legal Services
Inc.. The case is styled as Crystal Markee, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Compex Legal Services Inc.,
Case No. 2:24-cv-07793 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 12, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Compex -- https://www.compexlegal.com/ -- is the leading medical
record retrieval and document management service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
280 South Beverly Drive, Penthouse
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (858) 209-6941
Email: jnelson@milberg.com
COSMOPOLITAN CORP: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Mallory Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DOUGLAS MALLORY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GERALD STOGSDILL, DEBRA PENA, and
COSMOPOLITAN CORP. D/B/A COSMOPOLITAN LOUNGE, Defendants, Case No.
3:24-cv-02322-L (N.D. Tex., September 12, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages and
misappropriation of tips in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a bartender and/or
server at Cosmopolitan Lounge from approximately July 2023 until
April 2024.
Cosmopolitan Corp., doing business as Cosmopolitan Lounge, is a
restaurant owner and operator, with a principal place of business
in Dallas, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shawn A. Latchford, Esq.
Keith L. Langston, Esq.
John C. Hull, Esq.
BRUSTER PLLC
12222 Merit Drive, Suite 1030
Dallas, TX 75251
Telephone: (817) 601-9564
Facsimile: (903) 470-7350
Email: shawn@brusterpllc.com
klangston@brusterpllc.com
jhull@brusterpllc.com
CSX TRANSPORTATION: Class Settlement in Shongo Suit Gets Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHEYENNE SHONGO, et al.,
v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-02684-MJM (D. Md.),
the Hon. Judge Matthew Maddox entered an order granting final of
approval of class settlement.
-- The expenses of administering the Settlement Agreement shall be
paid to the Settlement Administrator in the amount of $38,113.
-- Incentive awards to the Settlement Class Representatives in the
following amount $5000 each to the filing Plaintiffs Cheyenne
Shongo and Kennett Walker are reasonable and are approved.
CSX is a supplier of rail-based freight transportation in North
America.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VXifr9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
DANIEL MARKUS: Plaintiff Must File Bid for Approval of Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUSTIG v. DANIEL MARKUS,
INC., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00379 (D.N.J., Filed Jan. 10, 2020),
the Hon. Magistrate Judge Stacey D. Adams entered an order that the
Plaintiff may file a motion for approval of the class settlement as
to Defendants Daniel Markus, Margarita Risis and Oleg Neizvestny
without awaiting a decision on the pending motion for final class
certification.
The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).[CC]
DORMIFY INC: Visually Impaired Can't Access Website, Ortiz Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH ORTIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DORMIFY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-00860 (W.D.N.Y., September 12, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and the New York State 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://dormify.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.
Dormify, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services,
doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
DRIVE PLANNING: Broker Faces Class Suit Over Investment Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kara Kenney, writing for WRTV, reports that an Indiana woman has
filed a class action lawsuit against an Indianapolis broker who
worked as a sales representative for Drive Planning, a financial
firm accused of running a Ponzi scheme.
Rachael Lynn Williamson of Indiana and Constance Novoa of New
Jersey filed the federal lawsuit on September 6 against Gerardo
"Gerry" Linarducci.
The class action complaint, filed by attorneys Jeff Sonn and Ross
Good, alleges Linarducci encouraged "countless" people to invest in
Drive Planning and caused them to lose "large sums of money."
Linarducci provided potential investors with Drive Planning
promotional materials that touted a "10 percent return" and
"$20,000 minimum" to invest, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit alleges Linarducci told investors he was the "managing
director" of Drive Planning and was "aware, or should have been
aware that their investors' money was unsecured and that the
investment vehicle was nothing more than a massive scheme to
defraud."
Linarducci violated the Indiana Securities Act by acting as an
unregistered agent, according to the complaint.
"Gerry Linarducci, nor any of the agents who worked under or with
him, were not registered to sell securities," read the lawsuit.
WRTV Investigates asked the Indiana Secretary of State's office if
they're looking into Linarducci and whether he is registered in
Indiana.
"Indiana Securities Division records to not show Gerardo Lorenzo
Linarducci to be currently registered in Indiana as an investment
advisor, loan broker, investment broker-dealer or agent," said
Lindsey Eaton, communications director at the Secretary of State,
in an email. "The Securities Division does not comment on
investigation and law enforcement activities."
WRTV Investigates broke the story last month about the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)'s action against the
Georgia-based financial company and its CEO for allegedly running a
$300 million Ponzi scheme.
The SEC's complaint alleges that, from 2020 through at least June
2024, Drive Planning and its CEO Russell Todd Burkhalter raised
more than $300 million for purported real estate investments,
telling investors their money would be used to fund land
development projects.
The FBI is also conducting its own criminal investigation into
Drive Planning LLC, which has offices in Florida, Georgia and
Fishers Indiana.
The class action lawsuit is the first action that details
Linarducci's alleged involvement and the Indiana ties to Drive
Planning LLC.
It seeks $5 million in damages.
On June 10, 2024 , Burkhalter pledged to cease paying commissions
to Drive Planning sales agents; but Burkhalter paid sales
commissions to agents including Linarducci on June 21, 2024,
according to the complaint.
The class action complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court
Southern District of Indiana, also names two of Linarducci's
Indiana firms -- Integrity Wealth Partners and Ducci Enterprise
LLC.
Linarducci used those companies to solicit Drive Planning
investments, according to the class action lawsuit.
At Linarducci's urging, Rachel Williamson of Indiana invested
$112,000 with Drive Planning in 2022.
In June 2024, she texted Linarducci to inquire as to why she had
not yet received her funds from Drive Planning.
Several of her texts went unanswered, according to the complaint.
On June 25, 2024, Linarducci said he had resigned his position with
Drive Planning and indicated that Drive Planning was under scrutiny
by the government.
WRTV Investigates emailed Linarducci and did not hear back.
WRTV called his phone number and someone answered "Gerry
speaking."
Once Kara Kenney identified herself, he hung up.
Property records show he has owned a million dollar home near Geist
Reservoir since July 2023.
You can contact WRTV Investigates Kara Kenney at
kara.kenney@wrtv.com [GN]
DRIVELINE RETAIL: Judge Suggests Arbitration on OT Wage Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Madison - St. Clair Record, reports
that a federal judge in Springfield has largely pulled the plug on
a class action lawsuit against a Taylorville retail merchandising
company, saying they can use arbitration agreements to defeat a
class action accusing them of shorting worker pay.
U.S. District Judge Colleen R. Lawless ruled that arbitration
clauses embedded within the regular employment contracts signed by
a group of potentially dozens of people who worked as display
merchandisers for Driveline Retail Merchandising Inc. should defeat
their ability to bring their lawsuit in court.
The lawsuit was filed nearly a year earlier in U.S. District Court
for the Central District of Illinois in Springfield. The lawsuit
was filed by attorney Josh Sanford, of the Sanford Law Firm PLLC,
of Little Rock, Arkansas.
It was filed on behalf of a long list of named plaintiffs,
including Kiersten Beck, Christine Lynn Barrett-Bukowski, Bridgette
Boyd, Tiffany Bragg, Tricia Brooks, Willie Jean Cashaw, Martha
Cleary, Amy Craig, Montana Criss, Kamela Crutchfield, Joshua
Cummings, Melissa Cummings, Michelle Dailey, Crystal Darby, Racheal
Dunn, Melissa Dutton, Seena Easter, Stephanie Edwards, Patti Evans,
Robin Flower, Martha Greenfeld, Anna Grubb Waack, Tara Hall, Jackie
Haywood, Saundra Hegler, Kelley Herchenhahn, Rachel Hicks, Marla
Hix, Alicia Howard, Jori Hutchinson, Lora Hyde, Kayla James, John
Jones, Melissa Joseph, Anita Jubic, Amy Kay Knope, Sara Kern, Jen
LaCroix, Tonya Lindsey, Cheyenne Lunceford, Christy Manning, Lara
Mast, Marissa Michaelsen, Timothy Michels, Anna Mitchell Yancy,
Susan Nottingham, Gwendolyn Nyamoti, Aiesha Offord, Lloyd Payton,
Malissa Pirtle, Donald Reifenstahl, Angie Revels, Sherry Roberts,
Jennifer Rodgers, Michael Savage, Mandy Scoglietti, Theresa Staten,
Nancy Stevens, Ella Strickland, Shyanna Swanson, Dana Taylor, Edna
Taylor, Linda Taylor, Kristina Thompson, Kalaya Tillman, Robin
Uhrig, Melleta Upson Plotts, Kilee Vaughn, Bina Vaught, Jennifer
Volkenant, Katherine Webb, Jermaine Webster, Kayla Nicole Williams,
Melissa Williams, Dana Work, and Tara Workman.
According to the complaint, the plaintiffs are residents of central
Illinois, as well as locations throughout the U.S., including in
the states of Kansas, Texas, West Virginia, Nebraska, Mississippi,
Oklahoma, Tennessee, California, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana,
Alabama, New York, South Dakota, Georgia, South Carolina, Iowa,
Maryland, Minnesota, Washington, Pennsylvania, Maine, Arkansas,
Ohio and Michigan.
According to the complaint, all of the named plaintiffs worked for
Driveline as merchandisers and were employed to travel to different
retail stores in their home geographic areas to arrange merchandise
for in-store displays on behalf of various Driveline clients.
According to the complaint, they all worked for Driveline since at
least 2013, though most worked for the company from 2019-2022.
The collective action sought to expand the action to include others
who worked as merchandisers for the company nationwide in the three
years preceding the filing of the lawsuit.
The lawsuit asserted Driveline's pay fell short of satisfying the
minimum wage and overtime pay requirements established by federal
and state wage and hour laws.
The lawsuit seeks a court order requiring the company to pay
unspecified unpaid regular and overtime wages, plus attorney fees
and other damages.
In response to the lawsuit, Driveline filed motions pointing to
clauses in the merchandisers' standard employment agreement
asserting that any disputes over wages must go to arbitration,
rather than to court as an individual lawsuit or class action.
Judge Lawless sided largely with Driveline, saying the company had
provided evidence that at least 128 potential plaintiffs had signed
such arbitration agreements.
The judge ordered those cases dismissed. But the judge said more
work is needed to determine if other workers had similarly signed
such agreements.
She ordered the defendants to provide Driveline with proof that the
plaintiffs actually worked for Driveline and documents disclosing
whether they signed the arbitration agreements.
The judge noted the defendants haven't provided such proof for at
least 19 plaintiffs, including paystubs showing an employee
identification number.
She gave them two weeks to provide such proof.
Driveline is represented by attorneys Kathryn D. Terry, of Phillips
Murrah P.C., of Oklahoma City; and Denise Baker-Seal, of Brown &
James P.C., of Belleville. [GN]
ECMD INC: Madison Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRANDON MADISON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ECMD, INC. and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 2024CUOE026931, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Ventura, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on September
12, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:24-cv-01945 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' violations of the California
Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law.
ECMD, Inc. is a manufacturer in North Wilkesboro, North Carolina.
[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Dessi N. Day, Esq.
PIERSON FERDINAND, LLP
12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (629) 278-4515
Email: dday@pierferd.com
EQT CORP: Faces Water Contamination Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Lane Moore, writing for 90.5 WESA, reports that Pittsburgh-based
oil and gas company EQT Corporation is facing accusations from
Greene County residents in a class-action lawsuit filed this
summer. The complaint, filed June 20, alleges the company's natural
gas drilling operations in New Freeport contaminated the
community's groundwater aquifers in June 2022.
Residents are being represented by Washington D.C.-based Russell
Law Firm and Waynesburg Pa.-based Hook & Hook. While their legal
teams have not responded to requests for comment, the lawsuit
details eight counts against EQT including negligence and breaches
in duty of care. The suit also seeks compensatory and punitive
damages as well as injunctive relief, including future medical
monitoring for affected residents.
Residents report their water wells in New Freeport became unusable
right around the same time that fluid started erupting from an
abandoned gas well along the town's Main Street, June 19, 2022. A
Department of Environmental Protection inspection report from June
23, 2022 indicates it was the result of a "communication incident"
between EQT's Lumber well pad and the abandoned Fox Hill well.
"EQT was notified by the landowner on 6/19/2022 of the
communication incident. EQT investigated and determined hydraulic
fracturing operations at the Lumber well site communicated to an
offset well," the DEP report reads, then continues: "EQT personnel
observed fluid and gas expressing from the offset well. EQT stopped
stimulation activities on the Lumber 13H and the fluid and gas
observations at the offset well subsided."
EQT maintains that there is insufficient evidence to support that
the company's Lumber Pad wells had any impact on the abandoned well
in New Freeport. In a statement to WESA, an EQT spokesperson wrote
"EQT is confident that our operations in Greene County have not
impacted area residents or their properties and will vigorously
defend against the claims in court."
"EQT sampled nearby water supplies, performed technical
investigations and implemented a robust monitoring plan," the
statement reads. "These efforts enabled EQT to determine that there
was no communication between the two wells as EQT safely resumed
its operations in the area."
The U.S. Census Bureau indicates 80 people live in New Freeport as
of 2022, but the suit's proposed class could have at least 100
members. Impacted residents are defined as anyone who lived or
owned property within a 10,500 foot radius of any portion of a well
bore that originates from EQT's Lumber well pad or Spleen Splitter
well pad between June 19, 2022 and the date of class
certification.
A geyser in New Freeport
"Communication" between wells is sometimes called a "frac-out" when
pressurized drilling fluid finds a seepage pathway, like an
abandoned well, and finds its way to the surface. The Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection has reported 410 cases of
water supplies impacted by oil and gas activities since 2007.
According to the state, there are over 350,000 abandoned and
unplugged gas wells in Pennsylvania. Since the incident in June,
2022, the abandoned well in New Freeport was adopted by EQT; the
company indicated plans to plug it.
Some residents there say they've found compounds associated with
fracking in their water, including ethane, butane, propane, and
surfactants. EQT has reportedly denied responsibility for the
town's water quality on the premise that New Freeport is outside
the company's zone of presumption -- a 2,500 foot range in which
they could be implicated in water issues.
In fall 2022, the DEP investigated resident complaints of
contaminated water, but the agency did not come to a conclusive
finding. The lawsuit quotes letters the DEP mailed to residents
that stated, "based on information obtained to date, the Department
has determined that further investigation is necessary to determine
whether the Water Supply has been affected as a result of oil and
gas activities."
The DEP reached a settlement with EQT in November 2023, allowing
the company to continue fracking so long as it monitors its
operations and provides a list of chemicals used in its fracking
fluid to the DEP. The settlement did not address New Freeport's
water quality or the financial hardship for those coping without
clean well water. EQT continues drilling operations there.
According to a statement to WESA from DEP spokesperson Lauren
Camarda, EQT must grant access to "unprecedented, real-time
microseismic data," which the DEP will use "to protect all wells
and water supplies in the area." EQT also had to submit a causation
report for the initial June 2022 communication incident, which the
DEP is currently reviewing.
Camarda wrote that EQT has observed all requirements following the
settlement. As for New Freeport's water, Camarda said the DEP so
far "has not found links to gas drilling" in 13 of the 24
complaints submitted to the agency.
As EQT keeps drilling, the DEP will "continue to monitor on-site
conditions, submitted data and reports, and respond to any
complaints made by the public," Camarda wrote. "DEP has
scrutinized, and continues to scrutinize, EQT's operations related
to the Lumber and Spleen Splitter well pads based on an apparent
communication incident in June 2022."
Water Drives
Lisa DePaoli, with the Center for Coalfield Justice, said her
organization wants to see legislation that would hold large
companies like EQT accountable.
EQT operates thousands of oil and gas wells in Pennsylvania.
Between EQT's Lumber and Spleen Splitter well pads, the company
operates 13 active wells near New Freeport. On July 22, EQT
announced the acquisition of Equitrans Midstream, creating,
"America's only large-scale, vertically integrated natural gas
business." EQT reported an annual revenue of approximately $7.5
billion in 2022.
"Places like [New Freeport] get left out and forgotten, especially
when they're poor and rural," DePaoli said. "We've been to D.C.
talking about it, we've asked the governor, we've done a lot of
things to try to get some attention on this issue, but it's not
solved yet."
DePaoli said some households were provided with a water buffalo
tank on their property in September of 2023 after her organization
supported residents in a "public pressure campaign."
In an email to WESA, DePaoli wrote that EQT informed residents in
July that they could continue receiving refills for those tanks for
another year only if they signed a non-disclosure agreement that
would release all claims against EQT. As an alternative to water
buffalo refills, the company also offered to install Culligan
filtration systems for residents who sign the agreement, she said.
"We also learned from the filtration system provider identified by
EQT that the systems cannot filter specific contaminants related to
fracking," DePaoli wrote. "We do not know of any residents who felt
safe enough to sign the NDA."
New Freeport is a very isolated community in Greene County; the
nearest grocery store is a 30-minute car ride. DePaoli said today
her organization is holding another water drive for residents
there. It's the latest of three water drives the Pennsylvania
nonprofit has held for the community. DePaoli reports her
organization has raised almost $1,000 since July 25.
"The big picture isn't changing -- that is that the water's
contaminated and has been for some time," DePaoli said. "No one's
holding the company accountable, and there's a lot that needs to
happen to right the situation and prevent something like this from
happening again."
The water drive is hosted through the Center's website and will run
indefinitely. [GN]
EQUIFAX INFO: Hines Bid to Certify Class Deferred in Part
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUANE A. HINES, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. EQUIFAX
INFORMATION SERVICES LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-06701-RPK-JAM
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Rachel Kovner entered an order adopting
Magistrate Judge Reyes's report and recommendation (R&R):
-- Plaintiff's motion to certify a class and appoint a class
representative is denied in part and deferred in part.
-- Within 30 days of this order, the Plaintiff shall propose an
end
date for his class.
-- Defendant may submit a response within 14 days of plaintiff's
submission.
Equifax offers no basis to set aside Judge Reyes's conclusion that
the Plaintiff has adequately established standing for purposes of
class certification.
Accordingly, Equifax's objections to Judge Reyes's conclusions
regarding predominance for the New York Subclass are overruled.
The Plaintiff brings a putative class action against the Defendant,
alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and
the New York Fair Credit Reporting Act ("NYFCRA").
The Plaintiff moved to certify a nationwide FCRA class and three
claim-based subclasses.
In a report and recommendation, then-Magistrate Judge Reyes
recommended certifying two of plaintiff's proposed subclasses and
appointing plaintiff as the class representative and his counsel as
class counsel.
The Defendant timely objected to Judge Reyes's recommendation that
two proposed subclasses be certified.
For the reasons set out below, Judge Reyes’s R. & R. is adopted,
with the exception that the subclasses must have a defined end
date
Equifax provides data solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=blp31n at no extra
charge.[CC]
FAVORITE WORLD: Minor Suit Seeks to Modify Scheduling Order
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVIDA MINOR and ASHA
AYANNA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. FAVORITE WORLD, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-04425-JFW-AJR
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an order
modifying the scheduling order extending the deadline of
Plaintiffs' anticipated motion for class certification by 60 days
to Nov. 24, 2024.
The Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint on April 19, 2024, in
the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. The Defendant
filed its notice of removal on May 28, 2024.
On Aug. 8, 2024, the parties met and conferred in-person regarding
Defendant's discovery responses at Defendant’s office location in
Beverly Hills, California.
On Sept. 4, 2024, the Parties held a videoconference to meet and
confer regarding the Defendant's supplemental responses to
Plaintiffs' RFPs, set two and the current scheduling order.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 11, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yHtqMz at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brandon Brouillette, Esq.
Craig W. Straub, Esq.
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (866) 276-763
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
E-mail: bbrouillette@crosnerlegal.com
craig@crosnerlegal.com
zach@crosnerlegal.com
FOCUS LLC: Court Stays Class Cert Deadline in Harris
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Harris v. Focus, LLC, et
al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01687 (D.D.C., Filed June 11, 2024), the Hon.
Judge Dabney L. Friedrich entered an order that the Plaintiff's
unopposed motion to stay deadline to move for class certification
is granted and the deadline is extended until the court rules on
the defendants' pending11 partial motion to dismiss.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Focus operates as an investment banking firm.[CC]
GETZ INDUSTRIAL: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Liggins
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Liggins, v. Getz
Industrial Cleaning Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01275-JBM-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.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s0Ux12 at no extra
charge.[CC]
GRAND AMERICA: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Jan. 20, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANN DESCANZO, VERONICA
BONDOC, GLEN SEGUNDINO, and MARIANNE PONIO, and those similarly
situated, v. GRAND AMERICA HOTELS & RESORTS, INC. and SINCLAIR
SERVICES COMPANY, Case No. 2:19-cv-00443-HCN-DBP (D. Utah), the
Hon. Judge Dustin Pead entered an order granting the parties'
stipulated motion to extend class certification as follows:
Event Deadline
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification Jan. 20, 2025
Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' motion Feb. 17, 2025
for class certification
Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for March 3, 2025
class certification
The Court further orders that, within 14 days of the Court issuing
a ruling on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the Parties
shall submit a proposed schedule for the remainder of the case.
Grand America is a chain of eight hotels and resorts in the Western
United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EeFHHf at no extra
charge.[CC]
HALLIBURTON CO: Jandres Balks at Unprotected Personal, Health Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL JANDRES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HALLIBURTON COMPANY and HALLIBURTON ENERGY
SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-03296 (S.D. Tex.,
Sept. 5, 2024) arises from Halliburton's failure to safeguard the
personally identifiable information and protected health
information of Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members, current
and former Halliburton employees.
According to the complaint, due to Halliburton's deficient data
security, the notorious criminal ransomware group known as
RansomHub accessed its information technology network and systems
and exfiltrated Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI and PII stored
therein, including, on information and belief, their names, dates
of birth, Social Security numbers, identification documents,
employment files, financial account information, health insurance
information, and other medical information, causing widespread
injury and damages to Plaintiff and Class Members.
To recover for these harms, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the
Class, brings claims for negligence/negligence per se, breach of
contract, invasion of privacy/intrusion upon seclusion, unjust
enrichment, and declaratory relief, to address Halliburton's
inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive
private information in Halliburton's custody, the suit contends.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former Halliburton
employees who, as a condition of receiving employment and
compensation from Halliburton, were required to and did entrust
Halliburton with their sensitive, non-public private information.
Halliburton is a multinational conglomerate and one of the world's
largest companies in the energy, engineering, and defense
industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC
12720 Hillcrest Road, Ste. 1045
Dallas, TX 75230
Telephone: (972) 387-4040
E-mail: bruce@stecklerlaw.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 332-4200
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
HERSHEY SALTY: Bogren Sues Over SkinnyPop Popcorn's False Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
CADE BOGREN, MICHELLE BOGREN, and JEREMIAH TILLS, individuals, on
behalf of themselves, and all persons similarly situated v. THE
HERSHEY SALTY SNACK SALES COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, THE
HERSHEY COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, SKINNYPOP POPCORN, LLC., a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 to 20 inclusive,
Case No. 3:24-cv-01635-BAS-JLB (S.D. Cal., Sept. 12, 2024) is a
class action brought on behalf of all consumers who purchased
SkinnyPop Popcorn products from a retailer within the state of
California for personal, family, or household purposes, and not for
resale purposes.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated California Law
and Federal Law by misleading consumers, through the advertisement,
label, volume and fill of SkinnyPop Popcorn bags. The Plaintiffs
believed they purchased SkinnyPop popcorn containing the amount,
volume and/or serving of popcorn stated on its labels, when in
fact, upon Plaintiffs' experience, SkinnyPop Popcorn bags contain
up to approximately 43% less than what is promise.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs Cade and Michelle Bogren allege that
the 4.4 oz bags of SkinnyPop Popcorn, including the Original,
Butter, and White Cheddar flavors, contain only 9.5, 12.5, and 11
cups of popcorn respectively. This is a significant difference than
the 16.5 cups advertised for the Original flavor, the 14.63 cups
advertised for the Butter flavor, and the 15.4 cups advertised for
the White Cheddar flavor by SkinnyPop.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants mislabel
the nutrition facts on SkinnyPop Popcorn nutrition labels. If the
total calorie count represented on SkinnyPop Popcorn bags is
correct, then there are significantly more calories per serving of
SkinnyPop popcorn than advertised. Thus the "Skinny Pop" name and
the amount of calories in each serving is false and misleading as
customers are consuming more calories per volume serving than they
expect based on the labels.
The Plaintiffs seek damages, restitution, and injunctive relief, as
well as reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs, as
provided under California law.
Plaintiffs Cade and Michelle Bogren are a married couple who
resided in, and continue to reside in, the County of San Diego.
They purchased multiple bags in various sizes and flavors of Skinny
Pop Popcorn, including multiple 4.4 oz bags for $3.99 and $4.99 of
SkinnyPop Popcorn that were purchased from Sprouts and Vons in San
Diego, California from January 2021 to July 2022 for household
consumption.
Hershey is in the business of manufacturing and selling snack
foods.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
R. Craig Clark, Esq.
Alicja A. Urtnowski, Esq.
CONSUMER AND EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
3258 Fourth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 239-1321
Facsimile: (888) 273-4554
E-mail: cclark@celg.org
aurtnowski@celg.org
IMA FINANCIAL: Zerbe Appeals Class Suit Dismissal to 10th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JASON ZERBE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Jason Zerbe, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. IMA
Financial Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-CV-02026-HLT-GEB,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiffs
Mark Masterson and Jason Zerbe separately filed actions against IMA
in 2023. The cases were consolidated, and Jessica Abel was added as
a plaintiff. The consolidated action focused on a data breach that
affected personal information stored by IMA. IMA moved to dismiss
that case. The Court granted IMA's motion and dismissed the case on
December 14, 2023, for lack of standing.
The Plaintiffs filed this case on January 18, 2024. The complaint
in this case is substantively very similar to the previous
complaint.
On May 3, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim, which the Court granted through an Order entered
by Judge Holly L. Teeter on Aug. 6, 2024. The case was dismissed
without prejudice under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. The Court held that the standing issue in this case
is identical to the standing issue in the previous case and the
Plaintiffs have not sufficiently invoked the "curable-defect
exception." Moreover, the Court found that issue preclusion bars
the Plaintiffs' attempt to relitigate the issue of whether they
have standing to pursue their claims. As the Court has already
addressed this issue in the previous complaint, the case is
dismissed for the same reason.
The appellate case is captioned Zerbe, et al. v. IMA Financial
Group, Inc., Case No. 24-3135, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on September 6, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants' Docketing Statement, Transcript Order Form, and
Notice of Appearance were due on September 20, 2024; and
-- Appellee's Disclosure Statement and Notice of Appearance are
due November 20, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants JASON ZERBE, et al., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
- and -
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI
980 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
- and -
Richard S. Fisk, Esq.
BEAM-WARD, KRUSE, WILSON, WRIGHT & FLETES, LLC
8695 College Boulevard, Suite 200
Overland Park, KS 66210
Telephone: (913) 339-6888
Defendant-Appellee IMA FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. is represented by:
Michael K. Grimaldi, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH
633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
- and -
Alan L. Rupe, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH
1605 North Waterfront Parkway, Suite 150
Wichita, KS 67206
Telephone: (316) 609-7900
INTEGRATED DECISIONS: Faces Suit Over Room Rental Prices Conspiracy
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA GONZALEZ and DAWN HOFFMAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. INTEGRATED DECISIONS AND SYSTEMS,
INC. D/B/A IDEAS REVENUE SOLUTIONS, SAS INSTITUTE INC., HILTON
WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS, INC., EXTENDED STAY AMERICA, INC., SONESTA
INTERNATIONAL HOTELS CORPORATION, CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL INC.,
WYNDHAM HOTELS & RESORTS, INC., and HYATT HOTELS CORPORATION, Case
No. 1:24-cv-08262 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 10, 2024) contends that the
Defendants have engaged in an ongoing conspiracy to fix, raise, or
stabilize the prices of extended stay hotel guest room rentals
across the United States, including in the Metropolitan Statistical
Areas, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act from no later
than Jan. 1, 2016 to the present.
The suit says that Extended Stay Hotel Defendants, enabled and
facilitated by Pricing Algorithm Defendants, knowingly and
intentionally have used the same pricing algorithm product, called
the G3 RMS, to set guest room rates and occupancy levels at their
respective extended stay hotels.
The Defendants' anticompetitive scheme has been implemented,
maintained, and enforced through high-ranking IDeaS and SAS
personnel and Extended Stay Hotel Defendants' respective
executives, managers, and employees responsible for revenue
management, including the individuals specifically identified in
this Complaint and those whose identities will be revealed in due
course, the suit adds.
This conspiracy has caused the Plaintiffs and the other Class
members to pay artificially inflated prices directly to Extended
Stay Hotel Defendants and their co-conspirators for extended stay
hotel guest room nationwide including in the Relevant Markets
during the class period, the Plaintiffs aver.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' past and
continuing violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the
Plaintiffs and members of the Class have been injured in their
business or property and will continue to be injured in their
business and property by paying more for fewer extended stay hotel
guest room rentals than would have occurred in the absence of the
conspiracy.
Plaintiff Gonzalez directly rented a guest room from and stayed at
a Home2 Suites by Hilton on three occasions in 2023 and 2024: twice
at a Home2 Suites in San Bernardino, California, in September 2023
and once at a Hilton Garden Inn in Victorville, California, in June
2024.
IDeaS is a system software company that offers pricing and revenue
management software, services, and consulting to clients in the
hospitality and travel industries.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen E. Morrissey, Esq.
Vineet Bhatia, Esq.
Shawn Raymond, Esq.
Rohit D. Nath, Esq.
Jesse-Justin Cuevas, Esq.
Connor Cohen, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
401 Union Street, Suite 3000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 373-7380
Facsimile: (206) 516-3383
E-mail: smorrissey@susmangodfrey.com
vbhatia@susmangodfrey.com
sraymond@susmangodfrey.com
rnath@susmangodfrey.com
jcuevas@susmangodfrey.com
ccohen@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Christopher J. Cormier, Esq.
Spencer Cox, Esq.
Matt Strauser, Esq.
Ian Baize, Esq.
Warren T. Burns, Esq.
Quinn Burns, Esq.
Matthew Tripolitsiotis, Esq.
Barbara Bates, Esq.
Leila Abu-Orf, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 577-3977
E-mail: ccormier@burnscharest.com
scox@burnscharest.com
mstrauser@burnscharest.com
wburns@burnscharest.com
qburns@burnscharest.com
mtripolitsiotis@burnscharest.com
bbates@burnscharest.com
labuorf@burnscharest.com
INTEGRATED MAINTENANCE: Violates ADA, Reyes Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
ANAYENCI VILLA REYES, on behalf of herself, individually, and all
other persons similarly situated v. INTEGRATED MAINTENANCE
SOLUTIONS INC. Jury Trial Demanded d/b/a MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT
SERVICES CO., PAUL IACUONE, TERESA IACUONE and WALTER ARTIBANI,
Case No. 7:24-cv-06886 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 11, 2024) seeks to recover
damages for discrimination based on Plaintiff's disabilities,
failure to accommodate the Plaintiff based on her disabilities, and
for retaliation for engaging in protected activity under the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State Human Rights
Law, New York Executive Law section 290 et seq.
In early Nov. 2022, the Plaintiff severely injured her arm and
shoulder while operating cleaning machinery at work. This injury
led to serious medical conditions, diagnosed as traumatic
arthropathy, tendonitis and shoulder impingement syndrome in her
right shoulder, which constitute disabilities under the ADA and
NYSHRL. Due to these injuries, the Plaintiff exercised her right to
medical leave as an accommodation by taking two days off from work
in order to receive treatment for and recuperate from her injuries.
On Nov. 23, 2022, Defendant IMS, through Plaintiff's supervisor,
Defendant Artibani, summarily and callously terminated Plaintiff's
employment, in violation of the ADA and NYSHRL.
The Plaintiff also brings this action against the Defendants, on
behalf of herself, individually, and all other persons similarly
situated pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the
New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), for violations of the prompt payment
requirement of the FLSA and failure to issue timely payment of
wages pursuant to NYLL sections 191, 198.
As a result of the IMS/Iacuone Defendants' failure to timely pay
their wages, the Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Action Plaintiffs, and
Class Members lost the time value of money.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cleaner and
janitor from July 2022 until her termination on November 23, 2022.
IMS operates a business that provides a variety of cleaning,
janitorial and maintenance services primarily to commercial clients
in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Barnhorn, Esq.
Peter A. Romero, Esq
ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
IOWA: Athletes Join Suit Over Rights' Violation in Gambling Probe
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Time Republican reports that ten more Iowa and Iowa State athletes
and an Iowa basketball equipment manager ensnared in a 2023 state
gambling sting joined a civil lawsuit Tuesday, September 10,
seeking unspecified monetary damages from the state and its public
safety and criminal investigation agencies for violating the
athletes' rights and smearing their reputations.
A federal judge granted a motion allowing the 11 new plaintiffs to
intervene in the lawsuit, which was filed in April by Des Moines
attorneys Van Plumb and Matthew Boles on behalf of 26 former or
current Iowa and ISU athletes.
Texas-based attorneys Grant Gerleman and James Roberts and
Iowa-based Chris Sandy represent the 11 who joined the lawsuit,
bringing the number of plaintiffs to 37.
"Matt Boles and I are extremely excited to join forces with them as
the old saying holds true -- there is strength in numbers," Plumb
said.
Most of the athletes who faced criminal charges connected to the
2023 investigation agreed to plead guilty to underage gambling and
pay a fine and in return had a count of identity theft dismissed.
But Iowa State football players Isaiah Lee, Jirehl Brock and Enyi
Uwazurike and wrestler Paniro Johnson did not accept plea deals and
in March had all charges against them dropped because the Division
of Criminal Investigation was found to have misused tracking
software that detected open mobile betting apps on cellphones in
ISU athletic facilities.
The civil suit alleges improper conduct by investigators violated
the athletes' fourth and 14th amendment rights and caused them
pain, suffering, mental anguish, humiliation and damage to their
personal reputations.
The lawsuit said the investigators, specifically, violated their
constitutional rights to be free from a warrantless search and
unreasonable seizure and that the investigators were not properly
trained by the state, particularly in the appropriate use of Kibana
tracking software produced by Canada-based GeoComply.
It is against the rules for athletes to wager on any sport
sponsored by the NCAA. Most of the athletes involved were found to
have registered their mobile wagering accounts under a different
name to avoid detection, usually that of a relative.
The investigation resulted in lost NCAA eligibility as well as
criminal charges.
The new plaintiffs are ISU wrestlers Samuel Schuyler, Carter
Schmidt, Nathan Schon, Drew Woodley and Johnson; ISU football
players Terry Roberts and Jeremiah "Trey" Mathis III; ISU track
athlete Cameron "Cam" Jones; Iowa wrestlers Brennan Swafford and
Corey Cabanban; and Iowa basketball equipment manager Evan
Schuster. [GN]
KD CREATIVES: Discloses Customers' Viewing Info, Carruth Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER CARRUTH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. KD CREATIVES, INC. D/B/A BIG LITTLE FEELINGS,
Case No. 2:24-at-01169 (E.D. Cal., Sept. 12, 2024) is an action for
legal and equitable remedies to redress and put a stop to
Defendant's practices of knowingly selling, transmitting, and/or
otherwise disclosing, to various third parties, records containing
the personal information (including names and addresses) of each of
their purchasers (Personal Viewing Information, PVI) in violation
of the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2710 et.
seq. ("VPPA").
Over the past two years, the Defendant has systematically
transmitted (and continues to transmit today) its purchasers'
personally identifying video viewing information to Meta using a
snippet of programming code called the "Meta Pixel," which the
Defendant chose to install on its biglittlefeelings.com website,
the suit alleges.
The information the Defendant disclosed (and continues to disclose)
to Meta, via the Meta Pixel, includes a consumers Facebook ID
coupled with their purchase and the title of each of the specific
videos that the consumer requested or obtained on the Defendant's
website. The Plaintiff never consented, agreed, authorized, or
otherwise permitted the Defendant to disclose her Personal Viewing
Information to Meta. In fact, the Defendant never even provided the
Plaintiff with written notice of its practices of disclosing its
customers' Personal Viewing Information to third parties such as
Meta, the suit says.
On Jan. 10, 2023, the Plaintiff purchased prerecorded video
material from the Defendant by requesting and paying for such
material on the Defendant's website, and by providing her name,
email address, and home address.
KD Creative offers full service graphic design and marketing
solutions to individuals, small businesses, and large
corporations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
HEDIN LLP
535 Mission Street, 14th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (305) 357-2107
Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
E-mail: fhedin@hedinllp.com
KD CREATIVES: Discloses Customers' Viewing Info, Carruth Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER CARRUTH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. KD CREATIVES, INC. D/B/A BIG LITTLE FEELINGS,
Case No. 2:24-cv-02484-DAD-SCR (E.D. Cal., Sept. 12, 2024) is an
action for legal and equitable remedies to redress and put a stop
to Defendant's practices of knowingly selling, transmitting, and/or
otherwise disclosing, to various third parties, records containing
the personal information (including names and addresses) of each of
their purchasers (collectively "Personal Viewing Information") in
violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section
2710 et. seq.
Over the past two years, the Defendant has systematically
transmitted (and continues to transmit today) its purchasers'
personally identifying video viewing information to Meta using a
snippet of programming code called the "Meta Pixel," which the
Defendant chose to install on its biglittlefeelings.com website.
The information the Defendant disclosed (and continues to disclose)
to Meta, via the Meta Pixel, includes a consumers Facebook ID
("FID") coupled with their purchase and the title of each of the
specific videos that the consumer requested or obtained on the
Defendant's website, the suit alleges.
The Plaintiff never consented, agreed, authorized, or otherwise
permitted the Defendant to disclose her Personal Viewing
Information to Meta. In fact, the Defendant never even provided the
Plaintiff with written notice of its practices of disclosing its
customers' Personal Viewing Information to third parties such as
Meta, says the suit.
On Jan. 10, 2023, the Plaintiff purchased prerecorded video
material from the Defendant by requesting and paying for such
material on the Defendant's website, and by providing her name,
email address, and home address.
KD Creative offers full service graphic design and marketing
solutions to individuals, small businesses, and large
corporations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
HEDIN LLP
535 Mission Street, 14th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (305) 357-2107
Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
E-mail: fhedin@hedinllp.com
LECTRIC EBIKES: Faces Cabot Suit Over Deceptive Sales Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL CABOT and JONATHAN MIRANDA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. LECTRIC EBIKES LLC, Case No.
4:24-cv-06446 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 12, 2024) sues the Defendant for
offering perpetual "sales" and "discounted" prices through its
online e-commerce store.
The lawsuit contends that, in an effort to give off the appearance
of a bargain, the Defendant intentionally misleads consumers as to
the quality and value of the e-bikes and their accessories
available on its website through its deceptive sales tactics.
When consumers visit Lectric's online e-commerce store,
www.lectricebikes.com, they are shown purported "sale" and
"discounted" prices on Defendant's Products, including a variety of
their ebike models and bundled accessories.
But the Defendant's purported "sales" are, in reality, anything
but. The substantial savings shown to consumers are deceptive and
misleading because the Defendant's Products are never sold at the
full price represented, the suit alleges.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's false and
misleading sales practices, the Plaintiffs and members of the
Class, were induced into buying the Products under the false
premise that they were of a higher grade, quality, or value than
they actually were, the suit claims.
The Plaintiffs seek relief individually, and on behalf of all
purchasers of the Products for violating the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law,
fraud, and unjust enrichment.
Mr. Cabot purchased a "XP Lite 2.0 JW Black" e-bike bundle from the
Defendant's website on Aug. 25, 2024, for a "sale" price of
$899.00, which purported "savings" of $148 in bundled accessories
for an "Elite Headlight" and "Bike Lock" as part of the "Labor Day
Sale."
The Defendant manufactures, markets, sells, and distributes e-bikes
and accessories throughout the United States, including California,
through its online e-commerce store.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
sbogdanovich@bursor.com
LEHIGH VALLEY: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $65MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Lockwood, writing for The Times Tribune, reports that Lehigh
Valley Health Network reached a proposed $65 million settlement in
a class-action lawsuit over data breaches of medical records of
134,000 patients.
While there have been larger class-action lawsuit settlements in
terms of total dollars and numbers of plaintiffs in cases
throughout the country, the proposed LVHN pact might be the largest
class-action settlement per-capita in the nation, said plaintiffs'
attorney Patrick Howard, of the Saltz, Mongeluzzi & Bendesky law
firm in Horsham.
"We think it's an excellent result," Howard said in a phone
interview Wednesday. "It's a lot of money, but the harm was
significant. I think the compensation is commensurate with what the
law allows."
The lawsuit stemmed from a cyberattack by the Russian ransomware
group BlackCat that targeted Lackawanna County-based Delta Medix
Group, part of LVHN's network.
The data breach exposed patients' personal information to the dark
web. LVHN reported in February 2023 that hackers posted sensitive
photos and information on the dark web after the organization
refused to pay the ransom the hackers demanded.
Lehigh Valley Health Network issued a statement on Thursday.
"Lehigh Valley Health Network has tentatively resolved a class
action pertaining to the 2023 cybersecurity attack by a Russian
ransomware gang known as BlackCat. The attack was limited to the
network supporting one physician practice located in Lackawanna
County. Class members will receive separate written notice with
additional information about the settlement. During our response in
2023, LVHN identified the unauthorized activity, immediately
launched an investigation, engaged leading cybersecurity firms and
experts, and notified law enforcement. After investigating, we
provided notices to individuals whose information was involved.
BlackCat demanded a ransom payment, but LVHN refused to pay this
criminal enterprise. Patient, physician, and staff privacy is among
our top priorities, and we continue to enhance our defenses to
prevent incidents in the future."
The lead plaintiff, identified anonymously as "Jane Doe" in the
case to protect her privacy, filed the lawsuit in March 2023
seeking damages on behalf of herself and all other patients
affected by the breach.
Initially filed in Lackawanna County Court, the case was
transferred to federal court, then sent back to county court. The
case remains pending in Lackawanna County Court with a
final-approval hearing of the proposed settlement scheduled for
Nov. 15 before Senior Judge Thomas A. James.
The proposed settlement was reached Aug. 20 and was followed by
notices issued to each of the patients who comprise the settlement
class.
An informational website for them also has been created at
lvhndatabreachsettlement.com.
The website follows the settlement order and explains how each
affected patient has been placed into one or more of four "relief
tiers" of damages allocated by an independent special master.
The amount of the settlement fund allocated to each tier will be
paid to patients proportionately based on damages suffered and up
to a specified amount per tier.
Each plaintiff has been assigned a unique identifier to allow them
to confidentially view the relief tier(s) in which they are placed
and their estimated gross settlement payouts.
The proposed settlement calls for the following payout ranges:
$50 to each person whose medical records were accessed and breached
in the cyberattack.
$1,000 to anyone whose information was posted on the internet.
$7,500 to any patient who had non-nude photos posted on the dark
web.
$70,000 to $80,000 to any patient who had nude photos posted on
dark web.
The lead plaintiff, Jane Doe, would receive $125,000 in damages.
"She stuck her neck out. We really believe she put herself in
peril, had it gone to trial," Howard said.
The plaintiffs' attorneys would receive one-third of the settlement
fund, or about $21.5 million, if the proposed pact is approved by
the judge.
Class plaintiffs can submit claims for out-of-pocket losses.
They also can exclude themselves from the settlement by formally
"opting out" by Oct. 21, if they choose to pursue their own
separate lawsuits individually.
They can submit written comments supporting or opposing the
proposed settlement.
Efforts on Wednesday to reach LVHN's attorney in the lawsuit were
unsuccessful.
The settlement website states that LVHN denies any wrongdoing and
denies that the settlement class has a viable legal claim.
If the judge approves the pact later this year, settlement checks
likely would be issued in early 2025, Howard said. [GN]
LIFECORE BIOMEDICAL: Faces Carew Securities Suit Over Disclosures
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lifecore Biomedical, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended May 26, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 24, 2024, that on July 29, 2024, shareholder
David Carew filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of
our stockholders in the United States District Court of Minnesota,
captioned "Carew v. Lifecore Biomedical, Inc., et. al.," No.
0:24-cv-03028 (D. Minn.), against the company and certain of its
current and prior named executive officers.
The complaint generally alleges that statements made to its
shareholders between October 7, 2020 and March 19, 2024 regarding
the company’s financial results, internal controls, remediation
efforts, periodic reporting, and financial prospects were false and
misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and
that the individual defendants are liable for such statements
because they are controlling persons under Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, court
costs, and attorneys’ fees. In addition, in March 2024, one of
the stockholders, 22NW, LP, threatened to bring claims relating to
its acquisition of economic interests in the company, including its
investment in the Convertible Preferred Stock.
Lifecore Biomedical, Inc. is a fully integrated contract
development and manufacturing organization that offers highly
differentiated capabilities in the development, fill and finish of
sterile injectable pharmaceutical products in syringes, vials and
cartridges, including complex formulations.
LLOYD'S OF LONDON: Court Relieves Defense in BIPA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Dilworth, writing for Business Insurance, reports that a
split Illinois appeals court panel Tuesday, September 10, relieved
insurers from Lloyd's of London from defending against an Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act class action because the
allegations do not fall within the terms of two cyber policies.
The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, majority in Tony's
Finer Foods Enterprises Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's
said Charlene Figueroa's allegations did not trigger the insurers'
duty to defend because the employer authorized third-party
timekeeping company Kronos to collect and store workers' biometric
information.
The 2-1 majority also said the insurers had no defense obligations
under cyber policies issued from 2018 until 2020 because the class
action does not involve a loss that resulted from a data breach,
security failure or extortion threat.
Ms. Figueroa worked for the Chicago-based independent grocery chain
from March 2017 until September 2018 and said in her state court
class-action complaint that employees were required to clock in and
out of work by scanning their fingerprints. She said Tony's
violated BIPA by failing to obtain workers' consent before
collecting their biometric data and failing to publish a schedule
for the deletion of the information.
Tony's sued the insurers from Lloyd's in September 2022 after its
request for a defense against the class action was denied. The
parties filed competing motions for summary judgment, and the judge
agreed with the grocery chain that the allegations fell within the
terms of the policies.
The dissenting appellate judge said the lower court's ruling should
be affirmed because the insurers at Lloyd's did not agree to
provide a defense under a reservation of rights or initiate a
lawsuit challenging its defense obligations.
Representatives for the parties did not respond to requests for
comment. [GN]
MAVERIK INC: Court Tosses Dillard Bid to Stay Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JADAH DILLARD, an
individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
v. MAVERIK, INC., a Utah corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-00285-TS-JCB
(D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Jared Bennett entered an order denying
Maverik's motion to stay and/or bifurcate discovery.
This order decides only that discovery is appropriate and that
discovery will not be bifurcated. Maverik is free to argue for a
protective order upon receiving Ms. Dillard's discovery request
after meeting and conferring with opposing counsel. The court lacks
specific requests upon which to judge the relevance or
proportionality of future discovery. Taken together, these factors
weigh in favor of entering a unified discovery schedule.
Applying the factors outlined in Klassen, the court finds that
bifurcation is inappropriate given the lack of clear-cut division
between merits discovery and class discovery in this case.
As to the first factor, the court finds significant overlap between
individual and class discovery.
As to the second factor, staying discovery related to class
certification does not promote Rule 23’s requirement that
certification be decided at “an early practicable time,”31
particularly when Maverik proposes waiting for a ruling on its
motion to dismiss for an unforeseeable amount of time before
proceeding to class discovery. As to the third factor, as
previously mentioned, phased discovery would likely result in
motion practice about whether discovery is class-certification or
merits-related—disagreements that would not promote judicial
efficiency.
The Plaintiff Dillard brings this collective action against Maverik
for Maverik's alleged failure to comply with the Providing Urgent
Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act ("PUMP Act"), which
amended the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") to expand
access to breastfeeding accommodations in the workplace.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XQL8AF at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 2873: AFFF Products Harmful to Human Health, Koniecki Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE KONIECKI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.;
ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY;
CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS,
INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE
NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION
FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS,
LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY,
LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-04969-RMG (D.S.C., September 12, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for products liability, strict products
liability, negligence, concealment misrepresentation and fraud,
negligence per se, past and continuing trespass and battery, and
negligent, intentional, and reckless infliction of emotional
distress.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with kidney cancer.
The Koniecki case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Angus Fire Armour Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting
equipment in North Carolina.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
BASF Corporation is a chemicals company based in New Jersey.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Mine Safety Appliances Co., LLC is a manufacturer of fire safety
products in Pennsylvania.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West
Chester, Pennsylvania.
Perimeter Solutions, LP is a chemicals company in Missouri.
Raytheon Technologies Corporation is an American multinational
aerospace and defense conglomerate headquartered in Arlington,
Virginia.
Royal Chemical Company, Ltd. is a chemical manufacturer in Ohio.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P. is a manufacturer of water-based fire
suppression system components and ancillary building construction
products, headquartered in Wisconsin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 375-0111
Email: james@ferrarolaw.com
MDL 2873: Faces Leon Suit Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
CAROLYN THERESA LEON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff 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, Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-04978-RMG (D.S.C., September 12, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning,
design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of
express and implied warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam products containing synthetic, toxic per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with kidney cancer.
The Leon case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
BASF Corporation is a chemicals company based in New Jersey.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
CB Garment, Inc. is a manufacturer of safety equipment in Oregon.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Daikin America, Inc. is a chemicals company in New York.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Fire Service Plus, Inc. is a provider of fire safety services and
equipment in Georgia.
Fire-Dex, LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment
in Ohio.
Globe Manufacturing Company LLC is a provider of fire safety
services and equipment in New Hampshire.
Honeywell Safety Product USA, Inc. is a provider of fire safety
services and equipment in Rhode Island.
Innotex Corp. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in
Alabama.
Johnson Controls, Inc. is a global diversified technology and
industrial business company in Wisconsin.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
L.N. Curtis & Sons is a manufacturer of fire safety products in
Utah.
Lion Group, Inc. is a protective clothing supplier in Vandalia,
Ohio.
Milliken & Company is a chemical industry company in South
Carolina.
Mine Safety Appliances Co., LLC is a manufacturer of fire safety
products in Pennsylvania.
Municipal Emergency Services, Inc. is a public safety company
offering fire equipment services based in Utah.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West
Chester, Pennsylvania.
PBI Performance Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting
equipment in North Carolina.
Perimeter Solutions, LP is a chemicals company in Missouri.
Ricochet Manufacturing Co., Inc. is manufacturer of firefighting
equipment in Pennsylvania.
Safety Components Fabric Technologies, Inc. is a manufacturer of
firefighting equipment in South Carolina.
Southern Mills, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective clothing
fabric for industrial and military use in Georgia.
Stedfast USA, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective barrier
technologies in Tennessee.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida.
Veridian Limited is a manufacturer of fire protective equipment in
Iowa.
W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. is an American multinational
manufacturing company in Delaware.
Witmer Public Safety Group is a safety equipment supplier in
Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
Yahn Olson, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
Email: gary@elglaw.com
MDL 2873: Lancaon Sues Over Side Effects of Using AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
JUDITH LANCAON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.;
ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY;
CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS,
INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE
NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION
FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS,
LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY,
LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-04965-RMG (D.S.C., September 12, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for products liability, strict products
liability, negligence, concealment misrepresentation and fraud,
negligence per se, past and continuing trespass and battery, and
negligent, intentional, and reckless infliction of emotional
distress.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of her exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with kidney cancer.
The Lancaon case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Angus Fire Armour Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting
equipment in North Carolina.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
BASF Corporation is a chemicals company based in New Jersey.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Mine Safety Appliances Co., LLC is a manufacturer of fire safety
products in Pennsylvania.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West
Chester, Pennsylvania.
Perimeter Solutions, LP is a chemicals company in Missouri.
Raytheon Technologies Corporation is an American multinational
aerospace and defense conglomerate headquartered in Arlington,
Virginia.
Royal Chemical Company, Ltd. is a chemical manufacturer in Ohio.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P. is a manufacturer of water-based fire
suppression system components and ancillary building construction
products, headquartered in Wisconsin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 375-0111
Email: james@ferrarolaw.com
MDL 2873: Monhollen Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RANDY MONHOLLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.;
ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY;
CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS,
INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE
NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION
FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS,
LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY,
LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-05000-RMG (D.S.C., September 12, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for products liability, strict products
liability, negligence, concealment misrepresentation and fraud,
negligence per se, past and continuing trespass and battery, and
negligent, intentional, and reckless infliction of emotional
distress.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with kidney cancer.
The Monhollen case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Angus Fire Armour Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting
equipment in North Carolina.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
BASF Corporation is a chemicals company based in New Jersey.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Mine Safety Appliances Co., LLC is a manufacturer of fire safety
products in Pennsylvania.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West
Chester, Pennsylvania.
Perimeter Solutions, LP is a chemicals company in Missouri.
Raytheon Technologies Corporation is an American multinational
aerospace and defense conglomerate headquartered in Arlington,
Virginia.
Royal Chemical Company, Ltd. is a chemical manufacturer in Ohio.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P. is a manufacturer of water-based fire
suppression system components and ancillary building construction
products, headquartered in Wisconsin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 375-0111
Email: james@ferrarolaw.com
MDL 2873: Pardee Suit Claims Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL PARDEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.;
ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY;
CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS,
INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE
NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION
FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS,
LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY,
LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-04988-RMG (D.S.C., September 12, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for products liability, strict products
liability, negligence, concealment misrepresentation and fraud,
negligence per se, past and continuing trespass and battery, and
negligent, intentional, and reckless infliction of emotional
distress.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with testicular cancer.
The Pardee case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Angus Fire Armour Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting
equipment in North Carolina.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
BASF Corporation is a chemicals company based in New Jersey.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Mine Safety Appliances Co., LLC is a manufacturer of fire safety
products in Pennsylvania.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West
Chester, Pennsylvania.
Perimeter Solutions, LP is a chemicals company in Missouri.
Raytheon Technologies Corporation is an American multinational
aerospace and defense conglomerate headquartered in Arlington,
Virginia.
Royal Chemical Company, Ltd. is a chemical manufacturer in Ohio.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P. is a manufacturer of water-based fire
suppression system components and ancillary building construction
products, headquartered in Wisconsin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 375-0111
Email: james@ferrarolaw.com
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Discloses Info to Meta, Gittings-Barrera Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
LACEY GITTINGS-BARRERA, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION d/b/a MEMORIAL
HOSPTIAL, Case No. 4:24-cv-04167-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill., Sept. 12,
2024) alleges that Defendant discloses confidential personally
identifying information and/or protected health information of the
Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members to third parties,
including Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta, and potentially others
via tracking technologies used on its website.
When the Plaintiff and Class Members used the Defendant's Website
and Online Platforms, they thought they were communicating
exclusively with their trusted healthcare provider. Unbeknownst to
them, the Defendant embedded pixels from Facebook, Google,
DoubleClick, Simpli.fi, AppNexus, Microsoft Clarity, and others
into its Website and Online Platforms, surreptitiously forcing the
Plaintiff and Class Members to transmit intimate details about
their medical treatment to third parties without their consent, the
Plaintiff contends.
Among the trackers the Defendant embedded into its Website is the
Facebook Pixel. By default, the Meta Pixel tracks information about
a website user's device and the URLs and domains they visit. When
configured to do so, the Meta Pixel can track much more, including
a visitor's search terms, button clicks, and form submissions.
Additionally, the Meta Pixel can link a visitor's website
interactions with an individual's unique and persistent Facebook ID
("FID"), allowing a user's health information to be linked with
their Facebook profile, the suit alleges.
The Defendant utilized data from these trackers to market its
services and bolster its profits. Facebook utilizes data from the
Meta Pixel and Conversions Application Programming Interface
("CAPI") to build data profiles for the purpose of creating
targeted online advertisements and enhanced marketing services,
which it sells for profit. Despite willfully and intentionally
incorporating the Meta Pixel, potentially CAPI, and other
third-party trackers into its Website and servers, Memorial
Hospital did not disclose to the Plaintiff or Class Members that it
was sharing their sensitive and confidential communications and
Private Information with third parties, the suit adds.
The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and bring causes of
action for Negligence; Negligence Per Se; Breach of Express
Contract; Breach of Implied Contract; Unjust Enrichment; Bailment;
Violation of the Illinois Eavesdropping Statute; Violation of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act; Violation of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act; (X) Violation of Title II of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act; and Violation of the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Ms. Gittings-Barrera is a patient of Memorial Hospital and a victim
of Defendant's unauthorized Disclosure of Private Information.
Memorial Hospital is a non-profit independent healthcare
corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Amina A. Thomas, Esq.
Mallory K. Schiller, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
athomas@cohenandmalad.com
mschiller@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Andrew E. Mize, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
amize@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina Borelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORELLI PLLC
908 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
MOBILE MEDIC: Class Cert Discovery in Oliver Suit Due Feb. 10, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Oliver v. Mobile Medic
Ambulance Service, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00180 (S.D. Miss., Filed
June 14, 2024), the Hon. Judge Halil S. Ozerden entered a
scheduling order:
-- The parties will conduct class certification-related discovery
which shall end February 10, 2025.
-- The deadline for filing any motion to conditionally certify
collective action is March 27, 2025.
-- If a motion is not filed on or before said date, the Court will
reconvene the case management conference.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).[CC]
MONTERREY SECURITY: Fails to Pay Officers' OT Wages, Glenn Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHANIKA GLENN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. MONTERREY SECURITY CONSULTANTS, INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-08260 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 10, 2024) sues the Defendant for
failure to pay non-exempt Security Officers, all earned overtime
wages, under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law.
The Defendant pays its Security Officers on an hourly basis and
pays directly an additional health and welfare payment for every
hour worked by employees. However, the Defendant calculated
overtime for its Security Officers at one and one-half times the
Security Officers' straight-time hourly rate of pay. The
Defendant's failure to include Security Officers' health and
welfare payments in the regular rate of pay for overtime purposes
resulted in Security Officers' being paid an incorrect and
illegally low overtime premium rate, the suit contends.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt
Security Officer within this judicial district since approximately
March 2023.
Monterrey is in the business of providing private security services
in and around Chicago, Illinois and South Bend, Indiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 W. Washington St., Ste. 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
msalas@flsalaw.com
NEW SOUTH WALES: Faces Class Action Suit Over Bus Crash
-------------------------------------------------------
Jesmine Cheong of ABC News reports that a father who lost his son
in the Hunter Valley bus crash has begun the process to formally
launch a class action against Transport for New South Wales.
In June last year, 10 people died and 25 others were injured when a
bus carrying wedding guests back from the region's vineyards to
Singleton rolled and hit a guard rail on a roundabout near Greta.
The driver, Brett Andrew Button, was sentenced on Wednesday,
September 11, to 32 years in jail with a non-parole period of 24
years.
Adam Bray's 29-year-old son Zach died in the tragedy.
Mr Bray said he was waiting for the sentence to be handed down
before launching the legal action this week.
The class action, which is being brought under the state's Civil
Liberty Act, is against Transport for NSW on behalf of the victims
of the crash and those affected by the consequences of the crash.
"Targeting Transport for New South Wales for very poor
infrastructure, which is a significant contributing factor to the
tragedy," he said.
Documentation prepared by Mr Bray's lawyers details concerns about
a lack of warnings on the roundabout, such as for trucks and buses
to slow down, as well as its elliptical shape and the height of
vegetation.
The document notes that it was expected Transport for NSW would
join Button's employer, Linq Buslines, to the proceedings as they
could not be drawn in by Mr Bray under the Motor Accident Act.
"Linq Buslines put the driver behind the wheel without any
monitoring of drug usage, no policy on seat belts," Mr Bray said.
"[It's] pretty simple stuff, like if people aren't buckled up don't
start the bus and don't drive."
Button sat in court as more than 30 victim impact statements were
read out during a three-day sentencing hearing this week, which
were considered by Judge Roy Ellis before he handed down his
sentence.
Victims of Crime Assistance League (VOCAL) Hunter chief executive
Sophie Wheeler worked alongside the families and survivors of the
crash throughout the court proceedings.
"I think hearing all of those . . . victim impact statements, the
overwhelming sense was that this crash was preventable and
avoidable," she said.
"There's been a lot of places along the way, through the systems
and the system's response to someone actually being able to get
behind the wheel of the bus with drugs in their system."
'Adequate compensation' not 'revenge'
Mr Bray said the bus company had escaped scrutiny.
"The driver's been in the forefront of this tragedy and the
criminality behind it but they are as culpable and responsible as
the driver," he said.
Mr Bray said all the families, survivors and first responders were
part of the legal action and would benefit from any compensation.
"This is not about revenge, it's about adequate compensation," he
said.
"We just heard harrowing stories of the victims' families,
survivors . . . in the court in Newcastle -- that's people who
can't work, who can't get out of bed."
He said the state's CTP insurance system, a policy also known as
green slips that provides medical and financial support for people
injured in motor vehicle crashes, was not adequate.
"The CTP system doesn't adequately compensate them for mental
health, for help around the home, for not being able to perform in
your normal life and get on with it," Mr Bray said.
"So the reason for a civil class action case is to ensure that
compensation extends to all those people.
"First responders, what a horrific thing to have to go through and
the nightmares they would have every night, they need to be
compensated."
Mr Bray said he hoped the sentence would allow families and
survivors to heal.
"I will continue on my healing journey, at the promise I made
myself and my late son Zach," he said.
"That's vitally important to me, to perform as a father of three
amazing children that are still with us and as a partner."
A spokesperson for Transport NSW said it continues to support the
victims and their families and it would be inappropriate to comment
on future legal proceedings at this time.
Linq Buslines has been contacted for comment. [GN]
NEW YORK LIFE: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Owens Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID OWENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:24-cv-06853
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 11, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to
properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and thousands of
Class Members' sensitive personal identifying information, which as
a result, is now in a notorious criminal ransomware group's
possession and published on the dark web.
The confidential PII compromised in the Data Breach includes the
Plaintiff's and Class full names, Social Security Numbers, and
other sensitive and confidential information, causing widespread
injuries and damages to the Plaintiff and Class Members. According
to the Sept. 5, 2024, notice sent by IMS on Defendant's behalf to
victims of the Data Breach, on Nov. 2, 2023, IMS "became aware that
certain IMS systems were encrypted by ransomware." The ensuing
investigation revealed that between Oct. 29 and Nov. 2, 2023, "data
was subject to unauthorized access and acquisition."
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members,
suffered concrete injuries including financial costs incurred
mitigating the materialized risk and imminent threat of identity
theft; loss of time and loss of productivity incurred mitigating
the materialized risk and imminent threat of identity theft; actual
identity theft and fraud; deprivation of value of their Private
Information; emotional distress including anxiety and stress in
with dealing with the Data Breach; and the continued risk to their
sensitive Private Information, the lawsuit asserts.
The Plaintiff and Class Members seek compensatory, nominal,
statutory, and punitive damages, declaratory judgment, and
injunctive relief requiring Defendant to (a) disclose,
expeditiously, the full nature of the Data Breach and the types of
Private Information exposed; (b) implement improved data security
practices to reasonably guard against future breaches of Private
Information in the Defendant's and its vendors' possessions; and
(c) provide, at Defendant's own expense, all impacted Data Breach
victims with lifetime identity theft protection services.
Mr. Owens received insurance and/or benefit products and services
from the Defendant. As a condition of and in exchange for his
receipt of the Defendant's products and services, he was required
to, and did, provide his Private Information to the Defendant, and
through Defendant, to IMS.
New York Life provides life insurance, wealth management, estate
and retirement planning, and investment services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven Sukert, Esq.
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
E-mail: sukert@kolawyers.com
ostrow@kolawyers.com
- and -
Gary Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
NORTH CAROLINA: Caretakers Sue Over Inefficient Foster System
-------------------------------------------------------------
A group of caretakers for children is suing the state's foster care
system saying North Carolina is not doing enough to protect kids.
The 71-page complaint follows the stories of nine different
children through the system. It's tough to read some of their
experiences -- like a 13-year-old who the lawsuit says has been in
at least 22 foster care placements.
Then there's the story of an 8-year-old named Jameson who the suit
said was diagnosed with PTSD due to severe sexual, physical and
emotional abuse. In two years, he went to five different homes and
the suit goes on to say, "In the two years following his removal,
Jameson never received mental health treatment or specialized
therapy. Indeed, consistent treatment was impossible given the
frequency and distance of his placement changes."
The suit says all of this is happening because the North Carolina
Department of Health and Human Services failed to license, recruit
and retain a sufficient number of appropriate foster homes. That's
despite evidence the state knew this was a problem back in 2015.
The lawsuit goes on to cite news reports showing DSS had "kids
sleeping in the conference room" at the DSS building.
A DHHS spokesperson said the department could not comment on
pending litigation, but they sent this statement about their care
for foster children in general:
"NCDHHS takes seriously its responsibility to ensure the health and
well-being of children and families in North Carolina and shares a
vision that every child can grow up healthy in a safe, nurturing
family and community. We are committed to improving services that
are needed for child welfare-involved families. There are
fundamental challenges within the North Carolina child welfare
system -- including its decentralized structure, staffing
shortages, and a long history of underfunding from the state --
which cause inherent inequities between counties and directly
impact outcomes for children and families. The state's child
welfare system ranks last in per-child funding among peer states
with decentralized child welfare systems. Within the context of
these challenges, NCDHHS has continued to work to improve the
system. We've worked with the General Assembly to strengthen the
department's authority to support and oversee county decision
making; secured funding and positions to hire regional directors;
and are moving forward with the Children and Families Specialty
Plan, leveraging Medicaid dollars to provide more consistency and
access for families involved in the child welfare system across the
state. We support SB625 (the original version (4th edition) passed
by the Senate unanimously in April 2023) as an important
opportunity to further improve the system by granting NCDHHS
additional authority in child welfare cases. Legislative action is
needed to better serve children and families, alleviate the child
welfare staffing crisis, provide aid to counties and increase
capacity of courts to expedite permanency . . . . please see some
of the work underway to improve child welfare in North Carolina:
-- Implementing the Regional Support model created under Rylan's
Law (S.L. 2017-41) for all 100 counties social service agencies.
DHHS will deploy continuous quality improvement and technical
assistance in safety, permanence, and using the agency data to
drive effective services that protect children, promote our value
of health and well-being for all North Carolina.
-- Our newly developed Regional Director positions are all filled
with the exception of one -- and our county partners are already
benefiting from the wealth of knowledge our regional directors
bring to these critical positions.
-- $80 million from the NCGA to strengthen specialized behavioral
health treatment options in local communities and increase
residential and inpatient settings for children to divert them from
emergency rooms and local DSS offices.
-- These include treatment programs to safely stabilize children
who are experiencing a behavioral health crisis with emergency
department diversion, mobile outreach response crisis teams,
specialty treatment programs for children with complex behavioral
health needs, and intensive supports in the community.
-- Awarded a new Medicaid Children and Families Specialty Plan
that will support children, youth and families served by the child
welfare system in receiving seamless, integrated, and coordinated
health.
-- Implemented a new Emergency Placement Fund to ensure children
are not languishing in inappropriate settings like DSS offices.
-- Funding for the development and implementation of a
trauma-informed, standardized assessment to address the trauma
experienced by children and youth served by the child welfare
system.
-- NC DSS has launched a statewide foster family awareness
campaign. The number of licensed foster homes in the state have
increased from 5,825 in December 2023 to 6,081 in June
-- With support from the NCGA, NCDHHS launched a new Kinship
program, providing financial supports to unlicensed kinship
providers to increase the number of foster-care involved youth who
are placed in kinship care.
-- As of June, there were over 1,600 unlicensed kinship families
eligible to receive financial support, with nearly $600K going to
families in that month alone. Over 2500 children are with their
families as a result of this work.
-- We've improved training for workers: the redesigned Child
Welfare Pre-Service Training curriculum will provide new workers
opportunities to practice knowledge, skills, abilities, and
behaviors grounded in realistic on-the-job experiences."
One last important point about this lawsuit - it's not for monetary
damages. Instead of money, the class action aims to get a judge to
force more changes at the state level. [GN]
NORTHEAST GROCERY: Collins Appeals ERISA Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GAIL COLLINS, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Gail Collins, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Northeast Grocery, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 5:24-cv-00080, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.
On Mar. 4, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, which the Court granted through an order
entered by Judge David N. Hurd on Aug. 15, 2024. The Plaintiffs'
complaint was dismissed without leave to amend. The Court held that
the Plaintiffs have insufficiently pleaded their claims, and thus,
their remaining claims cannot survive.
The appellate case is captioned Collins v. Northeast Grocery, Inc.,
Case No. 24-2339, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, filed on September 6, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants GAIL COLLINS, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Paul Sharman, Esq.
THE SHARMAN LAW FIRM LLC
11175 Cicero Drive, Suite 100
Alpharetta, GA 30022
ORACLE AMERICA: Settles Data Privacy Class Suit for $115-Mil.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that a $115 million Oracle settlement
resolves claims the company illegally collected personal
information from the internet and sold it to third parties for
advertising.
The settlement benefits individuals whose personal information
Oracle collected or made available through ID Graph, Data
Marketplace or another Oracle advertising product since Aug. 19,
2018.
According to the class action lawsuit, Oracle tracked web activity,
in-store purchases, geolocation and other personal information
without consumer consent. The company allegedly sold this
information to third parties for advertising use.
Oracle is a cloud applications provider that partners with
companies such as Uber, AMC, MGM Resorts and more.
Oracle hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $115 million
settlement to resolve the data privacy class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the Oracle settlement, class members can receive
an equal share of the net settlement fund. Exact payments will vary
depending on the number of claims filed, the amount deducted for
fees and other factors. No payment estimates are available at this
time.
Oracle also agreed not to capture user-generated information from
referrer websites or forms on its own websites. Additionally, the
company will implement an audit program to review its privacy
obligations.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Oct. 17, 2024.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Nov.
14, 2024.
To receive Oracle settlement benefits, class members must submit a
valid claim form by Oct. 17, 2024.
Who's Eligible
Individuals whose personal information Oracle collected or made
available through ID Graph, Data Marketplace or another Oracle
advertising product since Aug. 19, 2018
Potential Award
TBD
Proof of Purchase
N/A
Claim Form Deadline
10/17/2024
Case Name
Katz-Lacabe, et al. v. Oracle America Inc., Case No.
3:22-cv-04792-RS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California
Final Hearing
11/14/2024
Settlement Website
KatzPrivacySettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Katz-Lacabe et al v. Oracle America Inc.
c/o Settlement Administrator
1650 Arch St., Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(888) 255-4036
Class Counsel
Michael W Sobol
David T Rudolph
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
Defense Counsel
Tiffany Cheung
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP [GN]
ORTHOFIX MEDICAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set November 8
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP informs investors that a shareholder filed a class
action on behalf of former SeaSpine Holdings Corporation
shareholders that purchased or otherwise acquired newly issued
Orthofix Medical Inc. (NASDAQ: OFIX) stock pursuant to the January
5, 2023 stock-for-stock transaction by which Orthofix merged with
and acquired SeaSpine. Orthofix is a global spine and orthopedics
company that offers biologics, spinal hardware, bone growth
therapies, and specialized orthopedic solutions, among other
things, to healthcare professionals throughout the world.
For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas,
Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003.
The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that
Orthofix Medical Inc. (OFIX) Misled Investors in its Offering
Materials in Connection with its Acquisition of SeaSpine Holdings
Corporation
According to the complaint, at the time of the merger, defendants
failed to disclose that Orthofix lacked adequate internal controls
and its purported compliance and training programs and protocols
were grossly deficient, all of which resulted in: lax vetting of
incoming executive hires; senior management and directors engaging
in rampant harassment and other inappropriate misconduct in
violation of the Company's purported ethical and professional
standards; prioritization of personal and financial incentives over
ensuring that Orthofix and its management complied with applicable
laws, regulations, and contracts; and the Company's failure to
ensure that its SEC filings and public disclosures were free of
material misstatements.
What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against Orthofix Medical Inc. Shareholders who want to serve as
lead plaintiff for the class must submit their application to the
court by November 8, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be
eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can
remain an absent class member.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.
To be notified if a class action against Orthofix Medical Inc.
settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage
in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact:
Aaron Dumas, Jr.
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]
PAC HOUSING: Hills Seeks More Time to Complete Class Cert Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALVIN HILLS, Individually
and on Behalf of All others Similarly Situated, v. PAC HOUSING
GROUP, LLC; MOF PARC-FONTAINE, LLC (F/K/A GMF-PARC FONTAINE, LLC);
MOF-PRESERVATION OF AFFORDABILITY CORP. (F/K/A GMF- PRESERVATION OF
AFFORDABILITY CORP.); MINISTRY OUTREACH FOUNDATION (F/K/A GLOBAL
MINISTRIES FOUNDATION); and RICHARD HAMLET, Case No.
2:23-cv-05740-BWA-KWR (E.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting an extension to complete written class
certification discovery and fact discovery until Oct. 11, 2024.
The motion would permit the Court additional time to issue a ruling
on the Plaintiffs' outstanding motion to compel and would allow the
Plaintiffs time to review outstanding discovery responses, seek
alternative methods of obtaining this wrongly withheld information,
seek any necessary follow up information, and file and resolve
follow-up motions, if necessary, the Plaintiff says.
The Defendants did not provide timely discovery responses to
interrogatories or requests for production either and, when they
finally produced partial responses, those responses were deficient.
Although the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel complete discovery
responses is currently pending before the Court, the Defendants
have not yet supplemented their discovery responses.
Forcing Plaintiffs to seek this information from other sources when
possible (which it is likely not for many of these documents, which
may be solely within the Defendants’ possession, custody, and
control) would burden nonparties with discovery that Defendants
have an obligation to produce. It would also force Plaintiffs to
incur needless costs
PAC Housing is a real estate company, specializing in providing
quality housing solutions.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4gCQgP at no extra
charge.[CC]
Casey C. DeReus, Esq.
BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C
810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 308-5858
Facsimile: (212) 486-0462
E-mail: dereus@bespc.com
- and -
DeVonn Jarrett, Esq.
JARRETT LAW GROUP, LLC
643 Magazine Street, Suite 301A
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (833) 554-6653
E-mail: djarrett@jarrettlawgroup.com
PAYLOCITY CORP: Jordan Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Commissions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Jordan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Paylocity Corporation Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-08065 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 5, 2024) arises under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Illinois
Wage Payment and Collection Act, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for
Paylocity's failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly-situated
employees all earned overtime wages and commissions.
The Plaintiff, the Collective Members and the Class Members are
current and former sales agents of Paylocity. The Plaintiff brings
this action on behalf of himself and all similarly situated current
and former employees who were not paid one-and-one-half times their
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in
any given workweek.
The IWPCA Class Members are all former Sales Agents who were
employed in Illinois and who worked were not paid all trailing
commissions following the conclusion of their employment at any
time starting 10 years before this complaint was filed, up to the
present.
The Plaintiff was employed by Paylocity as an Enterprise Client
Account Executive from approximately September 5, 2023 through June
6, 2024.
Paylocity offers payroll and human resources solutions to its
customers across the U.S.[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
E-mail: 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
E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com
PORT IMPERIAL: Mayors Class Action Referred to Magistrate Judge
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NELSON MAYORS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PORT IMPERIAL FERRY CORP., Case No. 1:24-cv-06815-RA-GS (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Ronnie Abrams entered an order referring class
action to Magistrate Judge Gary Stein for the following purpose:
-- General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery,
non-dispositive
pretrial motions, and settlement), and
-- Specific Non-Dispositive Motion/Dispute: Class certification
(if
any).
Port Imperial provides ferry and bus charter services for
passengers.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zSRuih at no extra
charge.[CC]
RALEIGH, NC: Edwards Bid to Certify Class Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEO J. EDWARDS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CITY OF RALEIGH, Case No. 5:23-cv-00683-FL (E.D.N.C.), the Hon.
Judge Louise Flanagan entered an order as follows:
1. Plaintiff's motion to strike is granted in part and denied in
part;
2. Defendant's partial motion to dismiss also is granted in
part and denied in part. The Plaintiff's claims based upon
bonuses received and defendant's compensatory time off policy
are dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6);
3. As to the remaining claims, plaintiff's motion to certify and
to
authorize issuance of notice is granted in part pertaining to
certification and held in abeyance in part pertaining to
notice;
4. Plaintiff is directed to file, within 14 days of the date of
this order, a supplement to his motion including a revised
request for court-authorized notice to be issued to
collective
action members, in light of the court's determinations
herein.
Plaintiff's supplement shall specify if defendant consents to
the form of notice; if not, defendant is directed to file,
within 14 days thereof, a response; and
5. The parties are directed to file motion(s) for protective
order
as set forth herein, within 14 days of the date of this
order.
The Plaintiff filed the instant motion to certify conditionally a
FLSA collective defined as:
"all individual who were, are, or will be employed at the
defendant Raleigh police stations who (1) worked in the
position
of police officer, or other similarly situated non-exempt
positions; (2) were subjected to the Defendant's policy of
being
required to perform work off the clock, such as before the
start
of their shift; (3) were subjected to the Defendant's Comp Time
policy and were not compensated for all hours worked up to and
in
excess of 85.5 hours per 14 days, and/or were paid additional
pay
including but not limited to bonuses and worked overtime during
any pay period for which additional pay, including, but not
limited to bonuses was received any time within three years
prior
to the commencement of this action, through the present."
The Plaintiff, a former employee of the defendant's police
department, commenced this action on Nov. 29, 2023, and filed the
operative first amended complaint on March 27, 2024, asserting
claims for violations of the overtime pay provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), on behalf of himself and a collective
of the Defendant's current and former employees.
The Plaintiff alleges that defendant failed to pay him and other
employees the required wages, including at the overtime premium
rate.
Raleigh is the capital city of the US state of North Carolina and
the seat of Wake County.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yK3APB at no extra
charge.[CC]
RECKITT BENCKISER: K-Y Brand Lubricant Contains PFAS, Beckles Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MAURICE BECKLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RECKITT BENCKISER LLC and RB HEALTH (US) LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-06412 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 12, 2024) alleges that Defendants'
K-Y brand lubricant pose a health and safety risk due to the
presence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in the
Products.
The packaging of K-Y Jelly states it is a "body friendly formula"
and a "gentle formula – not made with sulphates, hormones,
parabens, artificial colorants and fragrances." However,
unbeknownst to consumers, the Products are unfit for their intended
purpose because they contain PFAS, "forever chemicals," which are
dangerous to human health. This not disclosed anywhere on the
Products' packaging and is omitted from the ingredient lists, the
lawsuit says.
PFAS are a group of synthetic chemicals. Because PFAS persist and
accumulate over time, they are harmful even at very low levels.
Indeed, PFAS have been shown to have a number of toxicological
effects in laboratory studies and have been associated with thyroid
disorders, immunotoxic effects, and various cancers.
As a direct result of Defendants' material misrepresentations and
omissions, Mr. Beckles suffered, and continues to suffer, economic
injuries. Mr. Beckles would consider purchasing Defendants'
Products in the future if Defendants removed the PFAS from them,
the lawsuit asserts.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings claims against the Defendants
individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly
situated for claims of breach of warranties, fraud, state consumer
protection laws, and unjust enrichment.
In or around June 28, 2024, Mr. Beckles purchased Defendants' K-Y
Jelly water-based personal lubricant from a Rite Aid store located
in Brooklyn, New York.
Reckitt is a multinational consumer goods company that
manufactures, distributes, and sells hygiene, health, and nutrition
products under various brand names throughout the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
Matthew A. Girardi, Esq.
Caroline C. Donovan, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, Fl 32
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: jarisohn@bursor.com
mgirardi@bursor.com
cdonovan@bursor.com
RED BULL: Lautenslager Sues Over Unpaid OT, Retaliatory Discharge
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MEGAN LAUTENSLAGER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RED BULL DISTRIBUTION COMPANY,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-04955-DCN-MHC (D.S.C., September
12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
retaliatory discharge under the Family Medical Leave Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an account services
manager in South Carolina.
Red Bull Distribution Company, Inc. is a distributor, with its
principal place of business in Santa Monica, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jack E. Cohoon, Esq.
Sarah J.M. Cox, Esq.
Annie Day Bame, Esq.
BURNETTE SHUTT & MCDANIEL, PA
Post Office Box 1929
Columbia, SC 29202
Telephone: (803) 904-7914
Facsimile: (803) 904-7910
Email: JCohoon@BurnetteShutt.Law
SCox@BurnetteShutt.Law
ABame@BurnetteShutt.Law
RETAIL DATA: Pierre-Louis Sues Over Customers' Compromised Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
EVEILYN PIERRE-LOUIS and GUILLEN PIERRE-LOUIS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RETAIL DATA,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-23523 (S.D. Fla., September 12,
2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence and
negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and breach of bailment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiffs
and similarly situated individuals following a data breach on its
systems. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs
and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a
result, the private information of the Plaintiffs and Class members
was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to
unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
Retail Data, LLC is a provider of real-time retail market
intelligence services based in Glen Allen, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Steven Sukert, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
sukert@kolawyers.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Grayson Wells, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
gwells@stranchlaw.com
RICE DRILLING: Filing of Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY GREGOR, et al., v.
RICE DRILLING D, LLC, et al. Case No. 2:21-cv-03999-EPD (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers entered an order
granting the joint motion to amend the preliminary pretrial order.
-- The Defendants' Opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification shall be filed by no later than Oct. 31, 2024.
-- The Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Class
Certification shall be filed by no later than Nov. 21, 2024.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IJIft1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
SCHNADER HARRISON: Bennett Seeks Dec. 6 Class Cert Bid Extension
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JO BENNETT, v. SCHNADER
HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00592-JMY
(E.D. Pa.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting a
45-day extension of time to Dec. 6, 2024, for Plaintiff to file any
motion for class certification.
The parties have been discussing the possibility of settlement and
mediation and believe there may be a reasonable prospect for
bringing this matter to a negotiated resolution. The parties have
now scheduled a mediation for Oct. 15, 2024.
The requested extension of the deadline to file any motion for
class certification will permit the parties to engage fully in the
mediation process and discovery related to class certification and
will not prejudice any party to this action.
This request is not being made for any improper purpose or intended
to cause undue delay, nor will granting this request affect any
other deadlines.
On Feb. 7, 2024, the Plaintiff filed her Complaint.
On May 16, 2024, the Court entered the Scheduling Order, which set
the deadline for any motion for class certification on Oct. 1,
2024.
On July 31, 2024, the Court entered an order that, in relevant
part, extended the deadline for filing any motion for class
certification to Oct. 22, 2024.
Schnader is a full service law firm, with offices in Pennsylvania,
New York, New Jersey and California.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WAwLWp at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
BARTON & DOWNES LLP
1633 Connecticut Ave, Suite 200
Washington DC 20009
Telephone: (202) 734-7046
E-mail: jbarton@bartondownes.com
- and -
Adam Harrison Garner, Esq.
Melanie J. Garner, Esq.
THE GARNER FIRM, LTD.
1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 550
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 645-5955
Facsimile: (215) 645-5960
E-mail: adam@garnerltd.com
melanie@garnerltd.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Andrew D. Salek-Raham, Esq.
William J. Delany, Esq.
Lars C. Golumbic, Esq.
M. Caroline Wood, Esq.
GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED
1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 861-5408
Facsimile: (202) 659-4503
E-mail: asalek-raham@groom.com
wdelany@groom.com
lgolumbic@groom.com
cwood@groom.com
SEE TICKETS: Settles 2023 Data Breach Class Suit For $3.25-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that a $3.25 million See Tickets
settlement resolves claims the ticket company failed to protect
consumer information from a 2023 data breach.
The settlement benefits individuals whose information the See
Tickets data breach compromised in September 2023.
The settlement also benefits a subclass of the same affected
individuals from California.
According to the class action lawsuit, See Tickets negligently
failed to prevent consumer information from a 2023 data breach.
Hackers allegedly stole payment card information during this
cyberattack.
See Tickets is a ticketing service that sells around 20 million
tickets each year.
The company hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $3.25
million to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the See Tickets settlement, class members can
receive up to $2,000 in reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses,
such as bank fees, communication charges, interest on short term
loans, credit expenses, travel costs and more. Class members can
also claim up to $5,000 for extraordinary losses related to the
data breach, including damages from identity theft or fraud.
In addition to reimbursement of up to $7,000, class members may
choose to receive either three years of free credit monitoring
services or a pro rata alternative payment of up to $100.
California subclass members are eligible for an additional payment
of $100, though these payments may be reduced depending on the
number of claims filed.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Sept. 20, 2024.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Dec.
16, 2024.
To receive See Tickets settlement benefits, class members must
submit a valid claim form by Oct. 20, 2024.
Who's Eligible
Individuals whose information the See Tickets data breach
compromised in September 2023, including a subclass of California
individuals
Potential Award
$7,200
Proof of Purchase
Account statements, professional invoices, bills, receipts, loan
statements, credit reports, tax documents, police reports and other
documentation of data breach-related expenses
Claim Form Deadline
10/20/2024
Case Name
In re: Vivendi Ticketing US LLC d/b/a See Tickets Data Security
Incident, Case No. 2:23-cv-07498-CJC-DFM, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California
Final Hearing
12/16/2024
Settlement Website
SeeTicketsUSDataIncidentSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
See Tickets Data Security Incident
Kroll Settlement Administration LLC
PO Box 225391
New York, NY 10150-5391
info@SeeTicketsUSDataIncidentSettlement.com
(833) 522-2574
Class Counsel
Mason A Barney
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
Nicholas A Migliaccio
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
Kenneth Grunfeld
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA
Defense Counsel
Aravind Swaminathan
Jacob Heath
Rebecca Harlow
ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP [GN]
SENTINELONE INC: Court Dismisses Consolidated Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sentinelone, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report the quarterly
period ended July 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 24, 2024, that on July 2, 2024, the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California granted
defendants' motion, dismissing a consolidated complaint with leave
for plaintiff to amend the complaint.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 1, 2024.
On June 6, 2023, a securities class action was filed against the
company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial
Officer, in the Northern District of California, captioned
"Johansson v. SentinelOne, Inc.," Case No. 4:23-cv-02786.
The suit is brought on behalf of an alleged class of stockholders
who purchased or acquired shares of the company's Class A common
stock between June 1, 2022 and June 1, 2023. The complaint alleges
that defendants made false or misleading statements about the
company's business, operations and prospects, including its annual
recurring revenues and internal controls, and purports to assert
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.
Plaintiffs have moved to consolidate the cases. On October 4, 2023,
the court issued an order consolidating both cases under the
caption "In re SentinelOne, Inc. Securities Litigation," Case No.
4:23-cv-02786 and appointing a lead plaintiff.
SentinelOne, Inc. is a cybersecurity provider that delivers an
artificial intelligence-powered platform to enable autonomous
cybersecurity defense.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Court Certifies Nationwide Damages Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RORESTE REFUERZO, et al.,
v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Case No. 3:22-cv-00868-JSC (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order:
-- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as to
the
(b)(2) Nationwide Injunctive Relief Class, (b)(2) California
Subclass, and (b)(3) Nationwide Damages Class; and
-- denying the Plaintiffs' motion as to the (b)(3) California
Subclass, for which Plaintiffs fail to establish numerosity.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' claims for FMLA interference, wrongful
termination, and unfair competition are certified as to the
following classes:
The "(b)(2) Nationwide Injunctive Relief Class"
"All Southwest flight attendants based in the United States
since
March 1, 2019 to present who exercised their rights to family
and
medical leave and consequently lost access to disciplinary
points
reduction."
The "(b)(2) California Subclass"
"All Southwest flight attendants based in California since
March
1, 2019 to present who exercised their rights to family and
medical leave and consequently lost access to disciplinary
points
reduction."
The "(b)(3) Nationwide Damages Class"
"All Southwest flight attendants based in the United States
since
March 1, 2019 to present who exercised their rights to family
and
medical leave and consequently lost access to a disciplinary
points reduction and were subsequently terminated for an
accumulation of disciplinary points."
Andrus Anderson LLP and Erlich Law Firm, P.C. are appointed as
class counsel. A further case management conference is set for Oct.
31, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. by Zoom video. An updated joint case
management conference statement, which shall include a proposed
case schedule through trial, is due Oct. 24, 2024.
In the meantime, the parties should meet and confer and propose the
form of class notice.
The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against Southwest
for penalizing flight attendants' exercise of family and medical
leave.
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
Having carefully considered the briefing, and with the benefit of
oral argument on Sept. 5, 2024, the Court certifies Plaintiffs'
claims for FMLA interference, wrongful termination, and unfair
competition as to the (b)(2) Nationwide Injunctive Relief Class,
(b)(2) California Subclass, and (b)(3) Nationwide Damages Class.
Plaintiffs’ motion as to the (b)(3) California Subclass is DENIED
for failure to establish numerosity.
Southwest is a major airline in the United States that operates on
a low-cost carrier model.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=clNS8c at no extra
charge.[CC]
STAPLES INC: Faces Class Action Over Lie Detector Ban in Hiring
---------------------------------------------------------------
TonerNews.com reports that Plaintiff Justin Korn has initiated a
class action lawsuit against Staples Inc.
Allegations: Korn claims that Staples violated Massachusetts state
law, which prohibits the use of lie detectors in hiring decisions
and mandates that companies inform job candidates about this
prohibition in their applications.
Filing Details: The lawsuit was filed on August 29 in a
Massachusetts superior court.
A Massachusetts resident, Justin Korn, has filed a class action
lawsuit against Staples, alleging that the company failed to
provide mandatory disclosures about the ban on lie detectors in its
job applications. According to Korn, Staples did not include the
required notice about the prohibition of lie detector tests, which
is stipulated under state law.
Korn's lawsuit details that he applied for three positions at
Staples in August -- senior site reliability engineer, associate
manager of strategic sourcing, and senior transportation analyst.
He claims that none of these job applications contained the
necessary information about the ban on lie detectors, a requirement
set by Massachusetts law for nearly 40 years. This law not only
prohibits the use of lie detectors in hiring but also grants
applicants the right to sue if they do not receive proper notice.
The lawsuit states, "Plaintiff and class members were aggrieved
because they were bona-fide applicants for jobs with Staples, and
Staples deprived them of their statutorily guaranteed right to the
notice provided under Mass. Gen Laws."
Korn is seeking to represent all individuals who applied for jobs
at Staples based in Massachusetts. He is requesting class action
certification, $500 in damages per violation, legal fees, and a
jury trial.
In addition, Staples previously reached a nearly $4 million
settlement in 2017 related to a class action lawsuit over
misrepresented terms in its Extended Services Plans.
Korn's legal team includes David S. Godkin and James E. Kruzer of
Birnbaum & Godkin LLP, along with Joshua D. Arisohn, Matthew A.
Girardi, and Julian C. Diamond of Bursor & Fisher PA. The case is
titled Korn et al. v. Staples Inc., Case No. 2484CV02303, and is
being heard in the Suffolk County Superior Court of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. [GN]
STARBUCKS CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiffs Deadline Set Oct 28
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Starbucks Corporation ("Starbucks" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: SBUX). Such investors are advised to contact Danielle
Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.
The class action concerns whether Starbucks and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.
You have until October 28, 2024, to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class if you are a shareholder who purchased
or otherwise acquired Starbucks securities during the Class Period.
A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.
On April 30, 2024, Starbucks issued a press release announcing its
financial results for the second quarter of its fiscal year ("FY")
2024 and held an accompanying earnings call. Among other items,
Starbucks announced that store sales had declined globally by 4%,
with traffic falling 7%, as well as a 2% decline in new revenues.
Starbucks additionally lowered its guidance for FY 2024, citing
global declines in store sales, net revenues, and both GAAP and
non-GAAP earnings. The Company attributed its results and lowered
guidance to issues in the Chinese market, citing "the effects of a
slower-than-expected recovery," as well as "fierce competition
among value players in the market."
On this news, Starbucks' stock price fell $14.05 per share, or
15.88%, to close at $74.44 per share on May 1, 2024.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members.
See www.pomlaw.com.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes. [GN]
TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Class Action Suit Over Sun Pharma Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ademi LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on
September 9, 2024 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned Mitchell v. Taro
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., et al., Case No. 7:24-cv-06818, on
behalf of a class of individuals and entities (the "Class") that
held securities of Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (NYSE:
TARO), asserting claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the merger of
Taro into Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. The proposed merger
was announced on January 25, 2024, and Sun Pharma announced that
the transaction had closed on June 24, 2024.
Former Taro investors are hereby notified that not later than 60
days after the date of this notice, any member of the purported
Class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the
purported Class in this action.
We specialize in shareholder litigation involving buyouts, mergers,
and individual shareholder rights throughout the country. For more
information, please feel free to call us. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contacts
Ademi LLP
Guri Ademi
Toll Free: (866) 264-3995
Fax: (414) 482-8001 [GN]
TESLA INC: Nachman Appeals Dismissal of False Ad Suit to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL NACHMAN is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
his lawsuit entitled Michael Nachman, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tesla, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-5976, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint
is filed against the Defendants for alleged false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of vehicles in
violation of the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and
California's False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
and Unfair Competition Law, as well as common law claims for fraud
and deceit, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and unjust
enrichment.
On Feb. 10, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
case, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge
Rachel P. Kovner on Sept. 30, 2023. In her ruling, Judge Kovner
stated that if the plaintiff wishes to amend his pleadings, he must
file a motion within 30 days seeking leave to amend, with the
proposed amended complaint attached as an exhibit. The motion
should explain how the amended complaint addresses the pleading
defects identified in the Court's opinion. Otherwise, judgment
shall be entered.
After obtaining the Court's approval for more time to file, the
Plaintiff filed his motion to amend complaint, which the Court
denied on Aug. 6, 2024. The Court opined that in sum, the proposed
amended complaint fails to state any viable General Business Law
claims. The Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend is accordingly
denied because amendment would be futile.
The appellate case is captioned Nachman v. Tesla, Inc., Case No.
24-2362, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on September 10, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant MICHAEL NACHMAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Michael Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Defendants-Appellees TESLA, INC., et al. are represented by:
Alan E. Schoenfeld, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
7 World Trade Center
250 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10007
TFORCE LOGISTICS: Hadwah Alleges Discrimination, Retaliation
------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLA HADWAH, individually and on the behalf of all other
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. TFORCE LOGISTICS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08098 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 5, 2024) arises
under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 seeks redress for Defendant's
race-based discrimination, race-based harassment, and retaliation
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and for Defendant's
misclassification of Plaintiff as an independent contractor under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a driver from January 2024
through July 20, 2024. He is a Middle Eastern and is a member of a
protected class because of his race.
Since at least January 2024, through July 20, 2024, the Defendant
has subjected Plaintiff to different terms and conditions of
employment than others not within his protected class and has been
subjected to a hostile work environment on the basis of race,
violating Title VII and Section 1981. The Plaintiff was
constructively discharged because of his race and was retaliated
against, and his employment was ultimately constructively
discharged for opposing unlawful discrimination and for exercising
his protected rights, says the suit.
TForce Logistics, LLC is a logistics and transportation provider
doing business in and for DuPage County, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathan C. Volheim, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Telephone: (630) 568-3056
Facsimile: (630) 575-8188
E-mail: nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com
TIDES CENTER: Face Class Action Suit Over Traffic Blockade
----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Costescu, writing for The Washington Free Beacon, reports
that several anti-Israel organizations that formed an illegal
blockade across the highway leading to Chicago's O'Hare
International Airport are facing a class action lawsuit from
travelers who were trapped in the traffic jam.
Left-wing groups, including the Tides Center -- a George
Soros-funded dark money network -- Community Justice Exchange, and
National Students for Justice in Palestine, among others,
coordinated a "multi-city economic blockade" on April 15 targeting
major airports, highways, and bridges. In one instance, activists
shut down access to O'Hare, backing up traffic and forcing some
travelers to walk with their luggage to the airport.
Keffiyeh-clad activists handcuffed themselves, linked arms with
drain pipes, and later sat side-by-side on Interstate 190 leading
to the Chicago airport. The Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute filed a
lawsuit on Sept. 9 against the organizers for "imprisoning"
thousands of travelers in vehicles on their way to O'Hare,
according to the complaint.
"All traffic into the airport stopped for almost three hours
because of the blockade. People missed flights and downstream
commitments. Vacations, interviews, weddings, and other important
lifetime events were cast aside as the activists forced the public
to participate in their demonstration by falsely imprisoning them,"
the complaint says. "These innocent Americans were dragged into the
conflict because the Defendants and foreign terrorist organization
Hamas have decided a propaganda offensive in America is their best
weapon against Israel."
Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute cofounder and litigation director
Ted Frank told the Washington Free Beacon the First Amendment does
not protect criminal activity.
"These sorts of abusive roadblocking tactics have been used with
impunity over the last few years, and the organizations seem to
think that they can do that too," Frank said.
"But when you injure people, when you commit torts against
individual people, there's not just criminal enforcement, but also
civil enforcement," he added. "We hope that this lawsuit vindicates
that principle, vindicates the rights of the people who were
adversely affected, encourages other such lawsuits, and discourages
such tactics in the future."
Police arrested 40 protesters in the O'Hare blockade. Thanks to a
"bail and legal defense fund" organized by A15 Action and Community
Justice Exchange, a Tides project, the defendants received bail
money and legal assistance. The online fundraiser was hosted by
ActBlue, the Democratic Party's primary fundraising platform, which
earns nearly 4 percent of each contribution.
Other activist groups named in the lawsuit include Jewish Voice for
Peace, the WESPAC Foundation, Dissenters, the U.S. Campaign for
Palestinian Rights, and the AJP Education Foundation, also known as
American Muslims for Palestine. Four people "directly involved in
orchestrating or promoting the blockade" were also named: Jinan
Chehade, Superior Murphy, Simone Tucker, and Rifqa Falaneh.
"On this Tax Day, when millions are paying taxes which fund the
ongoing U.S and Israeli bombardment of Gaza, protesters seek to
take dramatic action," Chicago Dissenters, one of the local groups
involved, wrote in an April Instagram post. "O'Hare International
Airport is one of the largest in the country, and there will be NO
business as usual while Palestinians suffer at the hands of
American funded bombing by Israel."
Similar protests occurred in other cities, as well. In San
Francisco, anti-Israel protesters held up traffic on the Golden
Gate Bridge, and in nearby Oakland, activists blocked all lanes on
Interstate 880. Dozens also stopped traffic in Philadelphia's
Center City.
Protesters aimed to disrupt economic "choke points" to maximize
financial disruption, according to A15 Action, which coordinated
the worldwide blockades. Organizers advised activists to refrain
from engaging with police and promised that Community Justice
Exchange would provide "money bail, court fees and fines" and other
legal services upon arrest.
None of the organizations named in the lawsuit responded to
requests for comment. [GN]
UNITED STATES: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss Sexual Assault Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
On September 5, 2024 U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez
Rogers denied the U.S. Bureau of Prisons motion to dismiss the
class action brought by survivors of sexual assault at FCI Dublin.
The judge's order is here.
On August 16, 2023, eight survivors of staff sexual abuse and
retaliation at Federal Correctional Institution Dublin -- a federal
women's prison in Dublin, California -- and the California
Coalition for Women Prisoners (CCWP) filed a class action lawsuit
against the Bureau of Prisons, FCI Dublin officials, and several
individual officers. The case was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California. The
plaintiffs are represented by Rights Behind Bars (RBB), Rosen Bien
Galvan & Grunfeld LLP (RBGG), and the California Collaborative for
Immigrant Justice (CCIJ). The complaint is here.
The judge's latest order says in part: "According to defendant the
United States of America Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"), the closure of
Federal Correctional Institution Dublin and its satellite camp
(collectively, "FCI Dublin") resolved this lawsuit. The BOP
asserts, in a cursory, one-page declaration, both that it does not
intend to re-open FCI Dublin, at least in the short-term, and that
its other facilities are now providing the FCI Dublin adults in
custody ("AICs") with adequate care. In other words, the BOP's
position is that all is now well, and continued intervention is
unnecessary. The Court is not so easily persuaded. The notion that
the constitutional injuries alleged by FCI Dublin's AICs were
comprehensively remedied by the facility's closure strains
credulity. Redressable injuries stemming from the AICs' experiences
at FCI Dublin remain to be addressed, and the BOP is well aware of
this fact."
In the light of the prison closure and BOP's refusal to adequately
address the issues raised by the class action lawsuit, CCWP
organized a series of events over the weekend of September 7th for
the Dublin survivors. There was a healing circle for survivors
Saturday morning, a public event in downtown Oakland Saturday
night, and a picnic for survivors on Sunday. Local media outlets
provided coverage of the events. FCI Dublin sex assault survivors
share stories of abuse at Oakland church, KTVU, 9/9/24 and Dublin
prison sexual abuse survivors, including victim of prison chaplain,
speak about feeling "helpless", The Mercury News, 9/9/24 [GN]
UNITED STATES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Charles FAC
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHANTE CHARLES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
UNITED STATES OF ARITZIA INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-09389-MMG
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Margaret Garnett entered an order
denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint (FAC).
Accordingly, the Court finds that Sections 191 and 198(1-a) contain
an express private right of action permitting employees to sue
employers for pay frequency violations. Defendant's motion to
dismiss on this basis is denied.
The Plaintiff initiated this action to recover damages for
allegedly delinquent wage payments made to her and similarly
situated employees of the Defendant who qualify as manual workers
pursuant to New York Labor Law ("NYLL").
Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated NYLL
Article 6 section 191 by paying her, and others similarly situated,
bi-weekly, rather than weekly, without authorization from the New
York State Department of Labor Commissioner.
Aritzia owns and operates multiple retail establishment.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4TvUw2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
VISA INC: Agrees to Settle ATM Fees' Class Suit for $197.5MM
------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Visa and Mastercard agreed to a
$197.5 million ATM fee settlement to resolve claims they charged
unlawful surcharges on ATM transactions.
The settlement benefits individuals and entities that paid an
unreimbursed ATM access fee directly to JP Morgan, Wells Fargo,
Bank of America or banks that are members of the Visa and/or
Mastercard ATM networks between Oct. 1, 2007, and July 26, 2024.
Plaintiffs in the ATM class action lawsuit claimed banks and ATM
networks conspired to charge unlawful surcharges on ATM
transactions. This agreement allegedly violated federal antitrust
laws.
Visa and Mastercard are digital payment companies.
In the past, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo and Bank of America
agreed to settlements totaling $67 million to resolve their
liability in the case. Now, Visa and Mastercard agreed to
additional settlements to resolve the claims against them. Visa
will contribute $104.675 million, and Mastercard will contribute
$92.825 million for a total settlement fund of $197.5 million.
Under the terms of the ATM fee settlement, class members can
receive a cash payment based on the ATM surcharges they paid during
the class period. No payment estimates are available at this time.
Class members who previously filed a claim and received payment
from a past settlement regarding the same issue do not have to file
another claim. These class members will automatically receive a
settlement payment based on the information they previously
submitted. Class members who experienced additional surcharges
since filing their initial claim can submit another claim form
including these newer charges.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Nov. 22, 2024.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Jan.
23, 2025.
To receive ATM fee settlement benefits, class members must submit a
valid claim form by Jan. 22, 2025.
Who's Eligible
Individuals and entities that paid an unreimbursed ATM access fee
directly to JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, Bank of America or banks that
are members of the Visa and/or Mastercard ATM networks between Oct.
1, 2007, and July 26, 2024
Potential Award
Varies
Proof of Purchase
ATM receipts and electronic records
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
01/22/2025
Case Name
Mackmin, et al. v. Visa Inc., Case No. 1:11-cv-01831-RJL-MAU, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Final Hearing
01/23/2025
Settlement Website
ATMClassAction.com
Claims Administrator
ATM Surcharge Settlement
P.O. Box 170500
Milwaukee, WI 53217
info@ATMClassAction.com
(877) 311-3724
Class Counsel
Steven Berman
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
Stephen Neuwirth
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
Steven A Skalet
MEHRI & SKALET PLLC
Defense Counsel
Matthew A Eisenstein
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
Kenneth A Gallo
PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON LLP [GN]
VOLATO INC: Layoffs Employees Without Notice, Newsteder Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA G. NEWSTEDER and LOUANN GRAY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VOLATO, INC. and
VOLATO GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00952 (M.D. Fla.,
September 12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for
failure to provide the Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees
advanced written notice of their layoffs in violation of the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and Class members who
were employed by the Defendants were terminated as a result of
Volato's executing plant shutdowns or mass layoffs on or about
August 30, 2024. The Defendants failed to give at least 60 days
prior notice of the layoff in violation of the WARN Act.
Volato, Inc. is a private aviation company doing business in
Florida.
Volato Group, Inc. is a private aviation company doing business in
Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan D. Barack, Esq.
Michelle Erin Nadeau, Esq.
KWALL BARACK NADEAU PLLC
304 S. Belcher Rd., Suite C
Clearwater, FL 33765
Telephone: (727) 441-4947
Facsimile: (727) 447-3158
Email: rbarack@employeerights.com
mnadeau@employeerights.com
- and -
Arthur Schofield, Esq.
ARTHUR T. SCHOFIELD, P.A
Via Jardin Building
330 Clematis Street, Suite 207
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 655-4211
Facsimile: (561) 655-5447
Email: aschofield@flalabor.com
WACKER CHEMICAL: McCowan Suit Seeks Shipping Staff's Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MILLARD MCCOWAN III, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WACKER CHEMICAL CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-12404-FKB-EAS (E.D. Mich., September
12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt
shipping/receiving employee in Michigan from approximately January
23, 2023, through April 18, 2024.
Wacker Chemical Corporation is a chemical company based in Ann
Arbor, Michigan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
Kalamazoo, MI 49007
Telephone: (269) 250-7500
Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Town Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com
- and –
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
Laura Supanich, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C.
1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 824-3828
Email: jm@melmedlaw.com
lms@melmedlaw.com
WEND NEW JERSEY: Property Violates ADA, Cheli Class Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLENE CHELI, an Individual, v. WEND NEW JERSEY, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, & FOREST MANAGEMENT LLC, a New York
Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:24-cv-09081 (D.N.J., Sept.
10, 2024) sues the Defendants for injunctive relief, damages,
attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination.
Ms. Cheli has visited the Property on many occasions over the
years, her last visit occurred on July 30, 2024. Ms. Cheli visited
the Property to have lunch, as a bone fide patron with the intent
to avail herself of the goods and services offered to the public
within but found that the Property was littered with violations of
the ADA, both in architecture and policy, the suit alleges.
In addition, Ms. Cheli has personally encountered exposure to
architectural barriers and otherwise harmful conditions that have
endangered her safety at the Property.
Accordingly, the Defendants have discriminated against the
Plaintiff, and other similarly situated mobility impaired persons,
by denying access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods,
services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations
of the Property, as prohibited by the ADA, the suit asserts.
Ms. Cheli has been diagnosed with facioscapulohumeral muscular
dystrophy and therefore has a physical impairment that
substantially limits many of her major life activities. She
requires, at all times, the use of a wheelchair to ambulate.
Wend operates Wendy's fast-food restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq.
SHADINGER LAW, LLC
717 E. Elmer St, Suite 7
Vineland, NJ 08360
Telephone: (609) 319-5399
E-mail: js@shadingerlaw.com
WHITEHORSE, YT: Faces Suit Over Inaccessible Parking Spaces
-----------------------------------------------------------
Whitehorse is being targeted with a class action lawsuit alleging
the violation the charter rights of Whitehorse residents living
with disabilities. The suit argues that city infrastructure,
including parking spaces and transit are not suitably accessible.
Ramesh Ferris and Eva Von Flotow are named as plaintiffs in the
case, but it is being brought as a class action representing all
other city residents who have lived with legal blindness, physical,
neurological or musculoskeletal conditions which limited mobility,
temporarily or permanently. The lawsuit comes after Vincent
Larochelle, the lawyer representing Ferris and Von Flotow, warned
city council to take responsibility for the city's sidewalks and
streets in a December 2023 open letter.
It is explained in the statement of claim that Ferris utilizes leg
braces and crutches for mobility due to childhood polio and that
Von Flotow, who has quadriplegic cerebral palsy and dystonia relies
on a wheelchair.
The statement of claim, submitted to the Yukon Supreme Court on
Sept. 9, 2024, states that the plaintiffs face numerous barriers in
navigating Whitehorse.
It is claimed that sidewalks near accessible parking spaces --
which the lawsuit states are often not large enough -- do not have
curb cut-outs to allow people with disabilities to access them.
Furthermore, it argues that these spaces often have garbage cans or
other objects placed on the sidewalk, which the statement said adds
an additional barrier.
The statement adds that public transit stops around the city don't
have benches to allow people who cannot stand to wait for the bus.
Additionally, the city's Handy Bus system requires Van Flotow to
set a pick-up spot around 180 metres from her home, which the
statement said makes it impossible for her to access the system.
All of these issues are exacerbated during the winter with snow and
ice accumulation, according to the statement.
The statement says that barriers presented by the city's alleged
inaction and discriminatory policies have caused the plaintiffs to
feel like they are second-class citizens. The lawsuit alleges the
city is violating the plaintiffs' rights as described in the
Charter of Rights and Freedom's sections 7 and 15.
The sections guarantee all have the right to life, liberty and
security of person, as well as the right to equality before the
law, respectively. The plaintiffs are seeking payment for damages
from the city on the basis that they and other class members have
suffered significant physical, social and emotional harm.
The claims presented haven't been heard or evaluated in court. The
document states that the city has 14 days to respond with a
statement of defence. [GN]
XOOM ENERGY: Bid to Exclude Mirkin's Original Report Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSANNA MIRKIN,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
XOOM ENERGY, LLC, and XOOM ENERGY NEW YORK, LLC, Case No.
1:18-cv-02949-ARR-JAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Allyne Ross
entered an order granting in part and denying in part XOOM's motion
to exclude plaintiff's Original Report.
The Original Report is admissible as part of plaintiff's liability
case under Rule 702 and Daubert, as it is sufficiently reliable
evidence that XOOM's costs did not justify its prices.
However, the Original Report is inadmissible to prove damages, as
it is inconsistent with plaintiff's theory of injury under Comcast
and fails to "reflect[] a reliable application" of the expert's
"principles and methods to the facts of the case."
Furthermore, because Plaintiff's failure to timely disclose her
Amended Report was neither substantially justified nor harmless,
and the factors guiding this court's discretion favor exclusion,
the Court grant XOOM's motion to exclude plaintiff's Amended Report
as untimely.
Finally, in light of these orders, the parties are ORDERED to
provide supplemental briefing on whether or not classwide
proceedings remain viable in this case. The parties are directed to
confer and jointly propose a briefing schedule.
Ms. Susanna Mirkin, a former residential electricity customer of
the defendants XOOM Energy, LLC and XOOM Energy New York, LLC, is
the lead plaintiff in the present class action, which alleges that
she and other similarly situated customers of XOOM were charged
exorbitant energy rates in breach of the pricing terms contained in
their contracts with XOOM.
XOOM is an independent energy service company that purchases energy
from producers on the wholesale market and sells that energy to
consumers as an alternative to local utilities.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OyeIrx at no extra
charge.[CC]
YOUNG CONSULTING: Henson Balks at Unprotected Personal Info
-----------------------------------------------------------
JON HENSON and LAUREN HENSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. YOUNG CONSULTING, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03981-TWT (N.D. Ga., Sept. 5, 2024)
arises out of the April 2024 data security incident and data breach
that was perpetrated against Defendant, which held in its
possession certain personally identifiable information and
protected health information of Plaintiffs and members of the
proposed Class who are current and former customers/insureds of
Defendant's clients.
According to the complaint, the data breach resulted from
Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect
individuals' private information with which they were entrusted for
either treatment or employment or both. Because of the data breach,
Plaintiffs and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and
imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiffs and Class
Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial
accounts to guard against identity theft, says the suit.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs sue Defendant seeking redress for their
unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for: (i) negligence, (ii)
negligence per se, (iii) breach of third party beneficiary
contract, and (v) unjust enrichment.
Young Consulting provides software solutions for the marketing,
underwriting and administering of medical stop loss insurance for
insurance carriers, brokers and third-party administrators.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ainsworth G. Dudley, Esq.
DUDLEY LAW, LLC
P.O. Box 53319
Atlanta, GA 30355
Telephone: (404) 687-8205
E-mail: adudleylaw@gmail.com
- and -
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
Leigh Montgomery, Esq.
ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77066
Telephone: (713) 554-2377
Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
E-mail: jarett@ellzeyaw.com
leigh@ellseylaw.com
[*] California Taxpayers Paid More Than $1,900 in Tort Taxes
------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Goodlatte, writing for The Orange County Register, commented
that California taxpayers are unwittingly paying more than $1,900
annually in "tort taxes," a measure of the society-wide cost of
lawsuit abuse on unrealized economic activity. Working families
should be outraged. Instead of funding better schools or stronger
public safety, the Golden State's economy is forfeiting tens of
millions each year to finance luxury boats and third homes for
rapacious trial attorneys.
Lawsuit abuse -- like the attorney-manufactured fiction that mom
and pop restaurants defrauded patrons with the sale of boneless
chicken wings -- is an insidious form of social inflation in which
costs for virtually every consumer good and service are raised,
from food and health care to auto insurance and the gig economy. I
spent decades in the United States House of Representatives
fighting the most obvious forms of abuse, but the case of
California's out-of-control tort landscape proves that much work
remains.
Consumer class actions, which allow a group of similarly situated
plaintiffs who have been harmed in the same manner by the same
entity to seek relief from the courts, have become one of the most
abused torts today. In theory, a class action is a powerful tool to
level the playing field for the little guy. Instead, it's become a
proving ground for attorneys to test increasingly outlandish
theories.
According to the Institute for Legal Reform, roughly one-quarter of
all consumer class actions targeting the food and beverage sector
in the United States are filed in California, like the Southern
California man who sued McDonald's for $1.5 million for emotional
distress after being provided only one napkin. The bravery it must
have taken to carry on without a replacement napkin is hard to
imagine for us reasonable people.
In January, a group of over-caffeinated lactose intolerants argued
that Dunkin Donuts violated the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) by charging customers upwards of $2.15 more for dairy
alternative milk than those who opted to dilute their coffee with
cow's milk. Their attorneys are seeking $5 million in damages from
a California court. Coffee shop prices for dairy alternatives
aren't discriminatory but are an obvious function of economics:
plant-based milk costs 87 percent more than conventional milk. If
cutting your coffee with cow's milk leaves you a little gassy, any
reasonable person understands the options are to forgo the java
(there's no inalienable right to caffeine, after all), drink it
plain, or pay market-dictated prices for an alternative. But
attorneys trying to finance a new boat or a third home aren't
reasonable actors.
These cases are famous for eye-popping settlements or court-awarded
damages, but only pennies on the dollar go to individual
plaintiffs. That dynamic compelled one plaintiff in a travel
insurance class to petition a California judge this month to reject
a proposed $24 million settlement because, they said, "counsel are
more interested in maximizing their attorney's fee award than they
are in obtaining the best outcome for the class." Rather than
serving the public good by attempting to stop a clear and present
danger to the public, too many class action attorneys act as client
aggregators in the hopes of driving up a potential payday.
Represent a class of thousands or even hundreds of thousands and
attorney's fees skyrocket while individual plaintiffs only walk
away with enough money to buy a soda.
Judges' inclination to certify classes that haven't suffered actual
harm or that argue ridiculous theories of liability are crushing
Main Street. Even when judges dismiss frivolous claims, like one
last year against Etsy in California, or when companies win jury
trials, defendants must spend exorbitant sums clearing their names.
A 2023 study by the American Tort Reform Foundation ranked
California as the third-worst judicial system in the country for
just that reason.
Despite its intentions, class actions have become a tool of the
wealthy to become wealthier at the expense of working Californians.
But every voting-age citizen can take action to curtail abuse when
they step into the jury box by recognizing the obvious economic
consequences of attorney-driven litigation when they see it.
The Golden State's unchecked class action lawsuit industry is
destroying jobs and erasing government revenue that would otherwise
fund education and public safety -- and ordinary families are
unfairly shouldering that burden. California must take back its
courts and its future, which starts by putting desperate trial
attorneys on notice. [GN]
[*] Technology Class Action-Related Lawsuits Escalate in Europe
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Croft, writing for Financial Times, reports that class-action
lawsuits -- involving many tens of thousands of consumers and huge
payouts -- have long been a feature of the US legal landscape. But,
until recently, this kind of mass litigation has been less common
in the UK and the rest of Europe.
That is changing, however. A report on European class actions by
law firm CMS found that 133 European claims were filed in 2023. The
total amount sought in class-action claims in the UK alone was
about EUR145bn, with lawsuits encompassing more than 500mn class
members.
In the UK, the catalyst for change has been the 2015 Consumer
Rights Act, which allows consumers and businesses to pursue
collective lawsuits over breaches of competition law.
The lawsuits gained ground after a landmark Supreme Court ruling in
2020 allowed a class action brought by Walter Merricks, former
chief ombudsman at the Financial Ombudsman Service, to proceed. He
was representing millions of consumers in an action against
payments company Mastercard.
That lawsuit has paved the way for a wave of US-style class actions
to be filed in the UK against other large companies, including tech
groups BT, Apple and Qualcomm.
Mass actions are on the rise elsewhere in Europe, too, spurred
partly by the example of the "Dieselgate" scandal that has forced
the Volkswagen group to pay tens of billions of euros in
compensation to customers over the past decade. The carmaker had
secretly fitted vehicles with cheat devices to show lower emissions
in testing.
Now, under the EU's Representative Actions Directive, passed in
November 2020, member states must have a mechanism allowing
consumers to bring class action lawsuits relating to various EU law
infringements.
Given such vast numbers of claims, law firms and their clients are
increasingly turning to technology to handle litigation -- whether
they are advising defendants or claimants.
In Germany, law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer opened a mass
claims unit in January 2022, informed by its work in guiding VW
through Dieselgate claims. Working with Freshfields Labs, the
firm's legal tech unit, it aims to offer a central service for
dealing with mass claims by using technology to manage caseloads.
Hans-Patrick Schroeder, head of the mass claims unit, says that, in
the past, Freshfields typically partnered with other law firms to
manage workloads. But many clients wanted a single service and as
little administrative work as possible.
"One day, we sat down and thought about whether it would be
possible to do this and leverage technology and use the legacy
network for traditional Freshfields offices," says Schroeder, a
partner at the firm based in Hamburg. The mass claims unit has
additional offices in Münster, Hanover and Nuremberg "so the
lawyers can reach every court in two hours by public transport or
car", he adds.
Freshfields manages claims in Germany by preparing court
submissions using templates. It also allocates individual claims to
a lawyer and inserts details on a central calendar database about
which case is due in court and when.
Its software recognises when documents uploaded in the case
management tool contain dates for oral hearings, says Schroeder.
"It will then update the case handler's calendar, book
transportation to the event, and ensure tickets are sent on so they
can retrieve them. It is impossible to manage these cases without
technology."
Such systems mean "your job is no longer to cut and paste -- you
have more time for court hearings because you are not wasting time
on routine stuff -- and your work is more fun too", he adds.
As well as advising VW, the unit has defended mass actions on
behalf of an online betting company against claims for repayment of
gambling losses.
Law firm Pinsent Masons also turned to technology to help banking
clients defend lawsuits brought in the English courts by thousands
of claimants over personal protection insurance (PPI). Banks
commonly mis-sold the cover to customers in the 1990s and early
2000s.
After a deadline of August 2019 was set by the UK regulator, a
surge of consumers turned to the courts, making PPI complaints
against banks and other lenders -- often encouraged by claim
management companies working for high rates of commission.
Pinsent Masons advised a robust stance on many of these claims by
challenging them in civil courts rather than settling automatically
and now aims to offer the same approach to clients defending other
mass actions.
By using automation and relatively straightforward artificial
intelligence tools, Pinsent Masons can triage large numbers of such
cases and quickly prepare paperwork.
"In mass litigation, the sheer volume of claims is always difficult
just in terms of serving deadlines," says Jacob Hay, associate at
the law firm.
Now, systems can track whether a document has been reviewed, for
example. "It is able to spot trends, such as how long a case is
taking at a specific court, the lifespan of a case and how long the
court takes to list a final hearing, which is helpful as it helps
inform strategy," Hay adds.
Technology has also been a boon for those pursuing compensation
against well-funded defendants. In the UK, one of the most
high-profile mass litigations in recent years has been the lawsuit
brought against the Post Office by campaigner Sir Alan Bates and
554 other postmasters.
The case, backed by litigation funder Therium, was settled by the
Post Office in 2019 for £57.75mn. The High Court ruling, which
concluded that the Horizon IT system used by the Post Office
suffered from bugs, errors and defects, was crucial in paving the
way for postmasters who had been wrongly prosecuted to be
exonerated and demand further redress.
"Technology was like a lifeline," says James Hartley, partner and
head of dispute resolution at law firm Freeths, who represented
Bates and the postmasters.
"Here, we used a platform called Everlaw, which was very effective
with AI built into it. It meant that, when the Post Office threw,
for example, 5,000-7,000 KELs [known error logs, showing defects in
the Horizon IT system] at us at a late stage of the court process .
. . we were able to look through those."
Hartley believes class-action lawsuits will deploy yet more
technology in the future. "Law firms that take on mass litigation
without experience of deployment of technology may fail," he says.
"Litigation funders are looking for the right case and the right
law firm . . . Funders may not be prepared to back cases unless the
law firm deploys technology." [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***