/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241007.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, October 7, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 201
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Hubler Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Oswald Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Peterson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Reilly Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Stansbury Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
3M COMPANY: Trammell Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Ware Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
AAM HOLDING: Thomas Files Suit for Discrimination, Harassment
ADAMAS PHARMA: Court Approves Class Action Settlement in Zaidi
ADVOCATE AURORA: Imposes Illegal Tobacco Surcharges, Rogers Claims
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Court to Junk Partial Summary Judgment Bid
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Stipulation in Brown Suit OK'd
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Stipulation in De Coster Suit OK'd
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Stipulation in Frame Wilson OK'd
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Court Reverses Dismissal of Labor Class Suit
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Williams Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
AMERICAN GATEWAY: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Senior Says
ANTONY BLINKEN: Court Dismisses Amended Complaint w/o Prejudice
BAKER & DONELSON: Bid for Investor Discovery Granted in Mills Suit
BED BATH: Class Cannot Satisfy Rule 23 Requirement, Ct. Says
BED BATH: Lead Plaintiff's Bid to Certify Class Tossed
BIMBO BAKERIES: Settlement in Botonis Suit Wins Final Nod
BIOGEN INC: Faces Antitrust Class Suit Over Drug Tecfidera
BOWL 360: Website Not Blind-Friendly, Trippett Suit Says
BUMBLE INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Fraud
CAMPAGNA-TURANO BAKERY: Lozano GIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
CENTRAL RAILROAD: Faces Class Action Suit Over Leaked Styrene
CHEMOURS CO: Must Complete Response to Interrogatories by Oct. 17
CINEPLEX INC: Hit With $39-Mil. Judgement for Illegal Drip Pricing
CLEVELAND, OH: Buckeye Institute Appeals Income Tax Refund Suit
COWBOY CHANNEL: Discloses Website Users' Video Info, Saarloos Says
FRED MEYER: Sapphire Suit Remanded to Superior Court
GENERAL MOTORS: Class Settlement in Altobelli Gets Initial Nod
GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Removes Ruiz Suit to N.D. Calif.
GRETCHEN WHITMER: Plaintiffs Summary Judgment Bid Partly OK'd
HP INC: Court Narrows Claims in Carson Suit
HUMANA INC: Debrobander Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
IHG MANAGEMENT: Martinez Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
JACOBO FARM: Settlement in Gomez Gets Initial Nod
KALITTA AIR: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due June 20, 2025
KELLY-MOORE PAINT: Court Certifies Employee Class in Morris
KRATOCHVIL LAW: Class Settlement in Smith-Chester Gets Initial Nod
KROGER CO: Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Certification Granted
LATOYA HUGHES: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Court Extends Briefing Schedule in Blain Suit
LOANCARE LLC: Court Dismisses w/o Prejudice Bid to Certify Class
MARINHEALTH MEDICAL: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Deadlines
MARS PETCARE: Plaintiffs Lose Bid for Class Certification
MAXIMUS TIRE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Romero Alleges
MAZZILLI MASONRY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Pena Alleges
MD NOW: Pagan Class Suit Removed from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla.
MDL 2873: Faces Salgado Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
MDL 2873: Roethel Sues Over Injury Sustained From Toxic Chemicals
MDL 3031: Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class Action
MERCER COUNTY, PA: Plaintiffs' Bid for Extension to File Reply OK'd
MERIT ENERGY: Court Certifies Settlement Class in GOP Suit
MOMOMILK LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Pollitt Says
NASHUA NUTRITION: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Fernandez Alleges
NESTLE USA: Falcone Wins Bid for Class Certification
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Judge Approves $600-Mil. Class Action Settlement
NORTH CAROLINA: Doe Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class
NORTHVIEW VILLAGE: Hawthorne Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
PALAMERICAN SECURITY: Fact Discovery Due May 30, 2025
PAPA INC: Class Cert Hearing Rescheduled to Dec. 5,
PENSKE LOGISTICS: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert by March 21, 2025
PIONEER BANCORP: Faces Fraud Raps Over Alleged Payroll Mishandling
PIONEER BANCORP: Settlement Deal Reached in Securities Suit
POIZON INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Schultz Suit Says
POWERAGE LLC: Cabrera Suit Removed from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla.
QUICKEN LOANS: Mattson Must Object to Findings by Oct. 7
RAM PAYMENT: Ergas, SADM Dismissed w/ Prejudice from Antico Suit
REGENCE BLUESHIELD: Parties Seek Jan. 27, 2025, Class Cert Filing
RUNNING WAREHOUSE: Blind Can't Access Website, Jacobs Alleges
SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Loses Bid for Reconsideration
SAMHO TOUR: Park Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Unger Sues Over Breach of Duties
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Simon Bid to Enforce Preliminary Injunction OK'd
SCHEELS ALL SPORTS: Jacobs Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
SCOUT ENERGY: Court Certifies Question on Kansas State Law
SECRETLAB US: Nugent Bid to Compel Production of Documents OK'd
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Rothman FCRA Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
SHADE STORE: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Feb. 18, 2025
SIGNATURE FLIGHT: Calhoun Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
SIMPSON STRONG-TIE: Seeks to Exclude Expert's Declaration
SKY CLIMBER: Olmedo Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Class
SMITH FOUNDRY: Sago Sues Over Noxious Odors and Pollutants
SNOWFLAKE INC: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Anderson Suit Says
SOLSTICE BENEFITS: Asks Court to Quash July 25 Issued Subpoena
SPECIALIZED LOAN: Court Certifies Class in Simon Lawsuit
STAAR SURGICAL: Revilla Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
STAKE CENTER: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid
STAR HOME CARE: Turner Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
STITCH FIX: Court Dismisses Securities Suit in California
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Bid to Seal Exhibits in Amato Class Suit Granted
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Bid to Seal Exhibits in Aquino Class Suit OK'd
SUEZ WATER: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment vs Nicholls
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Seeks to Decertify Classes in Butler Suit
SWEETWATER SOUND: Elyashiv Sues Over Unlawful Debt Communication
SYNEOS HEALTH: Court Narrows Claims in O'Callaghan Suit
TERRAN ORBITAL: Lewitter Sues Over Violations of Securities Laws
THOMAS JENEBY: Knight Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
TICKETMASTER LLC: Carranza Files Suit in C.D. California
TICKETMASTER LLC: Dickey-Johnson Suit Moved to C.D. California
TIM GRIFFIN: Bid to Quash Subpoenas Denied w/o Prejudice
TOMOCREDIT INC: Ivy Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
TRACTOR SUPPLY: Faces Keesler Suit Over Illegal Tobacco Surcharge
TRANSDEV SERVICES: Reply in Support of Class Cert Due Oct. 24
TRICIDA INC: Court Certifies Class of Investors in Pardi Suit
UNITED MORTGAGE: Mattson Must Object to Findings by Oct. 7
UNITED PARCEL: Extension on Class Cert. Bid Filing Sought
UNITED STATES: Faces Jacobson Class Suit Over Driving Privileges
UNITED WHOLESALE: Putative Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Ingram Sues Over Data Breach
UNIVERSAL SCREEN: Randolph Slams Mass Layoff Without Notice
UPS STORE: Bid to Conduct Investor Discovery OK'd
US BANCORP: Adams Plaintiffs Win Class Certification Bid
US STAR TRUCKING: Berry Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York
VISA INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
WALMART INC: Bid for Class Certification Terminated
WALMART INC: Faces Castillo Suit Over Yogurt Bites' Deceptive Ads
WELLS FARGO: Violated Federal Reserve Regulation E, Suit Alleges
WESTERN GLOBAL: Pilots Reach Agreement Over ESOP Class Action Suit
WINE.COM INC: Fails to Pay Straight Time & OT Wages, McCloud Says
XTO ENERGY: Bid to Stay Deadlines Pending Class Cert Ruling OK'd
YOUNG CONSULTING: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Pottinger Alleges
*********
3M COMPANY: Hubler Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Hubler and Pamela Hubler, his wife, and other similarly
situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE
NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;) DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case
No. 2:24-cv-04459-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 14, 2024), is brought for
damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
in the U.S. Navy. and was diagnosed with thyroid disease and/or
other medical related conditions as a result of exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
2 Bridge Ave, Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-224-9400
Facsimile: 732-224-9494
3M COMPANY: Oswald Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Oswald, individually and as Personal
Representative/Administrator/Executor of the Estate of Charles
Oswald, deceased, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK
EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;)
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case No. 2:24-cv-04488-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 15,
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.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Melissa Oswald is the personal
representative/administrator/executor of the Estate of Charles
Oswald who regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
in the Navy and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of
exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave, Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-224-9400
Facsimile: 732-224-9494
3M COMPANY: Peterson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Peterson and Cami Peterson, his wife, and other similarly
situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE
NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;) DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case
No. 2:24-cv-04489-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 15, 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.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his career in the
Navy and was diagnosed with testicular cancer and/or other medical
related conditions as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave, Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-224-9400
Facsimile: 732-224-9494
3M COMPANY: Reilly Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
William Reilly and Linda Sue Reilly, his wife, and other similarly
situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE
NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;) DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case
No. 2:24-cv-04491-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 15, 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.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
and was diagnosed with thyroid disease and/or other medical related
conditions as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave, Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-224-9400
Facsimile: 732-224-9494
3M COMPANY: Stansbury Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Whitney Stansbury, and others similarly
situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 52-CV-2024-900432.00 was
removed from the Circuit Court for the Eighth Judicial Circuit,
Morgan County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama on Sept. 30, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 5:24-cv-01335-LCB.
The Plaintiff seeks to hold 3M and other Defendants liable based on
their alleged conduct in manufacturing, using, discharging, and/or
disposing of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"),
including perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS"), and PFAS-containing products.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
M. Christian King, Esq.
Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq.
W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq.
LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C.
The Clark Building
400 North 20th Street
Birmingham, AL 35203-3200
Phone: (205) 581-0700
Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com
hprater@lightfootlaw.com
lradney@lightfootlaw.com
3M COMPANY: Trammell Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
John Trammell and Bonnie Trammell, his wife, and other similarly
situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE
NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;) DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case
No. 2:24-cv-04469-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 14, 2024), is brought for
damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
in the U.S. Navy. and was diagnosed with thyroid cancer and/or
other medical related conditions as a result of exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
2 Bridge Ave, Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-224-9400
Facsimile: 732-224-9494
3M COMPANY: Ware Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lennon Ware, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD. CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:24-cv-05387-RMG
(D.S.C., Sept. 27, 2024), is brought for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic
chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances
("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic
acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and
related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or
PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
thyroid disease as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Constantine Venizelos, Esq.
CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP
737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440
Cleveland, OH 44115
Phone: 216-815-9000
Facsimile: 216-274-9365
AAM HOLDING: Thomas Files Suit for Discrimination, Harassment
-------------------------------------------------------------
EUNICE RAQUEL FLORES THOMAS, on behalf of herself, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. AAM
HOLDING CORP. d/b/a FLASHDANCERS GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, 59 MURRAY STREET
ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a FLASHDANCERS GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, BARRY
LIPSITZ, individually, and individually, BARRY LIPSITZ, JR.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-07253 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2024) is a
civil action based upon Defendants' collective violations of
Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to her by: (i) the anti-sex
discrimination of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; (ii)
the anti-sex discrimination provisions of the New York State Human
Rights Law; (iii) the anti-sex discrimination provisions of the New
York City Human Rights Law; and (iv) any other claims that can be
inferred from the facts set forth herein.
The Plaintiff brings this action to seek redress for Defendants'
sex discrimination against her during her employment. Allegedly,
the Defendants discriminated against the Plaintiff due to her sex
by subjecting her to a hostile work environment and quid pro quo
sexual harassment, in violation of Title VII, the NYSHRL, and the
NYCHRL.
The Plaintiff worked at Flashdancers, interchangeably at both
locations, as a dancer, from September 2019 until the end of July
2021. I
AAM Holding Corp., d/b/a Flashdancers Gentlemen's Club, is a
Manhattan, New York-based strip club.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sharan R. Abraham, Esq.
Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 248-5550
Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
ADAMAS PHARMA: Court Approves Class Action Settlement in Zaidi
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALI ZAIDI, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. ADAMAS
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-08051-JSW (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey White entered an order approving
class action settlement.
The Court affirms its determinations in the Preliminary Approval
Order certifying, for the purposes of the Settlement only, the
Action as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the Settlement Class
consisting of:
"all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired
the publicly traded common stock of Adamas, between Aug. 8,
2017
and March 4, 2019, both dates inclusive, and were damaged."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (a) persons and
entities
that suffered no compensable losses; (b) all shares of Adamas
common stock purchased or acquired directly in Adamas'
January
24, 2018 secondary public offering (which stock was issued
pursuant to Adamas' Nov. 21, 2016 Registration Statement and
Jan. 24, 2018 Prospectus Supplement and all materials
incorporated therein) ("Covered Purchases"); and (c)(i)
Defendant and Adamas; (ii) any person who served as a
partner,
control person, officer, and/or director of Adamas during the
Settlement Class Period, and members of their Immediate
Families
(as is defined in the Settlement); (iii) present and former
parents, subsidiaries, assigns, successors, affiliates, and
predecessors of Adamas; (iv) any entity in which the
Defendant
or Adamas has or had a controlling interest; (v) any trust of
which Defendant is the settler or which is for the benefit of
the Defendant and/or member(s) of his Immediate Family; (vi)
Defendant's liability insurance carriers; and (vii) the legal
representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns of any person
or
entity excluded under provisions (i) through (vi) hereof. For
the avoidance of doubt: (i) "affiliates" are persons or
entities
that directly, or indirectly through one or more
intermediaries,
control, are controlled by or are under common control with
Adamas or the Defendant; and (ii) Covered Purchases are
excluded
from this Settlement.
Adamas develops controlled release combination therapeutics for
infectious diseases and central nervous system disorders.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DE1gP0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
ADVOCATE AURORA: Imposes Illegal Tobacco Surcharges, Rogers Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
KELLY ROGERS and KATHRYN DEISINGER O'FLAHERTY, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
ADVOCATE AURORA HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08864
(N.D. Ill., September 25, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendant for violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) and breach of fiduciary duty.
The case arises from the Defendant's practice of charging a tobacco
surcharge that unjustly forces certain employees to pay higher
premiums for their health insurance. The Defendant does not provide
the required reasonable alternative standard, and even if it did,
it has failed to adequately notify employees about the availability
of such an alternative in all its plan communications.
Consequently, the Defendant's tobacco surcharge violates ERISA's
anti-discrimination provisions by imposing additional costs on
employees who use tobacco products without meeting the legal
requirements for a bona fide wellness program. As a result of the
imposition of the unlawful and discriminatory tobacco surcharge,
the Defendant enriched itself at the expense of the plan, resulting
in it receiving a windfall, the suit alleges.
Advocate Aurora Health, Inc. is a not-for-profit health system
headquartered in Downers Grove, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kyle D.McLean, Esq.
Oren Faircloth, Esq.
David J. DiSabato, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
Email: kmclean@sirillp.com
ofaircloth@sirillp.com
ddisabato@sirillp.com
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Court to Junk Partial Summary Judgment Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB MEINERT, as Class
Representative individually and on behalf of those Plaintiffs who
submitted a religious exemption and were fired, and NICHOLAS
SCHALLUS, as Class Representative individually and on behalf of
those Plaintiffs who submitted a medical exemption and were fired,
v. PORT AUTHORITY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY d/b/a Pittsburgh Regional
Transit, Case No. 2:22-cv-01736-RJC (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
Robert Colville will deny Plaintiffs' partial motion for summary
judgment and will deny Defendant's motion to sever.
At this early stage of litigation, the Court finds that there are
common questions of fact between Plaintiffs' claims. For example,
both Plaintiffs raise questions as to what Defendant's exemption
process entails and whether Defendant properly evaluated their
exemption requests. Additionally, at this early stage, the Court
understands that there will be an overlap in witnesses in this
matter. As such, Defendant's Motion to Sever will be denied,
without prejudice.
The Plaintiffs have asserted a claim for religious discrimination
under Title VII and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
The Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendant who "were bus
drivers or maintenance workers of various types who held sincerely
held religious beliefs against receiving the Covid-19
vaccination."
The Defendant is a Pennsylvania public authority responsible for
providing public transportation in Allegheny County.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Sept. 26, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RQQnLR
at no extra charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Stipulation in Brown Suit OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER BROWN, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:22-cv-00965-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John H. Chun entered
an order granting the Parties' stipulation as follows:
1. When Amazon produces to Plaintiffs in these matters documents
that have been produced (by either Amazon or a nonparty) in
the
California Action or the FTC Action, Amazon will provide to
Plaintiffs metadata field(s) indicating the Bates number(s)
assigned to the documents in the California Action and/or the
FTC Action.
2. If exhibits marked during the depositions of any Amazon or
nonparty witnesses bear the Bates number(s) applied to the
documents in the California Action and/or the FTC Action but
do
not bear the Bates number(s) applied to the documents in
these
matters, the Parties may, but are not required to, read the
Bates number(s) from these matters into the record at the
deposition. To the extent a participant in a coordinated
deposition disagrees with the provisions described in
Paragraph
2, the Parties agree to promptly meet and confer with each
other
and other participants in the coordinated deposition to
resolve
any disagreements. The resolution of any such disagreement
shall
be documented in writing and agreed to by all parties
participating in the coordinated deposition.
3. The Parties may, in connection with the preparation of trial
exhibits in these matters, replace the versions of the
exhibits
marked during the depositions of any Amazon or nonparty
witnesses with an identical version of the document that
bears
the Bates number(s) in these matters.
4. The Parties will not object to the admissibility of an
exhibit
marked in the deposition of any Amazon or nonparty witnesses,
or
corresponding testimony, solely on the ground that the
document
marked during the deposition did not bear these matters’
Bates
number(s) so long as the version produced in these Actions is
identical to the version marked during the deposition. The
Parties reserve all rights to object to the admissibility of
any
exhibit or deposition testimony on any other ground(s).
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JCTrWX at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq.
Anne F. Johnson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
barbaram@hbsslaw.com
annej@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Zina G. Bash, Esq.
Jessica Beringer, Esq.
Shane Kelly, Esq.
Roseann Romano, Esq.
KELLER POSTMAN LLC
111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500
Austin, TX, 78701
Telephone: (512) 690-0990
E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com
Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com
shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com
roseann.romano@kellerpostman.com
- and -
Alicia Cobb, Esq.
Steig D. Olson, Esq.
David D. LeRay, Esq.
Nic V. Siebert, Esq.
Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Esq.
Adam B. Wolfson, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
1109 First Avenue, Suite 210
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 905-7000
E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com
steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
davidleray@quinnemanuel.com
nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com
maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com
adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John A. Goldmark, Esq.
MaryAnn Almeida, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Telephone: (206) 622-3150
Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com
JohnGoldmark@dwt.com
MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com
- and -
Karen L. Dunn, Esq.
William A. Isaacson, Esq.
Amy J. Mauser, Esq.
Kyle Smith, Esq.
Meredith Dearborn, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1047
Telephone: (202) 223-7300
Facsimile: (202) 223-7420
E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com
wisaacson@paulweiss.com
amauser@paulweiss.com
ksmith@paulweiss.com
mdearborn@paulweiss.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Stipulation in De Coster Suit OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH DE COSTER, et
al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:21-cv-00693-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John H. Chun entered
an order granting the Parties' stipulation as follows:
1. When Amazon produces to Plaintiffs in these matters documents
that have been produced (by either Amazon or a nonparty) in
the
California Action or the FTC Action, Amazon will provide to
Plaintiffs metadata field(s) indicating the Bates number(s)
assigned to the documents in the California Action and/or the
FTC Action.
2. If exhibits marked during the depositions of any Amazon or
nonparty witnesses bear the Bates number(s) applied to the
documents in the California Action and/or the FTC Action but
do
not bear the Bates number(s) applied to the documents in
these
matters, the Parties may, but are not required to, read the
Bates number(s) from these matters into the record at the
deposition. To the extent a participant in a coordinated
deposition disagrees with the provisions described in
Paragraph
2, the Parties agree to promptly meet and confer with each
other
and other participants in the coordinated deposition to
resolve
any disagreements. The resolution of any such disagreement
shall
be documented in writing and agreed to by all parties
participating in the coordinated deposition.
3. The Parties may, in connection with the preparation of trial
exhibits in these matters, replace the versions of the
exhibits
marked during the depositions of any Amazon or nonparty
witnesses with an identical version of the document that
bears
the Bates number(s) in these matters.
4. The Parties will not object to the admissibility of an
exhibit
marked in the deposition of any Amazon or nonparty witnesses,
or
corresponding testimony, solely on the ground that the
document
marked during the deposition did not bear these matters’
Bates
number(s) so long as the version produced in these Actions is
identical to the version marked during the deposition. The
Parties reserve all rights to object to the admissibility of
any
exhibit or deposition testimony on any other ground(s).
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FlrtCE at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq.
Anne F. Johnson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
barbaram@hbsslaw.com
annej@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Zina G. Bash, Esq.
Jessica Beringer, Esq.
Shane Kelly, Esq.
Roseann Romano, Esq.
KELLER POSTMAN LLC
111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500
Austin, TX, 78701
Telephone: (512) 690-0990
E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com
Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com
shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com
roseann.romano@kellerpostman.com
- and -
Alicia Cobb, Esq.
Steig D. Olson, Esq.
David D. LeRay, Esq.
Nic V. Siebert, Esq.
Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Esq.
Adam B. Wolfson, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
1109 First Avenue, Suite 210
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 905-7000
E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com
steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
davidleray@quinnemanuel.com
nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com
maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com
adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John A. Goldmark, Esq.
MaryAnn Almeida, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Telephone: (206) 622-3150
Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com
JohnGoldmark@dwt.com
MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com
- and -
Karen L. Dunn, Esq.
William A. Isaacson, Esq.
Amy J. Mauser, Esq.
Kyle Smith, Esq.
Meredith Dearborn, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1047
Telephone: (202) 223-7300
Facsimile: (202) 223-7420
E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com
wisaacson@paulweiss.com
amauser@paulweiss.com
ksmith@paulweiss.com
mdearborn@paulweiss.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Stipulation in Frame Wilson OK'd
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH FRAME-WILSON, et
al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:20-cv-00424-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John H. Chun entered
an order granting the Parties' stipulation as follows:
1. When Amazon produces to Plaintiffs in these matters documents
that have been produced (by either Amazon or a nonparty) in
the
California Action or the FTC Action, Amazon will provide to
Plaintiffs metadata field(s) indicating the Bates number(s)
assigned to the documents in the California Action and/or the
FTC Action.
2. If exhibits marked during the depositions of any Amazon or
nonparty witnesses bear the Bates number(s) applied to the
documents in the California Action and/or the FTC Action but
do
not bear the Bates number(s) applied to the documents in
these
matters, the Parties may, but are not required to, read the
Bates number(s) from these matters into the record at the
deposition. To the extent a participant in a coordinated
deposition disagrees with the provisions described in
Paragraph
2, the Parties agree to promptly meet and confer with each
other
and other participants in the coordinated deposition to
resolve
any disagreements. The resolution of any such disagreement
shall
be documented in writing and agreed to by all parties
participating in the coordinated deposition.
3. The Parties may, in connection with the preparation of trial
exhibits in these matters, replace the versions of the
exhibits
marked during the depositions of any Amazon or nonparty
witnesses with an identical version of the document that
bears
the Bates number(s) in these matters.
4. The Parties will not object to the admissibility of an
exhibit
marked in the deposition of any Amazon or nonparty witnesses,
or
corresponding testimony, solely on the ground that the
document
marked during the deposition did not bear these matters’
Bates
number(s) so long as the version produced in these Actions is
identical to the version marked during the deposition. The
Parties reserve all rights to object to the admissibility of
any
exhibit or deposition testimony on any other ground(s).
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BiPn8O at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq.
Anne F. Johnson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
barbaram@hbsslaw.com
annej@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Zina G. Bash, Esq.
Jessica Beringer, Esq.
Shane Kelly, Esq.
Roseann Romano, Esq.
KELLER POSTMAN LLC
111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500
Austin, TX, 78701
Telephone: (512) 690-0990
E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com
Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com
shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com
roseann.romano@kellerpostman.com
- and -
Alicia Cobb, Esq.
Steig D. Olson, Esq.
David D. LeRay, Esq.
Nic V. Siebert, Esq.
Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Esq.
Adam B. Wolfson, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
1109 First Avenue, Suite 210
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 905-7000
E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com
steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
davidleray@quinnemanuel.com
nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com
maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com
adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John A. Goldmark, Esq.
MaryAnn Almeida, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Telephone: (206) 622-3150
Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com
JohnGoldmark@dwt.com
MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com
- and -
Karen L. Dunn, Esq.
William A. Isaacson, Esq.
Amy J. Mauser, Esq.
Kyle Smith, Esq.
Meredith Dearborn, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1047
Telephone: (202) 223-7300
Facsimile: (202) 223-7420
E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com
wisaacson@paulweiss.com
amauser@paulweiss.com
ksmith@paulweiss.com
mdearborn@paulweiss.com
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Court Reverses Dismissal of Labor Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On appeal from the district court's order dismissing Dan Hamilton's
purported class-action claims for violations of Colorado wage law
against Amazon.com Services, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
certified a question to the Colorado Supreme Court: "[w]hether
Colorado law includes or excludes holiday incentive pay from the
calculation of '[r]egular rate of pay.'"
The Colorado Supreme Court accepted the certified question and has
now issued an opinion "Concluding that holiday incentive pay is
included in the calculation of the '[r]egular rate of pay.'"
According to the opinion, this conclusion is contrary to the
district court's determination that holiday incentive pay is not
included in the calculation. The 10th Circuit concluded the
Colorado Supreme Court's answer to its certified question resolved
the appeal in Hamilton's favor.
The 10th Circuit reversed the district court's order dismissing
Hamilton's complaint, remanded for further proceedings and denied
as moot Amazon's motion to take judicial notice. [GN]
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Williams Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Talor Williams, as an individual and on behalf of all other
aggrieved employees v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV20691 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 15, 2024), is
brought for recovery of civil penalties under California Labor Code
as a result of the Defendants unlawful labor practices.
The Defendants failed to provide meal periods to Plaintiff and
other aggrieved employees at the regular rate of pay in violation
of Labor Code; and failed to maintain accurate records of hours
worked on behalf of Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees,
including the times that they began and ended the workday and the
beginning and end of their meal periods, in violation of Labor
codes, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendants as an Area Manager
since 2021 and was classified as an exempt employee during this
time.
The Defendants did (and do) business by offering online sales and
services as well as associated shipping and delivery services to
online customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul K. Haines, Esq.
Sean M. Blakely, Esq.
Joel M. Gordon, Esq.
HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180
El Segundo, CA 90245
Phone: (424) 292-2350
Fax: (424) 292-2355
Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
sblakely@haineslawgroup.com
jgordon@haineslawgroup.com
AMERICAN GATEWAY: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Senior Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MILAGROS SENIOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN GATEWAY MARKETING GROUP, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-07261 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 26, 2024) alleges violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://aeromats.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
Email: Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
ANTONY BLINKEN: Court Dismisses Amended Complaint w/o Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABDUL BARI RAHMAN et al.,
v. ANTONY J. BLINKEN et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-03235-JDB (D.D.C.),
the Hon. Judge John Bates will grant the State Department's motion
to dismiss and will dismiss Plaintiffs' amended complaint without
prejudice.
This Court is not persuaded by Rahman's attempts to distinguish the
issues in his case from those in Allies. While Rahman has alleged
that the State Department incorrectly applied the AAPA, this
allegation relates to the merits of Rahman's COM revocation, which,
for reasons discussed above, the Court concludes he cannot
challenge at this time.
Thus, the only claims upon which he may move forward at this stage
are his unreasonable delay claims, which mirror the claims in
Allies pursued on behalf of Rahman and other class members.
The Court agrees that any CSPA claim is not ripe because Rahman's
appeal of the revocation of his COM approval is pending. The INA
entitles derivative children to the same status as their applicant
parent. Thus, unless or until Rahman succeeds in his appeal of his
COM revocation, no State Department official has reason to consider
Rahman's children's eligibility for an SIV. Accordingly, the Court
will dismiss Rahman's CSPA claim without prejudice.
The Plaintiff, along with his wife and three children, alleges that
various government officials (collectively, the "State Department")
improperly revoked Rahman's Chief of Mission approval for an Afghan
Special Immigrant Visa in violation of his due process rights, the
Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), and the All Writs Act. He
further alleges that the State Department unreasonably delayed
adjudicating his pending appeal of the State Department's
revocation of his Chief of Mission Approval in violation of the
APA, the Declaratory Judgment Act, and the Mandamus Act.
Dr. Abdul Bari Rahman is a non-citizen, Afghan national currently
residing in the United States on a two-year humanitarian parole.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Sept. 27, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6Hl1tB
at no extra charge.[CC]
BAKER & DONELSON: Bid for Investor Discovery Granted in Mills Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALYSSON MILLS, in her
capacity as Receiver for Arthur Lamar Adams and Madison Timber
Properties, LLC, v. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ,
PC et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00866-CWR-BWR (S.D. Miss.), the Hon.
Judge Bradley Rath entered an order granting Baker Donelson's
motion for investor discovery.
The Court further entered nan order that October 11, 2024 is the
deadline for all parties to supplement their initial disclosures in
the detail and manner dictated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(a)(1) and (e).
The Court already remarked in BankPlus that "in discovery as in
everything else, the particulars are instructive."
Applying Rule 26 to these claims and defenses and this fact
pattern, Receiver’s relevancy objections are overruled, and her
disproportionality arguments severely undermined by (1) the amount
in controversy, (2) Baker Donelson’s inability for years to
obtain investor discovery while Receiver has had it, and (3)
Receiver's failure to reveal, years into the case, who her
potential investor witnesses are and the subject matter of each’s
testimony.
Baker, Donelson is a large U.S. law firm and lobbying group with
offices in the Southeastern United States and Washington, D.C.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q01Msi at no extra
charge.[CC]
BED BATH: Class Cannot Satisfy Rule 23 Requirement, Ct. Says
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRATYA SPRL, v. BED BATH &
BEYOND CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02541-TNM (D.D.C.),
the Hon. Judge Trevor McFadden said that the putative class cannot
satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement.
The Court added, "That said, nothing here should suggest that short
squeezes offer a green light to market fraudsters to engage in
pump-and-dump schemes without fear of class actions suits. Nor does
the Court hold that Cammer is inapplicable to short squeezes. The
Court merely finds that Bratya has not carried its burden to prove
market efficiency on this record. A corresponding order will issue
today.
In August 2022, a pro se plaintiff brought this lawsuit against
Cohen, RC Ventures, Bed Bath, and Bed Bath's CEO, Sue Gove. It
alleged various claims of fraud and violations of federal
securities laws.
Then, with counsel, the plaintiff amended, alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
SEC Rule 10b-5; Section 20A of the Exchange Act; and Sections
9(a)(2)–(4) and 9(f) of the Exchange Act.
Bratya seeks to certify a class consisting of:
"All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Bed
Bath's common stock and long call options between Aug. 12,
2022,
and Aug. 18, 2022, both dates inclusive."
Excluded from the Class are Defendants, the current and former
officers and directors of Bed Bath and RC Ventures LLC, any
person
or entity that had or currently holds a controlling interest in
Bed Bath or RC Ventures LLC, members of the Defendants'
immediate
families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or
assigns, and any entity in which the Defendants or Bed Bath
have
or had a controlling interest.
Bed Bath engages in the operation of retail stores and retails
domestics merchandise and home furnishings.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Sept. 27, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vKNZy5
at no extra charge.[CC]
BED BATH: Lead Plaintiff's Bid to Certify Class Tossed
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRATYA SPRL, v. BED BATH &
BEYOND CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02541-TNM (D.D.C.),
the Hon. Judge Trevor McFadden entered an order denying Lead
Plaintiff's motion to certify class.
Bed Bath engages in the operation of retail stores and retails
domestics merchandise and home furnishings.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2HIgM9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
BIMBO BAKERIES: Settlement in Botonis Suit Wins Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIM BOTONIS and LIAM
PATRICK MEIKLE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. BIMBO BAKERIES USA, Inc., Case No.
2:22-cv-01453-DJC-SCR (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel Calabretta
entered an order that:
1. The Court has jurisdiction over this action and the
Settlement
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a) and (d);
2. Except as otherwise specified herein, the Court for purposes
of
this Final Approval Order adopts all defined terms set forth
in
the Settlement Agreement;
3. Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action and
PAGA
Settlement is granted and the Court approves the Settlement
as
fair, reasonable, and adequate and the result of arm's-length
informed negotiations;
4. Class Member Crisanto Martinez's Objections are overruled.
5. The Court grants final certification of the Class for
settlement
purposes only. The Class is defined as:
"all current and former individuals who are or previously
were
employed by Defendant in California as Transport Associates
(also referred to as Drivers, including Relief Drivers) and
Route
Sales Professionals or any associate doing similar work
during
the period May 10, 2018 through August 26, 2023."
6. The Court grants final approval of the sub-Class of
"Aggrieved
Employees" for purposes of Settlement of the PAGA Claims,
"who
are or were employed by Defendant in California as Transport
Associates (also referred to as Drivers, including Relief
Drivers) and Route Sales Professionals or any associate
during
similar work during" the period of May 10, 2021 through
August
26, 2023.
7. The Court appoints Tim Botonis and Liam Patrick Meikle as the
Class Representatives for settlement purposes only.
8. The Court appoints Beeson, Tayer & Bodine, APC as Class
Counsel
for settlement purposes only.
9. The Court finds that all procedural steps for distributing
Notice to the Class Members have been met and that Notice was
properly provided to the Class.
10. The Court orders the Settlement Administrator to distribute
from
the Gross Settlement Amount ("GSA") the following:
a. Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees in the amount
of
$130,000.00;
b. Class Counsel’s request for expenses in the amount of
$8,310.64;
c. The Settlement Administrator's costs in the amount of
$11,765.00;
d. Class Representative Service award in the amount of
$5,000.00 to Plaintiff Tim Botonis;
e. Class Representative Service award in the amount of
$5,000.00 to Plaintiff Liam Patrick Meikle; and
f. $7,500.00 to the California Labor and Workforce
Development
Agency as its 75% portion of the $10,000.00 PAGA
penalty.
Bimbo is the American corporate arm of the Mexican multinational
bakery product manufacturing company Grupo Bimbo.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Er7FkP at no extra
charge.[CC]
BIOGEN INC: Faces Antitrust Class Suit Over Drug Tecfidera
----------------------------------------------------------
NEW YORK STATE TEAMSTERS COUNCIL HEALTH AND HOSPITAL FUND, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. BIOGEN, INC.,
Case No. 1:24-cv-08933 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 25, 2024) is a civil
antitrust action seeking damages and other relief arising out of
Defendant's unlawful scheme to impair competition from generic
versions of its brand-name prescription drug Tecfidera.
The Plaintiff contends that Biogen entered into agreements with
each of the three Pharmacy Benefit Managers pursuant to which it
agreed to pay, and did pay, substantial kickbacks to each of them
in exchange for their reciprocal agreement to disadvantage generic
Tecfidera on their formularies and/or to designate generic
Tecfidera as a specialty drug used to treat multiple sclerosis.
Biogen made each of the agreements with the purpose and effect of
impairing generic competition to buy time for Biogen to switch the
market from Tecfidera to Vumerity. The agreements, individually and
collectively, covered a sufficiently substantial percentage of the
relevant commerce to harm competition, the Plaintiff adds.
As a direct and proximate result of Biogen's alleged unlawful
restraint of trade, the Plaintiff and Class members paid
artificially inflated prices for fumarate and were harmed as a
result.
The Plaintiff and Class members have been injured in their business
or property by reason of Biogen's antitrust violations. These
injuries are of the type that the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 1, was designed to prevent, and flow from that which makes
Biogen's conduct unlawful, the suit asserts.
Plaintiff New York State Teamsters Council Health and Hospital Fund
is a self-insured health plan whose purpose is to provide health
benefits to eligible members and dependents.
Biogen is a manufacturer and seller of branded prescription
pharmaceuticals, including Tecfidera and Vumerity.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
Justin N. Boley, Esq.
Tyler J. Story, Esq.
WEXLER BOLEY & ELGERSMA LLP
311 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 5450
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 346-2222
Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
E-mail: kaw@wbe-llp.com
jnb@wbe-llp.com
tjs@wbe-llp.com
- and -
Arthur Bailey, Esq.
RUPP PFALZGRAF LLC
111 West 2nd St., Suite 1100
Jamestown, NY
Telephone: (716) 664-2967
E-mail: bailey@rupppfalzgraf.com
BOWL 360: Website Not Blind-Friendly, Trippett Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
ALFRED TRIPPETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Bowl 360, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-06749 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2024) is a civil rights action
against Bowl 360 for their failure to design, construct, maintain,
and operate their website https://www.bowl360.nyc to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
Plaintiff Trippett has made an attempt to visit and use
Bowl360.nyc. To make plans for an upcoming weekend, on June 10,
2024, he searched for local bowling locations on Google, which led
him to the Defendant's website. Unfortunately, he encountered
difficulties navigating the site, which prevented him from booking
the desired event package. These barriers are pervasive and
include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure,
inaccurate heading hierarchy, inaccurate drop-down menus, the lack
of navigation links, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields,
the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements and the
requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse,
says the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Bowl 360's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.
Bowl 360, Inc. operates the website that offers bowling, a
restaurant and bar, pool tables, an arcade and catering room.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
BUMBLE INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Fraud
------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Bumble
Inc. ("Bumble" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BMBL). The lawsuit
alleges that Defendants created the false impression that they
possessed reliable information pertaining to the Company's
projected revenue outlook and anticipated growth, while also
downplaying the potential disruption to Bumble's brand and
reputation caused by the imminent change in leadership. Such
statements are alleged to have caused Plaintiff and other
shareholders to purchase Bumble's securities at artificially
inflated prices.
If you bought shares of Bumble between November 7, 2023 and August
7, 2024, and you suffered a significant loss on that investment,
you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey
D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone
at (888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's website at
http://holzerlaw.com/case/bumble/to learn more.
The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the
case is November 25, 2024.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law
firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys
have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of
dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate
misconduct. More information about the firm is available through
its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this
promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney
responsible for its content.
CONTACT:
Corey Holzer, Esq.
(888) 508-6832 (toll-free)
cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN]
CAMPAGNA-TURANO BAKERY: Lozano GIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JULIO LOZANO, individually
and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v. CAMPAGNA-TURANO
BAKERY, INC. d/b/a TURANO BAKING CO., an Illinois corporation, Case
No. 2024CH07523 (Filed Aug. 9, 2024), was removed from the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
Sept. 25, 2024.
The Northern Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:24-cv-08908 to the proceeding.
The suit alleges violation of Illinois Genetic Information Privacy
Act.
Campagna-Turano offers fresh and frozen breads, dinner rolls, and
other grocery products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul T. Geske, Esq.
Andrew T. Heldut, Esq.
Colin P. Buscarini, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
E-mail: pgeske@mcgpc.com
aheldut@mcgpc.com
cbuscarini@mcgpc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
David K. Haase, Esq.
Angela R. Huisingh, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
321 North Clark Street, Suite 1100
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 372-5520
Facsimile: (312) 372-7880
E-mail: dhaase@littler.com
ahuisingh@littler.com
CENTRAL RAILROAD: Faces Class Action Suit Over Leaked Styrene
-------------------------------------------------------------
PJ O'Keefe, writing for WCPO, reports that a class-action lawsuit
has been filed against the Central Railroad of Indiana, INEOS Group
and more after a tanker car leaked styrene in the Cleves and
Whitewater Township area for several hours on Tuesday, September
24, leading to evacuation and shelter-in-place orders.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of "thousands of individuals and many
businesses damaged, traumatized or otherwise injured," claims the
owners of the railroad, rail car and the company that produced the
styrene owe them damages for lost wages and the mental and physical
suffering. The lawsuit asks for reimbursement for those lost wages,
as well as the creation of a fund to provide a medical monitoring
program as a result of the potential effects of exposure to
styrene.
We've reached out to the parties named as defendants in the lawsuit
for a comment. We have not yet heard back.
The lawsuit was filed less than two days after the leak was
reported. You can read the full suit below.
Nearly 20 years ago, a rail car near Lunken Airport leaked
dangerous levels of styrene, causing residents to evacuate. The
styrene lingered in the air for days, and roughly 800 homes and 70
businesses were affected.
Residents were able to return to their homes after three days.
After residents returned, it seemed issues related to the styrene
remained.
The 2005 leak also led to a class-action lawsuit that resulted in a
"multi-million dollar recovery" for people and businesses affected,
according to the Goldenberg Schneider Law Firm, which spearheaded
the lawsuit. [GN]
CHEMOURS CO: Must Complete Response to Interrogatories by Oct. 17
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wilcoxen v. The Chemours
Company, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01416 (D. Del., Filed Dec. 11,
2023), the Hon. Judge Stephanos Bibas entered an order granting
motion to compel Defendant's complete response to Plaintiffs' first
set of interrogatories.
-- The Defendant must comply by Oct. 17, 2024, at 5:00pm EDT and
file
a letter with the court notifying it of compliance.
-- The Plaintiffs then have 31 days from the time of receiving
Defendant's complete response to file a letter with the court
explaining (1) whether Plaintiffs seek to amend their motion
for
conditional class certification based on the information in
the
interrogatories, and (2) how much time they need to amend.
The motion for conditional class certification will be held in
abeyance until then.
The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Chemours is an American chemical company that was founded in July
2015 as a spin-off from DuPont. Chemours is the manufacturer of
Teflon, the brand name of polytetrafluoroethylene, known for its
anti-stick properties.[CC]
CINEPLEX INC: Hit With $39-Mil. Judgement for Illegal Drip Pricing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers Council of Canada News reports that Canada's Competition
Tribunal ruled that Cineplex's $1.50 online booking fees were
illegal, and ordered the movie theatre chain to pay a penalty of
$38.9 million.
Canada's Competition Bureau brought the action to the Tribunal in
May 2023. The Bureau argued that Cineplex's online booking fees
were a form of illegal drip pricing, based on 2022 revisions to the
Competition Act. Drip pricing involves showing consumers a price
that is unobtainable because of mandatory charges that the consumer
must ultimately pay, above any represented price.
The Bureau argued that the cinema chain's practice of charging an
additional $1.50 on every online ticket purchase added a fee that
prevented consumers from buying tickets at an advertised price.
Cineplex reduced the fee for Scene+ members and eliminated it for
CineClub members, and also argued that consumers could get the
advertised price for tickets purchased at a theatre.
In its two-page summary, the Tribunal agreed that the ticket prices
displayed on Cineplex's web site and mobile app were inaccurate.
"The consumer is deceived or led astray by the contradictory and
incomplete information on Cineplex's tickets page, which obfuscates
the existence and quantum of the online booking fee."
The Tribunal ordered to Cineplex to pay a financial penalty of
$38.9 million, the amount Cineplex had gained from the online
booking fees between June 2022 and December 2023. The Bureau filed
a statement of fact earlier this year that showed Cineplex made
more than $11.6 million after introducing the fees in June 2022,
and another $27.3 million from the fees in 2023.
In a news release announcing the decision, Commissioner of
Competition Matthew Boswell noted that the decision was "a
resounding win for Canadians" that businesses should not engage in
drip pricing, and that those "that fail to comply with the law risk
significant financial penalties."
Cineplex maintained that its online booking fees were displayed "in
a clear and prominent manner", and that it intended to appeal the
decision.
"We believe our guests make informed purchase decisions and remain
confident our online booking fee is presented in a way that fully
complies with the spirit and the letter of the law," it said in a
release.
Cineplex also faces several class action lawsuits that also seek
compensation for misleading advertising. [GN]
CLEVELAND, OH: Buckeye Institute Appeals Income Tax Refund Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Buckeye Institute reports that on Wednesday, September 25, The
Buckeye Institute filed its appeal brief in Wos v. Cleveland,
calling on Ohio's Eighth District Court of Appeals to hold
Cleveland accountable for ignoring its own city ordinance, which
requires the city to pay interest on any municipal income tax
refund not paid within 90 days after a taxpayer files their
return.
"The trial court erred in dismissing Wos v. Cleveland. There simply
are no administrative remedies to exhaust, and the law is clear,"
said Jay R. Carson, senior litigator at The Buckeye Institute and
an attorney representing Ms. Wos and Mr. Steffes. "Cleveland owes
Ms. Wos, Mr. Steffes, and any other affected taxpayers, interest
for failing to issue tax refunds within 90 days."
Wos v. Cleveland is The Buckeye Institute's class action lawsuit on
behalf of all nonresidents of Cleveland who filed a municipal
income tax return with the city and received their refund more than
90 days after filing their return. To stay up-to-date on the case,
visit BuckeyeInstitute.org/WosvCleveland.
Background on the Case and The Buckeye Institute's Clients
Cleveland's city ordinances state that when the city owes a tax
refund, the refund is subject to interest at a rate of the federal
funds rate of nearly five percent plus an additional five percent
if the refund is not paid within 90 days after the taxpayer files
their return.
On March 12, 2023 -- after the passage of Ohio House Bill 110,
which allowed Ohioans to seek municipal income tax refunds for 2021
and 2022 -- Kate Wos of Strongsville filed her 2021 municipal tax
return with Cleveland. As with countless other taxpayers, Ms. Wos
then waited and waited and waited. After a more than six-month
delay, Ms. Wos finally received her refund on September 21, 2023.
However, the refund did not include the interest for the delay and
failed to refund her for her paid vacation days.
Similarly, Mr. Steffes, of North Royalton, filed his municipal tax
return with Cleveland for 2021, seeking a refund for the time
during the pandemic that his employer, Stantec, closed its
Cleveland office and ordered all employees to work from home.
Initially, the city declined to issue Mr. Steffes' refund, and
their obstruction became so ridiculous as to demand that Mr.
Steffes provide some form of verified statement from someone who
was actually working in his employer's Cleveland office in 2021 to
confirm that Mr. Steffes was not working out of the Cleveland
office. Such verification was, of course, impossible since no one
was working out of Stantec's Cleveland office. Finally, in late
2023, Mr. Steffes received his refund, but as with Ms. Wos, the
refund did not include the interest for the delay and failed to
refund Mr. Steffes for his paid vacation days. [GN]
COWBOY CHANNEL: Discloses Website Users' Video Info, Saarloos Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
LINDSY SAARLOOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE COWBOY CHANNEL, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:24-cv-02058 (C.D. Cal., September 25, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Video Privacy Protection
Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has disclosed to
unrelated third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc.; Google
LLC; and Yahoo Inc., the personally identifiable information (PII)
and video viewing information of its Cowboy Channel Plus website,
https://www.cowboychannelplus.com, without consent. Specifically,
the Defendant disclosed the Plaintiff's: (i) Facebook browser ID
value stored in the _fbp browser cookie, and (ii) video-viewing
information (including titles and URLs of videos watched, as well
as video interactions) to Meta via the Meta Pixel. The Defendant
also disclosed the Plaintiff's: (i) hashed email address, (ii)
Google Analytics client ID, and (iii) video-viewing information
(including titles and URLs of videos watched) to Google via Google
Analytics and Yahoo via the Yahoo Dot. As a result, the Defendant
violated the Plaintiff's and the Class members' statutorily
protected privacy rights, says the suit.
The Cowboy Channel, LLC is an American cable television network
based in Fort Worth, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: bscott@bursor.com
FRED MEYER: Sapphire Suit Remanded to Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMELIA SAPPHIRE, v. FRED
MEYER STORES INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00032-JNW (W.D. Wash.), the
Hon. Judge Jamal Whitehead entered an order:
-- granting the Plaintiff Amelia Sapphire's motion to remand,
-- granting the motion for attorney fees and costs, and
-- denying the request for Rule 11 sanctions.
The Clerk is directed to remand this case to King County Superior
Court.
Sapphire must submit her petition for reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs by no later than 14 days from the date of this Order.
In November 2022, Sapphire filed this putative class action in King
County Superior Court, alleging that Fred Meyer "activated a new
payroll system . . . that caused widespread pay issues . . . in
violation of Washington wage laws."
The proposed class is: "
"all individuals who are or have been employed by Fred Meyer in
the
State of Washington at any time since the activation of the new
payroll system."
Fred Meyer is an American chain of hypermarket superstores.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=znNSHQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
GENERAL MOTORS: Class Settlement in Altobelli Gets Initial Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Altobelli et al v. General
Motors LLC (RE CHEVROLET BOLT EV BATTERY LITIGATION), Case No.
2:20-cv-13256-TGB-CI (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Terrence Berg
entered an order granting the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement and appointment of
proposed class counsel:
The Court further finds and orders as follows:
1. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
section 1332(d), and venue is proper in this District.
2. The Court has personal jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs,
Settlement Class Members, and Defendants.
3. To the extent not otherwise defined herein, all defined
terms in this Order shall have the meaning assigned in the
Settlement Agreement.
4. The Settlement was the result of the Parties' good-faith
negotiations, entered into by experienced counsel, and only
after extensive arm' s-length negotiations.
5. The Court conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes
only,
the following Settlement Class:
"Any persons in the United States who purchased or leased,
other
than for resale, a 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, or 2022
Model
Year Chevrolet Bolt built and shipped to a dealer on or
before
Aug. 19, 2021 and who have not received a buyback of their
vehicle from General Motors or a General Motors authorized
dealer.
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) Proposed Class
Counsel; (ii) Defendants and Defendants’ officers,
directors,
employees, agents and representatives, and their family
members;
(iii) the judges who have presided over this Action; and (iv)
any persons who have otherwise released their claims against
Defendants set forth in the Action, except that persons who
executed a release in connection with the E-Card Program
remain
part of the Settlement Class and may receive payments under
the
Settlement as expressly provided in the Settlement Agreement.
6. The Court directs that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2),
a
Fairness Hearing will be held on March 25, 2025 at 2:00 p.m.
to
consider final approval of the Settlement.
7. The Court hereby appoints the following Plaintiffs as Class
Representatives for the Settlement Class: Robin Altobelli, F.
Dayle Andersen, Bruce James Cannon, Mary Carr and Jan G.
Wyers,
Yohanes Chitra, Christine Chung, Daniel Corry, John DeRosa,
William Dornetto and Russell Ives, Kevin Harris and Pamela
Duprez, Michael Hickey, Michael and Denise Holbrook, Fred
Kass,
James Kotchmar, Robert Kuchar, Joseph Poletti, Edward and
Janet
Rock, Evi Schulz, Michael Smith, Ashley Strong, Alucard
Taylor,
Jason Vaaler, Tony Verzura, Shawn Walker, and Thomas and
Carol
Whittaker.
8. The Court preliminary finds that the following counsel
fairly and adequately represent the interests of the
Settlement
Class and conditionally appoints The Miller Law Firm, PC and
Keller Rohrback, LLP as "Proposed Co-Lead Class Counsel" and
McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, Fine, Kaplan and Black, RPC,
Migliaccio & Rathod LLP, Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, PC,
and Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP as
“Proposed
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee.
9. Proposed Class Counsel may use Defendants' initial payment of
$5,000,000 into the Settlement Fund to pay the reasonable
costs
of providing notice to the Settlement Class in accordance
with
this Order in an amount not to exceed $385,000 (110% of the
Settlement Administrator’s estimate for notice costs)
without
need for further approval from this Court. Distributions in
excess of this amount shall require prior application to and
approval by the Court.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B8y3lB at no extra
charge.[CC]
GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Removes Ruiz Suit to N.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of JIMY RUIZ; and ALLAN WONG,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS (US) LLC
d/b/a Haleon, Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra
Costa, Case No. C24-02236, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on Sept. 26, 2024.
The clerk of court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:24-cv-06776. The case is assigned to Judge Joseph C.
Spero.
Haleon PLC provides consumer healthcare products. The Company
offers therapeutic oral health, vitamins, cold and flu, minerals
and supplements, pain relief, and digestive health products. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Megan A. Suehiro, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue
Twenty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
Telephone: (213) 612-2500
Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
Email: megan.suehiro@morganlewis.com
- and -
J. Gordon Cooney, Jr., Esq.
Franco A. Corrado, Esq.
2222 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-3007
Telephone: (215) 963-5000
Facsimile: (215) 963-5001
Email: gordon.cooney@morganlewis.com
franco.corrado@morganlewis.com
GRETCHEN WHITMER: Plaintiffs Summary Judgment Bid Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOES et al., v.
GRETCHEN WHITMER et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-10209-MAG-CI (E.D.
Mich.), the Hon. Judge Mark Goldsmith entered an order:
(1) granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment,
and
(2) granting in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment
The Court grants summary judgment to Plaintiffs as to their (i) ex
post facto claims, (ii) non-sex offense claim, (iii) non-Michigan
offense claim, and (iv) First Amendment claims alleging forced
admission of understanding and chilled speech rights stemming from
SORA 2021's internet-identifier reporting requirements.
The Court grants summary judgment to Defendants as to Plaintiffs'
claims regarding (i) lack of individualized review, (ii) unequal
opportunity to petition, and (iii) compelled speech.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CzReHD at no extra
charge.[CC]
HP INC: Court Narrows Claims in Carson Suit
-------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHYLLIS CARSON; LORNE
COSMAN; WILLIAM DRAPER; PHILLIP ERICKSON; TERENCE GRANER; DONALD
HARMAN; SARAH HOUSEHOLDER; TRUDY L. GRANER; TRUDY LETSON; SABINE
MILLER; DIANA HOBERT-POWELL; JANET PURVIS; PATRICIA ROBERTS; CAROLE
SCHAUER; CARA WASHINGTON; STEPHEN KAPLITT; MICHAEL DOBKIN; CHERYL
MEOLA; DIANE DRAKE; CHRISTOPHER NIND; ROSE CARINA; BRUCE WILLIAMS;
ANTHONY HARRIS; TIMUR SAKHARUK; ROBERT DIMARTINO; IAN PERRY;
STEPHEN LUTHER; GREGORY ORENSKI; RODNEY NASH; and DEBORAH THELEN
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HP
INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00208-CJB (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge
Christopher Burke grants-in-part and denies-in-part the motion to
dismiss Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) and to strike Plaintiffs' class
allegations pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).
-- The motion is granted with prejudice as to Plaintiffs' claims
for injunctive relief.
-- The Court grants Defendant's motion as to the unjust
enrichment
claims. As with Plaintiffs’ statutory consumer protection
claims
and common law fraud claims, the Court does so without
prejudice.
The Plaintiffs bring a consumer class action suit here, alleging
that the Defendant misled consumers about the quality and
functionality of its Envy Laptops, Envy 360 Laptops, Pavilion
Laptops, Pavilion 360 Laptops, and HP 14, HP 15, and HP 17
Laptops.
HP Inc. is an American multinational information technology
company.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Sept. 26, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PFWiwF
at no extra charge.[CC]
HUMANA INC: Debrobander Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
HEIDI DEBROBANDER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HUMANA, INC., and HUMANA GOVERNMENT BUSINESS,
INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00550-GNS (W.D. Ky., Sept. 25, 2024) seeks
to recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the provisions
of Sections 207 and 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
unpaid compensation pursuant to the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and
the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.
Although Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members have
routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per
workweek, the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members
were allegedly not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their
regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek.
Likewise, the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members
worked under 40 hours per workweek on occasion and were not fully
compensated at their regular rate of pay for all hours worked.
Specifically, the Defendants' regular practice-including during
weeks when Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members
worked in excess of 40 hours (not counting hours worked
"off-the-clock")-was (and is) to require the Plaintiff and the
Putative Collective/Class Members to perform necessary and
indispensable work—preparing their essential computer systems and
programs-off-the-clock prior to starting their shift and at the end
of their unpaid meal breaks, the suit alleges.
Plaintiff DeBrobander was employed by the Defendants as an hourly
Billing and Enrollment Specialist in Illinois from October 2021
until February 2022.
Humana and its subsidiaries and affiliates, including HGBI, are a
unified health insurance provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anne L. Gilday, Esq.
THE LAWRENCE FIRM, PSC
535 Madison Ave., Suite 500
Covington, KY 41011
Telephone: (859) 578-9130
Facsimile: (859) 578-1032
E-mail: anne.gilday@lawrencefirm.com
- and -
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
Carter Hastings, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
carter@a2xlaw.com
IHG MANAGEMENT: Martinez Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT MARTINEZ, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. IHG
MANAGEMENT (MARYLAND) LLC, a Maryland Limited Liability Company;
INTER- CONTINENTAL HOTELS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation;
INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP RESOURCES, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; and DOES 1-100, Case No. 3:24-cv-00210-L-DEB
(S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move for an Order certifying this
case as a class action against the Defendant.
Specifically, the Plaintiff requests that this Court, pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3):
A. Certify the Following Class:
"All current and former non-exempt employees employed by the
Defendant at one of its hotels within the State of
California,
from Dec. 28, 2019 through the date of class certification."
B. Certify the following claims as defined in the following
four
separate subclasses:
Overtime Subclass:
"All non-exempt hourly hotel employees of the Defendant in
California who worked two shifts in a Work Day totaling more
than 8 hours per day from Dec. 28, 2019 through the date
of class certification and were not paid overtime wages in
accordance with Labor Code section 510 based on the total
hours
worked in the Work Day."
"Work Day" shall refer to the calendar day starting at 12:00 AM and
ending at 11:59 PM.
Regular Rate Subclass:
"All non-exempt hourly hotel employees of the Defendant in
California who were paid a portion of any automatic service
charges collected by the Defendant under the 'tips' earnings
code from Dec. 28, 2019 through the date of class
certification
and who during the same work week earned overtime wages,
meal or rest break premiums, and sick pay wages."
Wage Statement Subclass
"All non-exempt hourly hotel employees of the Defendant who
were
paid a portion of any automatic service charges collected by
the
Defendant under the 'tips' earnings code from Dec. 28, 2022
though the date of class certification and who were furnished
a
corresponding wage statement that failed to separately list
the
amount of automatic service charges earned by the employee on
the wage statement."
Former Employee Subclass:
"All non-exempt hourly hotel employees of Defendant who
resigned
and/or were terminated from Dec. 28, 2020 through the date of
class certification and did not received their final wages
within the time provided by Labor Code sections 201 and/or
202."
Derivative Claims:
Plaintiff's Complaint also includes claims pursuant to Labor Code
sections 201, 202, 203, and 226, and Business & Professions Code
section 17200, et seq. These claims are entirely or partially
derivative of Overtime Class and Regular Rate Class at issue in
this Motion and should be certified along with them if either class
is certified.
B. Appoint the Plaintiff Robert Martinez as representative for
the
Proposed Classes.
C. Appoint Crosner Legal P.C. ("CLPC") as Class Counsel for the
proposed Classes
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 27, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5AmF2t at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon Brouillette, Esq.
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (866) 276-7637
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
E-mail: bbrouillette@crosnerlegal.com
zach@crosnerlegal.com
JACOBO FARM: Settlement in Gomez Gets Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARISOL GOMEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. J.
JACOBO FARM LABOR CONTRACTOR, INC., Case No. 1:15-cv-01489-JLT-BAM
(E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer Thurston entered an order
that:
1. Plaintiff's request for conditional certification of the
Settlement Class is granted, and the class is defined as
follows:
"All individuals who have been employed or are currently
employed by Defendant J. Jacobo Farm Labor Contractor Inc. as
a
non-exempt "field worker" or agricultural laborer who worked
at
any time from Sept. 30, 2011 to Nov. 5, 2019."
2. The parties' "Stipulation to Amend the Settlement Agreement
to
Remove [the] Sole Mention of FLSA" dated May 9, 2024 is
approved, and the reference to the FLSA as a "Released Claim"
is
stricken.
3. The parties' "Stipulation to Remove Minimum Payment Language
from Settlement Agreement" dated Sept. 13, 2024 is approved,
and
Section III.E.3 is stricken from the Settlement Agreement.
4. Preliminary approval of the parties' proposed settlement
agreement, as modified by the stipulations, is granted.
5. The proposed notice plan and deadlines are approved.
6. Marisol Gomez is appointed the Class Representative for the
Settlement Class.
7. The firms of Mallison & Martinez and Martinez Aguilasocho Law
are appointed as Class Counsel.
8. Phoenix Settlement Administration is APPOINTED as the
Settlement
Administrator, with responsibilities pursuant to the terms
set
forth in the Settlement Agreement.
9. Costs of settlement administration shall not exceed $25,000.
10. The Class Representative incentive award for Plaintiff is
granted preliminarily up to the amount of $5,000, subject to
a
petition and review at the Final Approval and Fairness
Hearing.
Gomez contends that with the piece-rate policy, she was not
compensated "for all hours worked" within the meaning of California
Wage Orders.
J. Jacobo provides labor contracting services to farms.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9Gy1bJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
KALITTA AIR: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due June 20, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT W. ODELL, JR., et
al., v. KALITTA AIR, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-12290-TLL-PTM
(E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Thomas Ludington entered an order
granting case management and scheduling order regarding class
certification:
Initial Disclosures Exchanged By: Oct. 21,
2024
Deadline to Amend/Add Parties: Nov. 20,
2024
Expert Disclosure Re Class Cert, Plaintiff Served By: Feb. 21,
2025
Expert Disclosure Re Class Cert, Defendant Served By: April 7,
2025
Class Certification Motion Filed By: June 20,
2025
Class Certification Motion Response Filed By: July 22,
2025
Class Certification Motion Reply Filed By: Aug. 15,
2025
Discovery Motions Filed By: Apr. 21,
2025
Class Certification Discovery Cutoff: May 20,
2025
Mediation Completed By: (If consented to) June 6,
2025
Settlement Conference: Aug. 20,
2025
Motions Challenging Experts Re Class Cert Filed By: May 7,
2025
Kalitta provides air cargo transportation services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WrNbhF at no extra
charge.[CC]
KELLY-MOORE PAINT: Court Certifies Employee Class in Morris
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHANIEL MORRIS, v.
KELLY-MOORE PAINT COMPANY, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00050-P (N.D.
Tex.), the Hon. Judge Mark Pittman entered an order that:
1. A class is certified comprised of the following:
"All former employees who worked at the facility located at
301
W Hurst Blvd, Hurst, Texas (the "Facility"), and were
terminated
without cause on their part on or about Jan. 12, 2024, or
within
30 days of that date or thereafter, as part of or as the
result
of the alleged mass layoff and/or plant closing carried out
at
the Facility and who do not file a timely request to opt-out
of
the class.
The Class described above meets the requirements of FED. R.
CIV.
P. 23 (a).
2. Plaintiff is appointed as Class Representative.
3. Lankenau & Miller, LLP, The Gardner Firm, P.C. Aldous PC, and
Webster Vicknair MacLeod are appointed class counsel.
4. The proposed form of Notice to the Class, attached to the
Olsen
Declaration, is approved. Notice in compliance with this
Order
is found to be the best notice practicable under the
circumstances and constitutes due and sufficient notice to
all
Class Members in full compliance with the notice requirements
of
FED. R. CIV. P. 23.
5. No later than ten business days following entry of this
Order,
Defendants shall provide Class Counsel with an electronic
spreadsheet containing the names and last known addresses of
the
former employees encompassed by the Class as defined above.
Kelly-Moore was an American paint manufacturing company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=z6jldV at no extra
charge.[CC]
KRATOCHVIL LAW: Class Settlement in Smith-Chester Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jamika Smith-Chester,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, v.
Kratochvil Law, P.C. et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-10664-JJCG-KGA (E.D.
Mich.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan Grey entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of Parties'
class action settlement and denying defendants' motion to strike.
The Court, in conducting the settlement approval process required
by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 certifies, for purposes of settlement only,
the following Settlement Class:
"All persons whom KRATOCHVIL on or after March 22, 2022, filed a
form complaint in a JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, on behalf of any
car
dealership, that contained a "COUNT II CONVERSION OF
COLLATERAL"."
Further, the Court appoints the named Plaintiff as
representative
for the Settlement Class and appoints Curtis C. Warner and John
Evanchek as Class Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Settlement
Class.
The Court preliminarily approves Class Counsel's request for an
award of fees and litigation expenses in the amount of $40,000 as
fair and reasonable. Further, the Court preliminarily approves the
proposed named Plaintiff’s incentive award in the amount of
$4,250 as fair and reasonable.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AzBvEA at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Evanchek Curtis Warner, Esq.
KELLEY & EVANCHEK, P.C.
43695 Michigan Ave.
Canton, MI 48188
Telephone: (607) 438-3011
E-mail: cwarner@warner.legal
The Defendants are represented by:
David M. Saperstein, Esq.
MADDIN HAUSER ROTH & HELLER, P.C.
One Towne Square 5th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 827-1885
E-mail: dsaperstein@maddinhauser.com
KROGER CO: Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Certification Granted
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELISHA SOLANO, DENISE
CONROY, and KATHLEEN ZACH, individually and on behalf of other
customers, v. THE KROGER CO., dba Fred Meyer, Case No.
3:18-cv-01488-AR (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Karin Immergut entered an
order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
-- The Plaintiffs Solano, Conroy, and Zach are appointed as Class
Representatives. Plaintiffs' attorneys Michael Fuller, Kelly D.
Jones, Daniel J. Nichols, and Young Walgenkim are appointed as
Class Counsel.
-- Fred Meyer's Motion to Deny Class Certification is DENIED.
The Court has reviewed de novo the portions of Judge Armistead's
Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") to which Defendant objected.
This Court agrees with Judge Armistead's analysis and adopts the
F&R in full.
Kroger is an American retail company that operates supermarkets and
multi-department stores throughout the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2jvMgs at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Fuller, Esq.
OLSENDAINES
US Bancorp Tower
111 SW 5th Ave., Suite 3150
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 222-2000
E-mail: michael@underdoglawyer.com
- and -
Kelly D. Jones, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KELLY D. JONES
819 SE Morrison St., Ste. 225
Portland, OR 97214
Telephone: (503) 847-4329
E-mail: kellydonovanjones@gmail.com
- and -
Young Walgenkim, Esq.
YOUNG WALGENKIM, HANSON & WALGENKIM, LLC
838 Commercial St. NE
Salem, OR 97301.
Telephone: (503) 383-1496
E-mail: young@hansonwalgenkim.com
- and -
Daniel J. Nichols, Esq.
JURISLAW LLP
Three Centerpointe Drive, Ste. 160
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
Telephone: (503) 334-0611
E-mail: dan@jurislawyer.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jacob M. Harper, Esq.
James H. Moon, Esq.
Peter Bae, Esq.
Kevin H. Kono, Esq.
Frederick B. Burnside, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP
865 South Figueroa St., Ste. 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90017
LATOYA HUGHES: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brodie Brozak, v. Latoya
Hughes, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-03299-MMM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their unopposed
motion to extend the deadline to file their response to Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification until after the Plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary injunction and Defendants' motion to dismiss are
resolved.
On Sept. 27, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a
combined memorandum of law in support of Defendant's motion to
dismiss and in response to Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Sept. 27, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Wn3kq4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Hal B. Dworkin, Esq.
Lee Stark, Esq.
GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATION DIVISION
GENERAL LAW BUREAU
115 S. LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 814-4355
Facsimile: (224) 278-8343
E-mail: Hal.dworkin@ilag.gov
Lee.stark@ilag.gov
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Court Extends Briefing Schedule in Blain Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Blain v. Liberty Mutual
Fire Insurance Company, Case No. 3:22-cv-00970 (S.D. Cal., Filed
July 1, 2022), the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Battaglia entered an order
granting joint motion to extend briefing schedule:
-- Plaintiff's deadline to file her reply in support of her class
certification motion and opposition to defendant's motion to
exclude is due by Oct. 11, 2024.
-- The Defendant's deadline to file its reply in support of its
motion to exclude is due by Nov. 1, 2024.
The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract.[CC]
LOANCARE LLC: Court Dismisses w/o Prejudice Bid to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FULTON v. LOANCARE, LLC,
et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00823 (W.D. Pa., Filed June 7, 2022), the
Hon. Judge Mark R. Hornak entered an order dismissing motion to
certify class without prejudice:
-- The motion is dismissed without prejudice in light of the
filing
of an amended motion to certify class.
LoanCare is a provider of full-service mortgage loan subservicing,
including special loans, white label, and marketing services.[CC]
MARINHEALTH MEDICAL: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Deadlines
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.M., individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MARINHEALTH MEDICAL
CENTER, Case No. 3:23-cv-04179-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the
Court to enter an order modifying the class certification and
pretrial schedule as follows:
Event Current Proposed
Deadline Deadline
Plaintiff Preliminary Expert Nov. 2, 2024 March 3,
2025
Reports
Defendant Preliminary Expert Nov. 2, 2024 March 3,
2025
Reports
Rebuttal Expert Reports Jan. 10, 2025 May 12,
2025
Motion for Class Certification March 3, 2025 July 3,
2025
Opposition March 28, 2025 July 28,
2025
Reply April 21, 2025 Aug. 21,
2025
Motion Hearing May 14, 2025 Sept. 17,
2025
Expert discovery cutoff July 21, 2025 Nov. 21,
2025
Fact discovery cutoff: Jan. 20, 2026 May 20, 2026
Pretrial Conference Feb. 23, 2026 June 29,
2026
MarinHealth is a healthcare system serving Marin County and the
surrounding areas.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 26, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZbmyF3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Yana Hart, Esq.
Tiara Avaness, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com
tavaness@clarksonlawfirm.com
- and -
John R. Parker, Jr., Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
3550 Watt Avenue, Suite 140
Sacramento, CA 95821
Telephone: (916) 616-2936
E-mail: jrparker@almeidalawgroup.com
The Defendant is represented by:
David A. Yudelson, Esq.
Sydney M. Wright, Esq.
CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH
& PROPHETE, LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 909-7775
E-mail: dyudelson@constangy.com
smwright@constangy.com
MARS PETCARE: Plaintiffs Lose Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMARA MOORE, et al., v.
MARS PETCARE US, INC., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-07001-MMC (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maxine Chesney entered an order that:
1. Ervin's motion for class certification is denied;
2. Moore, Smith, and Welton's motion for class certification is
denied; and
3. Edgren's motion for class certification is denied.
Edgren having failed to show common questions of fact predominate,
Edgren's motion for class certification will be denied.
Edgren seeks to represent a class of
"all California residents who purchased Mars' Veterinary Formula
pet foods from any retailer in California" within the relevant
class period, specifically, from Dec. 7, 2012, to the present
for
the UCL claim and from Dec. 7, 2013, to the present for the CLRA
and FAL claims."
The plaintiffs allege Royal Canin, Hill's, and Mars "created and
enforced upon retailers and consumers the mandatory use of a
prescription, issued by a veterinarian, as a condition precedent to
the purchase of certain cat and dog foods."
According to plaintiffs, by creating and enforcing the prescription
requirement as to PD, VD, and VF, defendants are leading reasonable
consumers to believe, incorrectly, that said pet food "is approved
by the FDA, has been subject to government inspection and testing,
and has medicinal and drug properties that legally require a
prescription for sale."
Mars offers pet health care and food products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xuxFJD at no extra
charge.[CC]
MAXIMUS TIRE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Romero Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
WAINE ROMERO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAXIMUS TIRE SHOP, INC. (D/B/A MAXIMUS
TIRESHOP); and MIGUEL MUSSENDEN, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-07309
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 26, 2024) is an action against the Defendants'
failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Plaintiff Romero was employed by the Defendants as a tire
repairer.
Maximus Tire Shop Inc. own, operate, or control a tire shop,
located at Bronx, NY 10460 under the name "Maximus Tireshop". [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
MAZZILLI MASONRY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Pena Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
RICARDO A. PAYAMPS PENA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAZZILLI MASONRY LLC d/b/a
MAZZILLI MASON CONTRACTORS LLC; and JOHN MAZZILLI, Defendants, Case
No. 2:24-cv-09471 (D.N.J., Sept. 26, 2024) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Pena was employed by the Defendants as a manual laborer.
Mazzilli Mason Contractors LLC provides a wide range of residential
masonry solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Barnhorn, Esq.
ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
Email: dbarnhorn@romerolawny.com
MD NOW: Pagan Class Suit Removed from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as NASHIRE PAGAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MD NOW MEDICAL
CENTERS, INC., Case No. CACE-24-011958 (Filed Aug. 21, 2024), was
removed from the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit
in and for Broward County, Florida, to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, Fort Lauderdale
Division on Sept 25, 2024.
The Southern Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
0:24-cv-61779-WPD to the proceeding.
The suit alleges violations of the Florida Unfair and Deceptive
Trade Practices Act.
The Plaintiff purports to bring this action on behalf of Plaintiff
and a putative class of "[a]ll persons in the United States whose
[personal health information] may have been compromised" during a
data security incident that allegedly occurred on May 20, 2024 (the
"Security Incident").
MD Now provides health care services.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Martin B. Goldberg, Esq.
Lynnette Cortes Mhatre, Esq.
LASH GOLDBERG FINEBERG LLP
Miami Tower, 100 SE 2nd Street, Suite 1200
Miami, FL 33131-2158
Telephone: (305) 347-4040
Facsimile: (305) 347-3050
MDL 2873: Faces Salgado Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
-------------------------------------------------------------
CESAR SALGADO, on behalf of himself and those 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.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT
DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-05294-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 25, 2024) is an action for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances that includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and
related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or
PFOS.
According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and
proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions
and complications, says the suit.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed with
kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products,
says the suit.
The Salgado 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.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frederick T. Kuykendall, III, Esq.
THE KUYKENDALL GROUP, LLC
23710 US Hwy A-1
Fairhope, AL 36532
Telephone: (205) 252-6127
Facsimile: (205) 449-1132
E-mail: ftk@thekuykendallgroup.com
MDL 2873: Roethel Sues Over Injury Sustained From Toxic Chemicals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RHONDA ROETHEL as Personal Representative/Executor/Administrator of
the Estate of BLAIR T. ROETHEL, deceased, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; 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-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE
PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY
PRODUCTS, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05295-RMG (D.S.C., September
25, 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,
wantonness, and wrongful death.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by Blair T.
Roethel, Decedent, 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 Decedent, 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 Decedent was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with testicular cancer and
lymphoma. The Decedent's diagnosis caused and/or contributed to his
death, says the suit.
The Roethel 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.
Allstar Fire Equipment is a fire department equipment supplier in
Arcadia, California.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
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:
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
Gabrielle Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP LLC
219 N. Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 29440
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
rlee@belllegalgroup.com
gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com
MDL 3031: Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re: Cattle and Beef Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 0:22-md-03031-JRT-JFD (D. Minn.), the Direct
Purchaser Plaintiffs ("DPPs"), Howard B. Samuels solely in his
capacity as Chapter 7 trustee for the bankruptcy estate of Central
Grocers, Inc., R&D Marketing, LLC, and Redner's Markets, Inc. move
the Court for an Order that this action be certified as a class
action for the following "Class" under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 ("Rule 23") since the case fulfills all of Rule 23's
requirements:
"All persons and entities who directly purchased Beef for use
or
delivery in the United States, whether fresh or frozen, made
from
one of the following primals: chuck, loin, rib or round from
Defendants, or their respective subsidiaries or affiliates,
from
Jan. 1, 2015, to Feb. 29, 2020."
For this lawsuit, beef excludes any product that is marketed as
organic, grassfed, kosher, halal, certified humane, Wagyu,
“American-Style Kobe Beef”, and any product that is cooked,
ground, marinated, seasoned, flavored, or breaded.
Excluded from the class are Defendants, the officers, directors or
employees of any Defendant; any entity in which any Defendant has a
controlling interest; any affiliate, legal representative, heir or
assign of any Defendant; any federal, state, or local governmental
entities, any judicial officer presiding over this action and the
members of his/her immediate family and judicial staff, and any
juror assigned to this action.
DPPs respectfully request that the Court certify the proposed
Class, appoint the named Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, and
appoint Gustafson Gluek, PLLC; Hartley LLP; Hausfeld LLP; and
Cotchett Pitre &McCarthy, LLP as DPP Co-Lead Class Counsel.
The actions in this MDL are individual direct purchaser actions
alleging a price fixing conspiracy among leading American beef
producers.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 25, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UUF9qq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
Joshua J. Rissman, Esq.
Anthony J. Stauber, Esq.
Bailey Twyman-Metzger, Esq.
Dennis J. Stewart, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
mlooby@gustafsongluek.com
jrissman@gustafsongluek.com
tstauber@gustafsongluek.com
btwymanmetzger@gustafsongluek.com
dstewart@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
Elizabeth T. Castillo, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
E-mail: azapala@cpmlegal.com
ecastillo@cpmlegal.com
- and -
Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
Jason Lindner, Esq.
Maureen E. Forsyth, Esq.
HARTLEY LLP
101 W. Broadway, Suite 820
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 400-5822
E-mail: hartley@hartleyllp.com
lindner@hartleyllp.com
forsyth@hartleyllp.com
- and -
Megan E. Jones, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 633-1908
E-mail: mjones@hausfeld.com
MERCER COUNTY, PA: Plaintiffs' Bid for Extension to File Reply OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAMPBELL, et al., v. THE
COUNTY OF MERCER, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00099 (W.D. Pa., Filed
Jan. 19, 2023), the Hon. Judge Cathy Bissoon entered an order
granting the Plaintiffs' motion for extension to file reply in
support of motion for class certification.
The Court further entered an order that Plaintiffs are to file
their reply no later than Oct. 4, 2024.
The nature of suit states Prisoner Civil Rights.
Mercer County is a county located in the U.S. state of New
Jersey.[CC]
MERIT ENERGY: Court Certifies Settlement Class in GOP Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GOP, LLC, et al., v. Merit
Energy Company, LLC, Case No. 6:22-cv-00278 (E.D. Okla., Filed
Sept. 30, 2022), the Hon. Judge Jason A. Robertson entered an order
that the Plaintiff's motion to certify class, appoint class
representative, and appoint class counsel is deemed moot due to the
certification of the settlement class and entry of the order
granting preliminary approval of class action settlement,
certifying the class for settlement purposes, approving form and
manner of notice, and setting date for final fairness hearing.
The nature of suit states diversity-contract dispute.
Merit is a privately held US-based oil and gas company.[CC]
MOMOMILK LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Pollitt Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
DEREK POLLITT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Momomilk, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-06750 (E.D.N.Y., Sept.
25, 2024) contends that the Defendant failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate their website, https://www.milkbarstore.com,
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff has made an attempt to visit and use
Milkbarstore.com. On Sept. 5, 2024, he intended to purchase a cake
as a gift for his friend. He was looking for a popular bakery in
New York and encountered the Defendant's website through Google. He
wanted to buy a Birthday Chocolate Cake, but was unable to do so
independently because of the many access barriers on Defendant's
Website. The Plaintiff was unable to learn more information about
bakery locations and hours of operation, compare prices and
benefits and learn more information about the goods and services in
its physical location, the suit alleges.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Momomilk's policies, practices, and procedures so that the
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class
members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination.
Momomilk specializes in desserts such as cakes, cookies, truffles,
gluten-free options and cookbooks.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
NASHUA NUTRITION: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Fernandez Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NASHUA NUTRITION, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-07239
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2024) sues the Defendant for failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website,
www.nashuanutrition.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
On Aug. 22, 2024, the Plaintiff visited Defendant's website to
purchase snack bars (Proti-Thin Protein Bars VLC). Despite
Plaintiff's efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping
experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the
website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which
effectively barred Plaintiff from having an unimpeded shopping
experience, the suit says.
Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would
provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with
equal access to the Website, Plaintiff alleges that 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. Fernandez is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
Nashua Nutrition offers a wide selection of high protein food &
supplements.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
NESTLE USA: Falcone Wins Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIE FALCONE, v. NESTLE
USA, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00723-L-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
M. James Lorenz entered an order as follows:
1. Plaintiff's motion for class certification is granted.
2. The Court certifies a class of California consumers pursuant
to
Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) to recover monetary relief. The class
is
defined as follows:
"All persons who purchased at least one of the following
Nestle
Products during the following time periods:
(i) Semisweet Morsels (12 or 72 oz) from Nov. 21, 2018 to
present;
(ii) Mini Semisweet Morsels (10 or 20 oz) from Oct. 17, 2017
to
present;
(iii) Dark Chocolate Morsels (10 or 20 oz) from May 4, 2015
to
present;
(iv) Milk Chocolate Morsels (11.5 or 23 oz) from Apr. 19,
2015
to present;
(v) Mini Marshmallows Hot Cocoa (6 Pack or 8 Pack) or Rich
Milk Chocolate Hot Cocoa (6 Pack, 8 Pack, or 27.7 oz)
from
Dec. 14, 2017 to present;
(vi) Nesquik Powder 16 oz from July 6, 2015 to Apr. 27,
2020;
(vii) Nesquik Powder (9.3 or 41.9 oz) from May 3, 2015 to
Dec.
12, 2017; and
(viii) Nesquik Powder 18.7 oz from Apr. 7, 2017 to present.
The Court also certifies a class of California consumers pursuant
to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) for injunctive relief, defined as follows:
"All persons who purchased at least one Nestlé Product[10]
labeled
with the words "sustainably sourced," "responsibly sourced," or
uses "sustainably harvested cocoa beans," "improve[s] the lives
of
cocoa farmers," or "better lives" and that has "Nestlé Cocoa
Plan,"
"Rainforest Alliance" and/or "Utz" logos, during the period from
April 19, 2015, to the present."
3. Plaintiff Marie Falcone is appointed class representative for
the certified classes.
4. Plaintiff's counsel George V. Granade, Helen I. Zeldes,
Joshua
A. Fields, and Aya Dardari are appointed class counsel to
represent the certified classes in this action.
5. Defendant's motion to strike is denied.
The Court finds that Plaintiff and her counsel meet Rule 23(a)(4)
adequacy requirements, and that Plaintiff’s counsel meets the
criteria of Rule 23(g)(1)(A).
The Plaintiff claims the Sustainability Representations were
deceptive because Defendant sourced its cocoa from West African
plantations which rely on child labor, including child slave labor,
and contribute to deforestation.
The Plaintiff also claims that, according to Defendant's own
statements, the child labor conditions had worsened rather than
improved after the inception of the NCP.
The Plaintiff alleges that she would not have purchased the
products if she had known the truth
Nestle produces and distributes nutritious food and beverage
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dcDKPL at no extra
charge.[CC]
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Judge Approves $600-Mil. Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
CNN reports that a federal judge on Wednesday, September 25,
approved a $600 million class-action settlement Wednesday that
Norfolk Southern railroad offered to everyone who lived within 20
miles (32 kilometers) of last year's disastrous derailment in East
Palestine, Ohio.
Judge Benita Pearson gave the deal final approval after a hearing
where the lawyers who negotiated it with the railroad argued that
residents overwhelmingly supported it, attorneys for the residents
and railroad spokesperson Heather Garcia told The Associated Press.
Roughly 55,000 claims were filed. Only 370 households and 47
businesses opted out.
Those who did object to the deal were vocal in their concerns that
the settlement won't provide enough and that the deal was rushed
through so quickly that they can't possibly know what the potential
health impact from the derailment will be. They say it's hard to
know all the risks, given the way test results have been reported
by the EPA and the fact that the lawyers haven't disclosed
everything they learned in their investigation.
The objectors had hoped the judge would order the plaintiff's
lawyers to release the tests their own expert did after the
derailment and address their concerns about a toxicologist who told
them at one of the lawyers' town meetings that they shouldn't worry
because he doesn't think anyone will develop cancer. That angered
residents who have been complaining about unexplained ailments
since the derailment and talking with doctors who are conducting
studies to try and determine what the health impacts will be.
Experts say it's too soon to know the health impacts.
"These attorneys were bullying people and telling them they were
never going to get any money if they didn't take this. People felt
backed into a corner," resident Jami Wallace said.
The judge's approval clears the way for payments to start going out
quickly. The lawyers had previously said they hoped to get the
first checks in the mail before the end of the year.
As part of the settlement, any aid residents received from the
railroad will be deducted from their final payments. Wallace and
others who had to relocate for an extended period while the
railroad paid for hotels or rental homes likely won't get
anything.
Anyone who lived within 2 miles (3.2 kilometers) of the derailment
can get up to $70,000 per household for property damage plus up to
$25,000 per person for health problems. The payments drop off the
farther people lived from the derailment down to as little as a few
hundred dollars at the outer edges.
"This outcome would not have been possible without the resilience
and support of the East Palestine community and the broader class
of impacted residents and business owners," the plaintiffs'
attorneys said in a statement. "We look forward to beginning the
distribution of funds in the coming weeks to help this community
rebuild and move forward."
When the train derailed late on February 3, 2023, tank cars full of
hazardous chemicals ruptured and spilled their contents that caught
fire just outside the small town on the Ohio-Pennsylvania border.
Then, three days later, officials decided to needlessly blow open
five tank cars of vinyl chloride and burn the toxic plastic
ingredient inside because they feared they would explode.
Since the derailment, the railroad has offered residents and the
community $108 million in assistance and paid for the massive
cleanup that has cost more than $1 billion.
"We made a promise to make things right and this is just one piece
of that commitment," the railroad said in a statement. "We remain
committed to this community for the long haul and look forward to
continuing our relationship with the Village as we work to help the
area recover and thrive."
Tamara Lynn Freeze said she and her husband ultimately decided to
accept the deal despite their concerns about giving up the right to
ever sue even if someone eventually develops cancer. She said the
idea of having to go it alone against the railroad's army of
lawyers one day is daunting.
"It seems like everybody kind of just wanted it to be over with,
like the attorneys and obviously Norfolk," Freeze said.
She and her husband live in his childhood home, which is some 175
yards (160 meters) from the derailment site. They will now decide
whether to give up that house, which is paid for, or find somewhere
they can feel comfortable planting a garden and living their lives
normally again. [GN]
NORTH CAROLINA: Doe Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE 1, a minor, by
and through his parent and natural guardian JANE DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2,
a minor, by and through his parent and natural guardian JANE DOE 2;
JOHN DOE 3, a minor, by and through his parent and natural guardian
JANE DOE 3; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (NCDPS);
EDDIE M. BUFFALOE, JR., Secretary of the North Carolina Department
of Public Safety, in his official capacity; WILLIAM L. LASSITER,
Deputy Secretary of the Division of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, in his official capacity; PETER BROWN,
Facility Director of the Cabarrus Regional Juvenile Detention
Center, in his official capacity, Case No. 1:24-cv-00017-LCB-JLW
(M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
certifying a class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure consisting of:
"All juveniles who are currently, or in the future will be,
detained in a North Carolina juvenile detention facility
operated
by the North Carolina Department of Public Safety ("NCDPS")."
The Plaintiffs contend that the Court should certify the proposed
Class because it meets all requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
Additionally, class certification is appropriate because the
putative Class "is one of the three types of classes described in
Rule 23(b)."
The Plaintiffs were both pre-adjudication detainees at a NCDPS
facility at the time the Complaint was filed and are currently
detained at a NCDPS facility.
NCDPS is responsible for administering educational, clinical,
psychological, psychiatric, vocational, and recreational services
for juveniles in detention centers across the state of North
Carolina.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 26, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DN2U8k at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert L. Lindholm, Esq.
Donna O. Tillis, Esq.
Yasmeen Ebbini, Esq.
Axton D. Crolley, Esq.
Matthew G. Lindenbaum, Esq.
NELSON MULLINS RILEY &
SCARBOROUGH LLP
301 South College Street, 23rd Floor
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone: (704) 417-3000
E-mail: robert.lindholm@nelsonmullins.com
donna.tillis@nelsonmullins.com
yasmeen.ebbini@nelsonmullins.com
axton.crolley@nelsonmullins.com
matthew.lindenbaum@nelsonmullins.com
- and -
Michelle Duprey, Esq.
COUNCIL FOR CHILDREN'S RIGHTS
601 E. Fifth Street, Suite 510
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone: (704) 943-9642
E-mail: MDuprey@cfcrights.org
NORTHVIEW VILLAGE: Hawthorne Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROLYN HAWTHORNE, on
behalf of herself and those similarly situated, v. NORTHVIEW
VILLAGE, INC. d/b/a NORTHVIEW VILLAGE, HEALTHCARE ACCOUNTING
SERVICES, LLC, and NORTHVIEW VILLAGE CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP;
Case No. 4:23-cv-01711-SRW (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order certifying a class defined as:
"All employees of Defendants who were terminated pursuant to a
mass layoff or plant closing (as those terms are defined in the
WARN Act) within 90 days of Dec. 15, 2023."
The Plaintiff seeks to be appointed as class representative and for
her counsel to be appointed as class counsel.
Northview is a nursing facility offering rehabilitative care as
well as long-term care.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 26, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Nc0Gqg at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Michael C. Iadevaia, Esq.
John F. Garvey, Esq.
Colleen Garvey, Esq.
Ellen A. Thomas, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
miadevaia@stranchlaw.com
jgarvey@stranchlaw.com
cgarvey@stranchlaw.com
ethomas@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Christopher N. Grant, Esq.
Brady Lee Root, Esq.
SCHUCHAT COOK & WERNER
555 Washington Avenue, Suite 520
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 732-1127
E-mail: cng@scwattorney.com
blr@scwattorney.com
PALAMERICAN SECURITY: Fact Discovery Due May 30, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHALICKA STITH-MORALES,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v.
PALAMERICAN SECURITY, INC, Case No. (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
David Stewart Cercone entered an order that the case is placed
under Local Rule 16.1 for all pretrial procedures and all
provisions thereof will be strictly enforced.
-- This action will proceed in phases. Phase I shall encompass an
initial phase of fact discovery on all relevant matters in the
case, including class certification(s) and issues as to
liability
and damages. Subsequent phases will be set after the court
conducts further consultation with counsel and/or resolves
plaintiff's anticipated motion for conditional class
certification.
-- The trial counsel shall appear for all scheduled conferences
and
proceedings before the court, including status, pretrial
management and settlement conferences. Counsel shall confer
with
their clients prior to all scheduled conferences and shall
obtain
settlement authority to resolve the case or have their
principals
immediately available by telephone during the conference.
Counsel
is encouraged to appear with their principal(s) at all
pretrial
settlement conferences if practicable.
The Court further ordered an order re: discovery and pretrial
deadlines that compliance with Local Rule 16.1 shall be completed
as follows:
1) Phase one fact discovery shall be completed by May 30, 2025.
All
written discovery shall be initiated in sufficient time to
permit responses to be completed and depositions to be taken
in
compliance with all applicable deadlines.
2) Plaintiff shall file a motion for conditional class and
submissions/brief in support thereof on or before June 27,
2025.
Defendant's responses/briefs in opposition shall be filed on
or
before July 25, 2025. Plaintiff may file a reply brief on or
before August 15, 2025.
PalAmerican offers guard services, investigations & risk
management, emergency management & security consulting services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WEPCor at no extra
charge.[CC]
PAPA INC: Class Cert Hearing Rescheduled to Dec. 5,
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER PARDO AND
EVANGELINE MATTHEWS, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. PAPA, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-06326-RS (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order that:
1. Defendant shall be permitted 30 pages to oppose to
Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification and Plaintiffs shall be
permitted
20 pages to reply to Defendant's opposition to Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification.
2. The hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
shall
be rescheduled to Dec. 5, 2024, at 1:30 p.m., or the soonest
available date thereafter.
Papa is a family on-demand service providing assistance and
companionship to older adults and families across the United
States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CtIsr1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs is represented by:
Zachary T. Gershman, Esq.
Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
LEBE LAW, APLC
777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90021
E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com
Zachary@lebelaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Ellen M. Bronchetti, Esq.
Tayanah Miller, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
101 Second Street, Suite 2200
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 655-1270
Facsimile: (415) 707- 2010
E-mail: Ellen.bronchetti@gtlaw.com
millerta@gtlaw.com
PENSKE LOGISTICS: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert by March 21, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN MORGAN and ARDAVAN
DAVARI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. PENSKE LOGISTICS, LLC, and PENSKE TRUCK LEASING, CO.
L.P., Case No. 8:23-cv-01750-JWH-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
John Holcomb entered an order as follows:
1. The joint stipulation is granted.
2. Plaintiffs will file their motion for class certification no
later than March 21, 2025.
3. Defendants will have through and including April 24, 2025, in
which to serve and file a response.
4. Plaintiffs will have through and including May 23, 2025, in
which to serve and file a reply.
5. The hearing on class certification motion is set for June
10,
2025, at 10:00 a.m.
Penske provides supply chain and logistics solutions to
market-leading companies in the food, grocery, retail and beverage
industries.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nlrjhc at no extra
charge.[CC]
PIONEER BANCORP: Faces Fraud Raps Over Alleged Payroll Mishandling
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pioneer Bancorp, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the Year Ended
June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 25, 2024, that it is facing, two substantially similar
putative class action complaints filed against the Pioneer Group in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York for Albany County which
remain stayed.
The first complaint was filed by Brandes & Yancy PLLC and Ricardo's
Restaurant, Inc. on September 2, 2022 by two alleged clients of
Southwestern Payroll Services, Inc., who previously filed fraud
charges against the company for wrongfully setting off
approximately funds from an account held by Southwestern to apply
towards debts allegedly owed to the bank by Southwestern. The
complaint alleges that the funds in question were comprised of
payroll taxes and thus subject to a statutory trust that prohibited
the bank from setting off those funds to apply towards debts owed.
The second complaint was filed by O'Malley's Oven LLC and Legat
Architects, Inc., two alleged clients of MyPayrollHR.Com, LLC and
ProData Payroll Services, Inc., affiliates of Cloud Payroll, LLC.
The two named plaintiffs in the second complaint seek to assert
claims on behalf of all current or former Cloud Payroll clients
based on the same set of facts described above.
Both complaints assert claims against the Pioneer for conversion,
gross negligence, unjust enrichment, money had and received,
tortious interference with contract, aiding and abetting fraud, and
a declaratory judgment. Both complaints also seek to recover
compensatory and punitive damages, plus pre-judgment interest,
costs, expenses, disbursements, and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
Pioneer Parties acknowledged service of the complaints as of
December 30, 2022.
On February 28, 2023, the Pioneer filed motions to dismiss the
complaints. On April 7, 2023, the plaintiffs filed amended
complaints that assert the same causes of action but include
additional allegations. On April 27, 2023, Pioneer elected to
withdraw their pending motions to dismiss and file renewed motions
to dismiss the amended complaints. Pioneer filed renewed motions to
dismiss on June 26, 2023.
On August 25, 2023, plaintiffs in both putative class actions filed
their responses to the renewed motions to dismiss filed by Pioneer.
On October 6, 2023, Pioneer filed its reply to the response of the
plaintiffs. On February 1, 2024, the court entered an order, on its
own motion, staying both actions pending the outcome of the
ongoing, earlier-filed federal litigation described above. On July
31, 2024, the parties submitted a joint written update to the court
concerning the status of the federal litigation. These actions
remain stayed pending the outcome of that litigation.
Pioneer Bancorp, Inc. operates principally through its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Pioneer Bank, National Association, which operates 22
retail banking offices in Albany, Greene, Rensselaer, Saratoga,
Schenectady and Warren Counties, as well as a wealth management
office in Columbia County in New York.
PIONEER BANCORP: Settlement Deal Reached in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pioneer Bancorp, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the Year Ended
June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 25, 2024, that on July 5, 2024, after reaching a
confidential settlement agreement, parties in a putative class
action complaint filed a stipulation of dismissal of the action
with prejudice. On July 8, 2024 the court entered a Joint
Stipulation and Order of Voluntary Dismissal of the action with
prejudice.
On December 6, 2023, Sidra Riggins filed a putative class action
complaint against the bank in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of New York. The plaintiff is an alleged
customer who asserts claims for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, violation of New York General Business Law and
violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act
Plaintiff's claims concern alleged practices of the bank relating
to fees that it allegedly assessed in connection with certain types
of overdrafts or transaction items returned for insufficient funds.
The plaintiff seeks to assert her claims on behalf of the following
individuals: (i) New York citizens who held checking accounts at
the Bank and were assessed an overdraft fee on a debit card
transaction that was authorized on sufficient funds and settled on
negative funds in the same amount for which the debit card
transaction was authorized; (ii) New York citizens who are assessed
multiple fees on a transaction item in a checking account held at
the bank; and (iii); New York citizens who were assessed an
overdraft fee on a transaction that did not overdraw the account.
The Bank acknowledged service of the complaint on January 3, 2024.
On March 4, 2024, the bank moved to dismiss the complaint in its
entirety. On March 22, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint in lieu of responding to the bank's motion. On April 5,
2024, the bank moved to dismiss the amended complaint in its
entirety.
Pioneer Bancorp, Inc. operates principally through its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Pioneer Bank, National Association, which operates 22
retail banking offices in Albany, Greene, Rensselaer, Saratoga,
Schenectady and Warren Counties, as well as a wealth management
office in Columbia County in New York.
POIZON INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Schultz Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD SCHULTZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Poizon, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-08888 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 25, 2024) is a civil rights action
against the Defendant for its failure to design and operate its
website https://poizon.com to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff has made an attempt to complete a purchase on
Poizon.com. On July 17, 2024, he was searching online for a pair of
athletic shoes that would fit his active lifestyle, and would be
suitable for both sports activities and everyday wear. During his
search, he discovered the Defendant's website and found an option
that caught his interest. However, while browsing, the Plaintiff
faced accessibility issues on the site, such as the lack of "Skip
to content" link, unlabeled form fields, ambiguous buttons and
others. These access barriers have caused Poizon.com to be
inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and
visually-impaired individuals, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Poizon's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.
Poizon operates the website which provides consumers with access to
an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a
wide selection of sneakers, boots, sandals, hoodies, jackets,
T-shirts, pants, shorts, dresses, bags, hats, gloves, wallets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul Camarena, Esq.
1016 W. Jackson, No. 32
Chicago, IL 60607
Telephone: (312) 493-7494
Email: northandsedgwicklaw@gmail.com
POWERAGE LLC: Cabrera Suit Removed from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ALEJANDRO CABRERA and other
similarly situated v. POWERAGE LLC, Case No. CACE 24003621 (05)
(Filed Aug. 23, 2024), was removed from the Circuit Court of the
Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on Sept. 26, 2024.
The Southern Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
0:24-cv-61793 to the proceeding.
The suit alleges a federal cause of action for overtime 29 U.S.C.
section 207 and retaliatory discharge in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. section 215(a)(3).
Powerage is a company based in Fort Lauderdale, FL that specializes
in providing innovative solutions in the energy sector.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason S. Remer, Esq.
REMER GEORGES-PIERRE &
HOOGERWOERD PLLC
2745 Ponce De Leon Blvd.
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 416-5000
Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
E-mail: jremer@rgph.law
The Defendant is represented by:
Gary A. Costales, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF GARY A. COSTALES, P.A.
1533 Sunset Drive, Suite 150
Miami, FL 33143
Telephone: (786) 448-7288
Facsimile: (786) 323-7274
E-mail: costalesgary@hotmail.com
QUICKEN LOANS: Mattson Must Object to Findings by Oct. 7
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mattson v. Quicken Loans,
Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-00989 (D. Or., Filed June 5, 2018), the Hon.
Judge Youlee Yim You entered an order that the Plaintiff's deadline
for filing his objections to the findings and recommendations to
Rocket Mortgages Motion to Deny Class Certification is due Oct. 7,
2024.
The suit alleges violation of the Telecommunications Act of
1996.[CC]
RAM PAYMENT: Ergas, SADM Dismissed w/ Prejudice from Antico Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCES ANTICO, THE
EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JUNE GERMINARIO, et al., v. RAM PAYMENT,
LLC T/A RELIANT ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-12130-CPO-MJS (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Christine P. O'hearn
entered an order granting the Ergas and SADM Defendants' motions to
dismiss.
-- Ergas, Ergas SD IRA, Torkelson, Dodson, and SADM are dismissed
with prejudice.
The Plaintiffs have failed to point to evidence that provides more
that vague and conclusory accusations regarding these Defendants
alleged managerial and ownership interests in the "Principal
Defendants."
Additionally, the Plaintiffs fail to establish specific
jurisdiction over SADM, which, as previously noted, is barely
mentioned in Plaintiffs' brief.
Overall, Plaintiffs point to no evidence of SADM's relationship
with New Jersey, let alone a substantial one with which it can
establish specific jurisdiction.
Ram Payment is a financial services company, specializing in
payment processing solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4HUr6V at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph Michael Pinto, Esq.
Carl D. Poplar, Esq.
POLINO AND PINTO, P.C.
720 East Main Street, Suite 1C
Moorestown, NJ 08057
The Defendants are represented by:
Shaji M. Eapen, Esq.
METHFESSEL & WERBEL, ESQS.
2025 Lincoln Highway, Suite 200
Edison, NJ 08818
- and -
Stephen M. Orlofsky, Esq.
David Dorey, Esq.
Michael Ray Darbee, Esq.
Devan A. McCarrie, Esq.
BLANK ROME LLP
300 Carnegie Center, Suite 220
Princeton, NJ 08540
REGENCE BLUESHIELD: Parties Seek Jan. 27, 2025, Class Cert Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as E.S., by and through her
parents, R.S. and J.S., and JODI STERNOFF, both on their own
behalf, and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals,
v. REGENCE BLUESHIELD; and CAMBIA HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC., f/k/a THE
REGENCE GROUP, Case No. 2:17-cv-01609-RAJ (W.D. Wash.), the Parties
ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for the
Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification to Jan. 27,
2025.
Good cause exists for this motion because the parties have
expressed mutual interest in exploring settlement and would like to
schedule mediation before incurring the cost of class
certification.
This motion is made in good faith and not for purposes of delay.
Regence BlueShield is a provider of health insurance plans and
coverage.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 26, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=M3qiTX at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3650
Seattle, WA 98105
Telephone: (206) 223-0303
Facsimile: (206) 223-0246
E-mail: ehamburger@sylaw.com
rspoonemore@sylaw.com
- and -
John F. Waldo, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN F. WALDO
2108 McDuffie St.
Houston, TX 77019
Telephone: (206) 849-5009
E-mail: johnfwaldo@hotmail.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Maren R. Norton, Esq.
Brad S. Daniels, Esq.
Stephen H. Galloway, Esq.
STOEL RIVES LLP
600 University Street, Suite 3600
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 624-0900
Facsimile: (206) 386-7500
E-mail: maren.norton@stoel.com
brad.daniels@stoel.com
stephen.galloway@stoel.com
RUNNING WAREHOUSE: Blind Can't Access Website, Jacobs Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIA JACOBS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RUNNING WAREHOUSE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-06761 (E.D.N.Y., September 25, 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,
www.runningwarehouse.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Running Warehouse, LLC is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Loses Bid for Reconsideration
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS A. FOX, et al., v.
COUNTY OF SAGINAW, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-11887-TLL-PTM (E.D.
Mich.), the Hon. Judge Thomas L. Ludington entered an order denying
Defendants' motion for reconsideration:
-- The Court can direct precertification class notice under Civil
Rule 23(d). And notice is warranted in this case. The Court
did
not make an outcome-changing mistake in its Aug. 16, 2024,
Order.
-- About five years ago, the Plaintiff filed a class action
against
twenty-seven Michigan counties. He alleged that the Defendant
counties violated his state and federal constitutional rights.
Specifically, the Plaintiff alleged the counties violated his
rights when they complied with Michigan's General Property Tax
Act's.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HbL2jq at no extra
charge.[CC]
SAMHO TOUR: Park Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Eun Joo Park, an individual, on behalf of other similarly situated
aggrieved employees v. SAMHO TOUR, INC., a California Corporation;
2580 W. OLYMPIC BLVD., LLC., a California Limited Liability
Company; STEVE SUNG KYUN SHIN, an individual; YOUNG 1M SHIN, an
individual; JOSEPH SHIN, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 24STCV20257 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
Aug. 12, 2024), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum and overtime wages.
Among other things, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants and each of
them failed to provide Plaintiffs with: proper payment of overtime
and minimum wages due to them; payment of all wages due to them
upon the termination of their employment; and complete written
statements to Plaintiffs itemizing the precise number of hours they
labored during each pay in addition to lawful deductions and other
withholdings, as well as a full and complete itemization and
calculation of all wages earned, otherwise known as pay stubs.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants and each of them failed to keep
and maintain proper records regarding their employment, especially
records which accurately reflect the amounts of hours Plaintiffs
labored for Defendants and each of them, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants.
SAMHO TOUR, INC., and 2580 W. OLYMPIC BLVD., LLC., are California
corporations duly authorized by the California Secretary of State
to conduct business and/or maintain their principal places of
business located in Los Angeles, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Barry G. Florence, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BARRY G. FLORENCE
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 232-4969
Facsimile: (213) 232-4890
Email: bgf@bgflawoffices.com
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Unger Sues Over Breach of Duties
-----------------------------------------------------
Matthew Unger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-05689 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2024), is brought on behalf of
herself, and all other similarly situated persons who purchased any
of the following models of Samsung Ranges, arising from the
Defendant's breach of its duties and warranties and to remedy
various violations of law in connection with Defendant's
manufacturing, marketing, advertising, selling, and warranting of
the Recalled Ranges.
Specifically, the front-mounted heat control knobs of these
Recalled Ranges can be activated by accidental contact by humans or
pets, posing a fire hazard ("the Defect"). On August 8, 2024,
Samsung recalled over 1.1 million of the above referenced Recalled
Ranges. The allegations herein are based on personal knowledge as
to Plaintiff's own experience and are made as to other matters
based on an investigation by counsel, including analysis of
publicly available information.
Since May of 2013, Defendant has designed, manufactured,
distributed, and sold the Recalled Ranges. Defendant has sold,
directly or indirectly, through dealers and other retail outlets,
over 1,120,000 Recalled Ranges nationwide. The Recalled Ranges
contain a design defect that causes a serious safety concern. The
design defect with the Recalled Ranges is contained in the
front-mounted knobs of the ranges. This Defect leads to accidental
activation posing fire and burn hazards.
To date, Samsung has received over 300 reported incidents of
accidental activation, 250 of which led to fires and at least 18
leading to substantial property damages. Moreover, approximately 40
injuries have been reported, eight of which required medical
attention, and there deaths have been reports of seven fires
involving pet
Assuming that the Recall was effective and offered a true
resolution, Plaintiff is still burdened with a Range that has been
devalued by Defendant's actions because the value of a Range with a
known and dangerous defect is worth much less than a Range with a
properly working and safe electrical cord, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased his NE58K9850WG Samsung Range from P.C.
Richard & Son in Oceanside, New York in April 2017.
The Defendant designs, manufactures, markets, distributes,
services, repairs, and sells steam Ranges, including the Recalled
Ranges, nationwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip J. Furia, Esq.
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Phone: (845) 483-7100
Fax: (888) 749-7747
Email: furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com
sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
- and -
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
Seth Little Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (803) 222-2222
Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
seth.little@poulinwilley.com
cmad@poulinwilley.com
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Simon Bid to Enforce Preliminary Injunction OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA SIMON, et al., v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Case No.
4:22-cv-05541-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an
order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to enforce preliminary
injunction:
The Court finds that Defendants have been violating the Court's
Feb. 13, 2024, preliminary injunction against "imposing or
enforcing any search condition broader than that stated in each
[revised rules subclass] member's Superior Court order."
To the extent Defendants have been uncertain about whether their
conduct violated the Court's order, that uncertainty has now been
resolved.
The Court will not now issue an order to show cause as to why
Defendants should not be held in contempt, but Defendants are on
clear notice that the actions described in this order violate the
preliminary injunction.
If Defendants continue to violate that order, Plaintiffs may renew
their request for the Court to begin contempt proceedings or seek
other relief that they deem appropriate.
The Plaintiffs' proposed order requests that Defendants be ordered
to file a report "identifying, for the period since Feb. 13, 2024,
each person released by the Superior Court on pretrial electronic
monitoring without a search condition but whom Defendants
nevertheless detained." Plaintiffs' motion, however, presents no
argument regarding the appropriateness of such an order.
The Court will not order that such a report be filed but notes that
Plaintiffs may use the discovery process to request such
information. Defendant City and County of San Francisco is ordered
to serve a copy of this order on the judges of the San Francisco
Superior Court and file proof of service by Oct. 3, 2024.
San Francisco, officially the City and County of San Francisco, is
the commercial, financial, and cultural center of Northern
California. With a population of 808,988 residents as of 2023, San
Francisco is the fourth most populous city in the U.S. state of
California behind Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Jose.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mYPGyA at no extra
charge.[CC]
SCHEELS ALL SPORTS: Jacobs Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIA JACOBS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SCHEELS ALL SPORTS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-06764 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2024) is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website www.scheels.com to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was injured when she
attempted multiple times on June 22, 2024 to access Defendant's
website from her home in an effort to shop for products, but
encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to
Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Due to Defendant's
failure to build the website in a manner that is compatible with
screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and
properly interact with the website, and was thus denied the benefit
of purchasing the Women's Rincon 4 running shoe in frosted pink
size 6B that the Plaintiff wished to acquire from the website, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Scheels All Sports, Inc. is an American privately held,
employee-owned and operated sporting goods and entertainment chain
store headquartered in Fargo, North Dakota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
SCOUT ENERGY: Court Certifies Question on Kansas State Law
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE COOPER-CLARK
FOUNDATION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. SCOUT ENERGY MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Case No.
5:22-cv-04048-KHV-ADM (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Kathryn Vratil
entered an order certifying the following question of Kansas state
law to the Kansas Supreme Court:
-- under the Marketable Condition Rule, does a lessee's duty to
make
the gas marketable at its own expense end when the gas is in
such
a condition that it can be sold in some market to some
potential
purchaser or does a lessee's duty continue until the gas is in
such a condition that it can be sold in the market in which the
lessee intends to sell and actually does sell the gas? The
Kansas
Supreme Court may reformulate the question.
The Court further entered an order that the Clerk of Court shall
submit to the Kansas Supreme Court a certified copy of this
Memorandum And Order, together with copies of Defendants' Response
To Order To Show Cause And Brief In Opposition To Certification Of
Question Of Law filed September 5, 2024; Plaintiff's Response To
Order To Show Cause filed September 5, 2024; Plaintiff's Reply To
Defendants' Response To Order To Show Cause filed September 12,
2024; and Defendants' Reply Re: Order To Show Cause filed September
12, 2024.
The Plaintiff alleges that defendants have breached the gas leases
because they deducted from royalty payments to plaintiff and
putative class members certain processing costs necessary to make
the gas "marketable."
The Court finds no controlling precedent from the Kansas Supreme
Court or Kansas Court of Appeals on the determinative question
whether gas first becomes "marketable" when it is in such a
condition that it can be sold to some potential purchaser in some
market, or only when it reaches defendants' actual intended
purchaser in the interstate pipeline market.
The Plaintiff and putative class members—the lessors (nonworking
interest owners) -- own royalty interests in various natural gas
leases in Kansas.
Scout is a private energy investment manager and an upstream oil
and gas operator.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ePyt4K at no extra
charge.[CC]
SECRETLAB US: Nugent Bid to Compel Production of Documents OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN NUGENT, v. SECRETLAB
US, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-08944-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Peter Kang entered an order granting the Plaintiff Nugent's motion
to compel production of documents from parent company and
third-party Secretlab SG Pte. Ltd. in response to Requests for
Production of Documents served on Defendant Secretlab US.
Secretlab US has actual possession and custody of the documents of
Secretlab SG. Additionally, Secretlab US has "control" for purposes
of discovery of the documents of Secretlab SG.
The Parties are ordered to promptly meet and confer to
(1) identify the specific Requests for Production which
Plaintiff
contends are impacted by this ruling,
(2) resolve any other outstanding disputes or objections as to
those RFPs, and
(3) reach agreement on a reasonable schedule for the production
of
non-privileged documents responsive to these requests.
On Dec. 19, 2022, the Plaintiff Sean Nugent, filed a putative class
action complaint against Secretlab US, alleging violations of
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's False
Advertising Law, California's Unfair Competition Law, and Fraud
under the Common Law with regard to certain chairs that Defendant
markets and sells.
Secretlab US markets and sells furniture, including in particular
desk chairs marketed for persons playing computer or video games.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mAglGI at no extra
charge.[CC]
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Rothman FCRA Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled YOSEF ROTHMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., Case
No. 035296/2024, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of Rockland, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on September 25, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 7:24-cv-07249 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. is a loan servicing company
headquartered in Utah. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Han Sheng Beh, Esq.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 471-6200
- and -
Daniel Zemel, Esq.
ZEMEL LAW LLC
400 Sylvan Ave., Suite 200
Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
Telephone: (862) 227-3106
SHADE STORE: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Feb. 18, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEE FITZGERALD,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
SHADE STORE, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01435-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge Ricardo Martinez entered an order granting stipulated motion
to continue case schedule:
Case Event Amended Deadline
Close of fact discovery for issues Dec. 3, 2024
related to class certification
Expert reports on class certification Dec. 17, 2024
issues on which party has burden
Rebuttal expert reports on class Jan. 28, 2025
certification issues
Close of expert discovery for issues Feb. 11, 2025
related to class certification
Deadline to file motion for class Feb. 18, 2025
certification
Opposition to motion for class March 31, 2025
certification and any Daubert motions
Reply to motion for class certification April 28, 2025
Opposition any Daubert motions April 28, 2025
Reply to Daubert motions May 12, 2025
Shade Store is a home decoration products provider.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RkVdym at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Parties are represented by:
Maren R. Norton, Esq.
James M. Shore, Esq.
Jenna M. Poligo, Esq.
STOEL RIVES LLP
600 University Street, Suite 3600
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 624-0900
Facsimile: (206) 386-7500
E-mail: maren.norton@stoel.com
jim.shore@stoel.com
jenna.poligo@stoel.com
- and -
Steven N. Feldman, Esq.
Shlomo Fellig, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
Telephone: (213) 485-1234
E-mail: steve.feldman@lw.com
shlomo.fellig@lw.com
SIGNATURE FLIGHT: Calhoun Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as TINA MARIE CALHOUN, an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
SIGNATURE FLIGHT SUPPORT LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company;
ANDREA ATKINSON, an individual and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 24STCV20184 (Filed Aug. 9, 2024), was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on Sept. 26, 2024.
The Central California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-08326 to the proceeding.
The suit alleges ten causes of action which the Plaintiff pursues
on a class action basis: (1) failure to pay overtime wages; (2)
failure to pay minimum wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods;
(4) failure to provide rest periods; (5) waiting time penalties;
(6) wage statement violations; (7) failure to timely pay wages; (8)
failure to indemnify; (9) violation of Labor Code section 227.3;
and (10) and unfair competition.
The Plaintiff proposes a class consisting of all "current and
former non-exempt employees of the Defendants within the State of
California at any time commencing four (4) years preceding the
filing of the Plaintiff's complaint up until the time that notice
of the class action is provided to the class . . . ."
Signature Flight provides flight support services, including
fueling, hangar space, ground handling, and aircraft
maintenance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq.
Michelle S. Lim, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP P.C.
1460 Westwood Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 438-5555
Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com
jeff@tomorrowlaw.com
michelle@tomorrowlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
David L. Cheng, Esq.
Jason Shon, Esq.
FORD & HARRISON LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 237-2400
Facsimile: (213) 237-2401
SIMPSON STRONG-TIE: Seeks to Exclude Expert's Declaration
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAVI SALHOTRA, SANDHYA
SALHOTRA, MELISSA CARD, FEI ALLEN and SABRINA TUMELSON on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SIMPSON STRONG-TIE
COMPANY, INCORPORATED, a California corporation; SIMPSON
MANUFACTURING, COMPANY, INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation; and
DOES 1 through 200, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-07901-TLT (N.D.
Cal.), the Defendants will move the Court on Oct. 29, 2024, to
exclude the declaration and testimony of the named Plaintiffs'
expert, Paul W. Brown, Ph.D.
On Aug. 20, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their original Motion for
Class Certification.
On Aug. 27, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a new Motion for Class
Certification.
Simpson Strong-Tie is a supplier of structural building products.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Sept. 26, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EZXtyF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Erick C. Howard, Esq.
Joseph V. Mauch, Esq.
Felicia A. Draper, Esq.
SHARTSIS FRIESE LLP
425 Market Street, Eleventh Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 421-6500
Facsimile: (415) 421-2922
E-mail: ehoward@sflaw.com
jmauch@sflaw.com
fdraper@sflaw.com
- and –
Thomas F. Olsen, Esq.
Neal A. Markowitz, Esq.
LORBER GREENFIELD & OLSEN LLP
142 Sansome Street, Third Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (877) 229-9800
E-mail: tolsen@lorberlaw.com
nmarkowitz@lorberlaw.com
SKY CLIMBER: Olmedo Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROEL OLMEDO, Individually
and for Others Similarly Situated, v. SKY CLIMBER WIND SOLUTIONS
LLC d/b/a SKY CLIMBER RENEWABLES, an Ohio for-profit corporation,
Case No. 3:24-cv-05303-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:
Plaintiff Roel Olmedo, on behalf of himself, all opt-in plaintiffs,
and others similarly situated ("Plaintiff and the Putative
Collective Members"), moves, pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), for entry of an
order:
(1) Conditionally certifying the proposed collective FLSA class
as
defined herein;
(2) Implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
Plaintiff's FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail, e-mail, and
text-message) to:
"All hourly Sky Climber employees who were subject to Sky
Climber's meal break policy and/or bonus pay scheme at any
time
in the past 3 years (the "Putative Collective Members")"
(3) Approving a Reminder Email and Text to be sent to Putative
Collective Members halfway through the 60-day notice period;
(4) Permitting the Putative Collective Member to electronically
sign the consent form; and
(5) Requiring Defendant to, within fourteen (14) days of this
Court's order, identify all Putative Collective Members by
providing a list in electronic and importable format, of the
names, addresses, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses of all
Putative Collective Members who worked for Defendant at any
time from beginning three years immediately preceding the
Due to Sky Climber's company-wide policies and procedures, the
Plaintiff Olmedo and the Putative Collective Members have been, and
continue to be, deprived of the correct payment of overtime wages
for all hours worked.
Sky Climber is an independent service provider (ISP) to the North
American renewable energy industry, offering a complete menu of
wind, solar, and energy storage services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 27, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SVXVGc at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd. Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
lauren@a2xlaw.com
cgordon@a2xlaw.com
carter@a2xlaw.com
- and -
Michael Subit, Esq.
FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS, LLP
705 Second Ave., Suite 1200
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 682-6711
E-mail: msubit@frankfreed.com
- and -
Michael Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
SMITH FOUNDRY: Sago Sues Over Noxious Odors and Pollutants
----------------------------------------------------------
Claudia Sago, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. Smith Foundry Company Inc., Case No. 27-CV-24-11980
(Minn. 4th Judicial Dist., Hennepin Cty., Aug. 14, 2024), is
brought against Defendant based, where applicable, on personal
knowledge, Information and belief, and the investigation and
research of counsel, because of the frequent, widespread, and
recurrent release of noxious odors, air pollutants, dust, and/or
paniculate matters into the neighboring residential community.
The Defendant operates the Smith Foundry metal casting plant (the
"Facility") located at 1855 E 28th St, Minneapolis, Hennepin
County, Minnesota 55407, Which has been releasing noxious odors
into the air of the residential community where Plaintiffs property
is situated causing property damage through negligence and
nuisance.
The cores of Defendant's products include shell, oil sand, and
airset, which consists of sodium silicate and phenolic urethane.
Generally, Defendant's product on process involves melting the base
material down into a molten liquid, then pouring the liquid into a
casting mold and allowing the mold to cool, producing a final iron
product in the shape of the mold. This process has the potential to
emit noxious odors and particulate matter if such emissions are not
properly controlled and/or mitigated.
The Plaintiff(s) and the putative Class's homes and properties have
been, and continue to be, invaded by noxious odors emitted from the
Facility. A properly constructed, operated and maintained iron
casting facility will not produce persistent and offensive offsite
odors, because the emission of odors can be mitigated controlled,
and/or prevented. Fugitive noxious odors from Defendant's Facility
have unreasonably interfered with activities in the surrounding
community, including precluding the regular use and enjoyment of
private and public spaces throughout the Class Area.
Plaintiff Claudia Sago reports that the odors force her "to stay
inside a lot" and "when I go out I quickly get in and out of my
car." As a result of Defendant's noxious emissions, the Facility
has been the subject of numerous media articles, community
complaints, and enforcement actions undertaken by regulatory
agencies, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has resided and intends to remain at 2706 17th Avenue
South, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Smith Foundry is a manufacturing Facility that produces iron
castings for industrial machinery and transportation
equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey S. Storms, Esq.
Joseph T. Heegaard, Esq.
STORMS DWORXK LLC
222 South 9th Street, Suite 470
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 455-7050
Fax: (612) 455-7051
Email: jeff@stormsdworak.com
joe@stormsdworak.com
- and -
Steven D Liddle, Esq.
Laura L. Sheets, Esq.
D. Reed Solt, Esq.
LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON P.C.
975 E. Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48207-3101
Phone: (313) 392-0015
Fax: (313) 392-0025
Email: lsheets@lsccounsel.com
sliddle@lsccounsel.com
rsolt@lsccounsel.com
SNOWFLAKE INC: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Anderson Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
CAROLINE ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SNOWFLAKE INC., and TICKETMASTER, L.L.C.,
Case No. 2:24-cv-00105-BMM (D. Mont., Sept. 26, 2024) sues the
Defendants for failing to secure Class Members' sensitive
personally identifiable information from unauthorized third parties
during a data breach compromising Snowflake's systems and divulging
sensitive Personal Information of the customers and other
affiliates of Snowflake's, such as Ticketmaster.
On May 23, 2024, Snowflake discovered that unauthorized third
parties gained access to numerous of its customers' cloud storage
accounts. The Plaintiff received an email from Ticketmaster
notifying her of a data breach at Snowflake which had affected her
Personal Information. According to the email, the personal
information disclosed may have included her name, contact
information, and payment information. At this stage, neither
Defendant has offered sufficient assurances that all exposed
Personal Information or data has been recovered or destroyed, or
that the Defendants have taken appropriate efforts to ensure that
the Personal Information of the Defendants and their customers will
not be further exposed by a subsequent data breach, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class Members now face a substantially increased
risk of identity theft and fraud. Accordingly, these individuals
now must take immediate and time-consuming action to protect
themselves from such identity theft and fraud.
Ms. Anderson is a former customer of Ticketmaster and/or otherwise
transacted with Ticketmaster.
Snowflake provides cloud-based data storage and analytics services
to its customers, enabling businesses to manage, share, and analyze
large amounts of data.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Heenan, Esq.
Joseph Cook, Esq.
HEENAN & COOK
1631 Zimmerman Trail
Billings, MT 59102
Telephone: (406) 839-9091
E-mail: john@lawmontana.com
joe@lawmontana.com
- and -
William Caldes, Esq.
Jeffrey Spector, Esq.
Diana J. Zinser, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-0300
E-mail: bcaldes@srkattorneys.com
jspector@srkattorneys.com
dzinser@srkattorneys.com
SOLSTICE BENEFITS: Asks Court to Quash July 25 Issued Subpoena
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN J. LYNGAAS, D.D.S.,
P.L.L.C., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated v. SOLSTICE BENEFITS, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-5,
Case No. 2:24-mc-51115-SJM (M.D. Pa., Sept. 23, 2024), Solstice
requests that the Court quash a subpoena issued by Plaintiff on
July 25, 2024, after the discovery cut-off in the underlying
action, to Non-Party Robert Mitchell of United Concordia Companies,
Inc. ("UCCI") for the production of privileged documents and to
appear at a deposition, and award Solstice its attorneys' fees
incurred in connection with this Motion and this proceeding.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip A. Bock, Esq.
David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Berman, Esq.
Barry Blonien, Esq.
BOCK HATCH & OPPENHEIM, LLC
820 W. 41st Street, Suite 300
Miami Beach, FL 33140
Telephone: (312) 658-5500
Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
E-mail: phil@classlawyers.com
david@classlawyers.com
jeff@classlawyers.com
barry@classlawyers.com
service@classlawyers.com
- and -
Richard E. Shenkan, Esq.
SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, PLLC
6550 Lakeshore Street
West Bloomfield, MI 48323
Telephone: (800) 601-0808
Facsimile: (888) 769-1774
E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com
lsmith@shenkanlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael C. Witsch, Esq.
Timothy J. Bergere, Esq.
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
2005 Market Street
29th Floor, One Commerce Square
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 780-2000
Facsimile: (215) 405-9070
E-mail: mwitsch@atllp.com
tbergere@atllp.com
- and -
Jeffrey A. Backman, Esq.
Roy Taub, Esq.
GREENSPOON MARDER LLP
200 East Broward Blvd., Suite 1800
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 491-1120
Facsimile: (954) 213-0140
E-mail: jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com
mary.torres@gmlaw.com
roy.taub@gmlaw.com
cheryl.cochran@gmlaw.com
SPECIALIZED LOAN: Court Certifies Class in Simon Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOM SIMON et al., V.
SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01159-PTG-LRV
(E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Patricia Toitiver Giles entered an
order:
-- certifying the following class:
"All individuals who: (1) had a loan with a 0% interest rate
serviced by SLS, (2) that delinquent at the time the loan was
boarded; (3) were sent either a monthly statement or a breach
letter after Aug. 30, 2022; (4) that overstated the total
amount
due; and (5) where the total amount exceeded the outstanding
principal balance, unpaid fees, charges, and advances"; and
-- appointing Plaintiffs' Counsel of Record as Class Counsel and
Named Plaintiffs Tom Simon and Cyndie Simon as Class
Representatives.
The court further orders that within 14 days of this Order, the
parties submit a proposed notice to be provided to class members,
as well as a proposal and justification regarding the means by
which notice will be provided.
Specialized Loan is an independent, third-party servicer delivering
residential mortgage products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pGcZwW at no extra
charge.[CC]
STAAR SURGICAL: Revilla Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Edgar Revilla, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. STAAR SURGICAL COMPANY, a Delaware
corporation; VOLT INFORMATION SCIENCES, INC., a New York
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV20691 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 15, 2024), is
brought for recovery of unpaid wages and penalties under California
Business and Professions Code and Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Order 1 ("Wage Order 1"), in addition to seeking injunctive
relief, declaratory relief, and restitution.
During Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, Defendants utilized
a timekeeping system which resulted in Plaintiff and other
non-exempt employees not being compensated for all hours actually
worked, whether by rounding, time-shaving, or otherwise, resulting
in unpaid minimum and overtime wages. During Plaintiff's employment
with Defendants, Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees worked up
to four different shifts at up to four different hourly rates of
pay, depending on the shift. Despite Plaintiff and other non-exempt
employees working at different rates of pay during each pay period,
Defendants did not properly calculate the regular rate of pay for
the purposes of calculating overtime.
the Plaintiff was also not provided with all required meal periods
to which he was entitled due to Defendants' unlawful meal period
policies/practices, which failed to provide Plaintiff and other
non-exempt employees with a second timely, uninterrupted, duty-free
30-minute meal period when they worked shifts in excess of 10.0
hours. During Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, Defendants
also failed to authorize and permit all required rest periods for
Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees. During Plaintiff's
employment with Defendants, Defendants also failed to properly
calculate the regular rate of pay when calculating their employees'
sick time pay, thus providing Plaintiff and other non-exempt
employees with sick time pay at below the regular rate of pay, in
violation of California law.
As a result of Defendants' failure to compensate Plaintiff and
other non-exempt employees for all minimum wages, overtime wages,
all rest period premium wages, and sick time pay at the correct
regular rate of pay, Defendants maintained inaccurate payroll
records and failed to issue accurate, compliant, itemized wage
statements, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendants from July 2022 until
the present.
Staar is in the business of manufacturing medical devices.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul K. Haines, Esq.
Sean M. Blakely, Esq.
Joel M. Gordon, Esq.
HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180
El Segundo, CA 90245
Phone: (424) 292-2350
Fax: (424) 292-2355
Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
sblakely@haineslawgroup.com
jgordon@haineslawgroup.com
STAKE CENTER: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL LOONSFOOT,
Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. STAKE CENTER
LOCATING, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-03171-DWD (S.D. Ill.), the Parties
ask the Court to enter an order granting a 45-day extension for
Plaintiff to move for class certification.
The Plaintiff's current deadline to file for class certification is
Sept. 30, 2024.
The Plaintiff would request an extension of 45 days to move for
class certification. Consistent with the timing in the current
schedule, the Defendant would then have 30 days to respond to the
motion, and the Plaintiff would have 21 days to reply to the
response.
The Plaintiff's request for more time to file for class
certification is due to numerous scheduling issues with the same
counsel in other cases and client availability.
Further, both Parties had issues with Counsels' COVID related
illnesses, Counsels' respective work and travel schedules, and
numerous complex briefs and appeals in other matters.
Due to these conflicts, the Parties still need to take the
deposition of Samuel Romando and Michael Loonsfoot. Currently, the
Parties are planning to conduct these during the week of Oct. 7,
2024.
The Parties stipulated amongst themselves to conduct discovery
after the July 31, 2024 date. This does not interfere with this
Court's Order or Fed. R. Civ. P. 29, as it does not modify the date
of any Court appearance, the deadline for completing mediation, the
deadline for completing all discovery, or the deadline for filing
dispositive motions.
Stake Center is a utility locating powerhouse operating in 48
states.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 27, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aDb7de at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
- and -
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS PC
77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
msalas@flsalaw.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Denis E. Jacobson, Esq.
Alan B. Felts, Esq.
Daniel D. Stratton, Esq.
TUGGLE DUGGINS P.A.
400 Bellemeade Street, Suite 800
Greensboro, NC 27401
Telephone: (336) 378-1431
Facsimile: (336) 274-6590
E-mail: djacobson@tuggleduggins.com
afelts@tuggleduggins.com
dstratton@tugglediggins.com
- and -
Andrew J. Scavotto, Esq.
STINSON LLP
7700 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1100
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 863-0800
Facsimile: (314) 863-9388
E-mail: andrew.scavotto@stinson.com
STAR HOME CARE: Turner Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Star Home Care
Provider. The case is styled as Emma Turner, on behalf of herself
and similarly situated employees v. Star Home Care Provider, Case
No. 2:24-cv-04132-GJP (E.D. Penn., Aug. 12, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Star Home Health Care -- https://www.starhomecare.com/ -- offers
quality home care services in the surrounding areas of
Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter D. Winebrake, Esq.
Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Phone: (215) 884-2491
Email: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Deborah R. Stambaugh, Esq.
WISLER PEARLSTINE, LLP
460 Norristown Road, Suite 110
Blue Bell, PA 19422
Phone: (610) 825-8400
Fax: (610) 828-4887
Email: DStambaugh@wispearl.com
STITCH FIX: Court Dismisses Securities Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Stitch Fix, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal
year ended August 3, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in September 25, 2024, that on July 16, 2024, the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California granted a
Motion to Dismiss a class action lawsuit alleging violations of
federal securities laws filed by certain of its stockholders in on
August 26, 2022. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
September 13, 2024.
The suit named, as defendants, the company, certain of its officers
and directors. Defendants filed an amended complaint on August 15,
2023. The lawsuit alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, for allegedly making materially false and
misleading statements regarding its "Freestyle" offering between
December 2020 and June 2022. The plaintiffs seek unspecified
monetary damages and other relief. The company filed a motion to
dismiss on November 1, 2023. Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to
Motion to Dismiss on December 22, 2023, and the company filed a
Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss on February 6, 2024. A
hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was held on April 18, 2024.
Stitch Fix is an online personal styling service in the United
States and United Kingdom that uses recommendation algorithms and
data science to personalize clothing items based on size, budget
and style.
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Bid to Seal Exhibits in Amato Class Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMATO, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-16118-JHR-AMD
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Joseph Rodriguez entered an order granting
motion to seal:
(i) Exhibits 3-4, 8-11, 21-24, 26-27 filed under seal in
support
of Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, filed on
April
30, 2024;
(ii) Certain redactions from the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification; and
(iii) Exhibits 4, 6, 14, 22.C, 30-31, 35-36 filed under seal in
support of Subaru's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class
Certification, filed on July 15, 2024.
The Court has reviewed the materials subject to seal to decide this
Motion and finds that the Motion sufficiently describes the nature
of the materials it seeks to seal and redact. Weighing the factors
under Local Civil Rule 5.3(c), the Court finds that the parties
have met their burden of demonstrating that the materials should be
sealed and that, on balance, the factors as set forth above support
sealing.
Subaru is the United States–based distributor of Subaru's brand
vehicles.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eVQgHZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Bid to Seal Exhibits in Aquino Class Suit OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD AQUINO, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00990 (D.N.J.),
the Hon. Judge Joseph Rodriguez entered an order granting motion to
seal:
(i) Exhibits 3-4, 8-11, 21-24, 26-27 filed under seal in
support
of Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, filed on
April
30, 2024;
(ii) Certain redactions from the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification; and
(iii) Exhibits 4, 6, 14, 22.C, 30-31, 35-36 filed under seal in
support of Subaru's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class
Certification, filed on July 15, 2024.
The Court has reviewed the materials subject to seal to decide this
Motion and finds that the Motion sufficiently describes the nature
of the materials it seeks to seal and redact. Weighing the factors
under Local Civil Rule 5.3(c), the Court finds that the parties
have met their burden of demonstrating that the materials should be
sealed and that, on balance, the factors as set forth above support
sealing.
Subaru is the United States–based distributor of Subaru's brand
vehicles.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A2LxRI at no extra
charge.[CC]
SUEZ WATER: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment vs Nicholls
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLLS, et al., v. Suez
Water Environmental Services, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-30034 (D.
Mass., Filed March 25, 2022), the Hon. Judge Mark G. Mastroianni
entered an order:
-- granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment;
-- denying the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment;
and
-- denying motion to certify class, as moot.
The Plaintiffs are employees of Defendant, Veolia Water Contract
Operations USA, Inc., who perform operations, maintenance, repair,
and replacement work at the Springfield Water and Sewer
Commission's ("SWSC") facilities pursuant to a contract between
SWSC and Defendant.
The Plaintiffs assert they should have been paid under the
Massachusetts Prevailing Wage Act, for certain work. The court,
however, concludes that the Special Act governing SWSC, the service
contract between SWSC and Defendant, and the nature of the
procurement scheme under which the contract was entered all make
clear that the PWA does not apply to Plaintiffs' work.
In 1997, the Massachusetts Legislature enacted "An Act Authorizing
the Springfield Water and Sewer Commission to Enter into Contracts
for the Operation and Maintenance, Lease or Sale, and Modification
of the Wastewater Treatment Plant, Sewer and Pump Stations," 1997
Mass. Acts ch. 155 ("Special Act").
The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Employment.[CC]
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Seeks to Decertify Classes in Butler Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MACK BUTLER, DASHAUN SIMS,
CLYDE LOFTON, PAUL ALVER, KEVIN KING, and RICKEY LYNCH, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SUFFOLK COUNTY,
Case No. 2:11-cv-02602-JS-AYS (E.D.N.Y.), the Defendant will move
the Court for an Order pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure decertifying the classes previously certified by
this Court pursuant to its Order dated March 19, 2013 or, in the
alternative, the Court should amend the class definitions to limit
the members thereof to prisoners and/or detainees housed in the
SCCF for the period beginning April 5, 2009 through and including
April 5, 2013, and awarding the County such other and further
relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Suffolk County is the easternmost county in the U.S. state of New
York, constituting the eastern two-thirds of Long Island.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Sept. 27, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nSZtUM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
E. Christopher Murray, Esq.
Michelle A. Klein, Esq.
Elizabeth S. Sy, Esq.
Caitlyn M. Gibbons, Esq.
RIVKIN RADLER LLP
926 RXR Plaza
Uniondale, NY 11556
Telephone: (516) 357-3000
Facsimile: (516) 357-3333
SWEETWATER SOUND: Elyashiv Sues Over Unlawful Debt Communication
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Elyashiv, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, v. SWEETWATER SOUND, LLC, Case No. CACE-24-011430 (Fla.
17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Aug. 12, 2024), is brought
against the Defendant for violating the Florida Consumer Collection
Practices Act ("FCCPA") due to unlawful debt communication.
The Defendant began attempting to collect a debt (the "Consumer
Debt") from Plaintiff. The Consumer Debt is an obligation allegedly
had by Plaintiff to pay money arising from a transaction between
the creditor of the Consumer Debt, Defendant, and Plaintiff (the
"Subject Service").
The Defendant sent multiple electronic communications to Plaintiff
in connection with the collection of the Consumer Debt.
(collectively, the "Electronic Communications"). Each of the
Electronic Communications were sent to Plaintiff between the hours
of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the time zone of Plaintiff. Defendant did
not have the consent of Plaintiff to communicate with Plaintiff
between the hours of9:00 PM and 8:00 AM As such, by and through
each Of the Electronic Communications, Defendant violated the
FCCPA., says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is the alleged debtor of the Consumer Debt.
The Defendant is an Indiana limited liability company, with its
principal place of business located in Fort Wayne, Indiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
110 SE 6th St, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (754) 444-7539
Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
gerald@jibraellaw.com
SYNEOS HEALTH: Court Narrows Claims in O'Callaghan Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANET O'CALLAGHAN, MEGAN
SLAGLE, SUMMER SELLERS, REBECCA HUSAIN, BARBARA KAMINSKI, MARY
DAILEY, ANDREW SMITH, TANYA SPURGEON, JILL ROBERTS, AND JENNIFER
CIPOLLINO, Individually, and on behalf of the classes and all
others similarly situated, V. SYNEOS HEALTH, INC., Case No.
5:23-cv-00304-BO-BM (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Terrence Boyle
entered an order:
-- granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the ADA claims of
Plaintiff
Dailey;
-- granting Defendant's motion to dismiss Counts II, V, and VII
pertaining to the "Naturally Immune" subclass;
-- denying Defendant's motion to dismiss Counts III, VI, and VIII;
-- granting Defendant's motion to strike the "Naturally Immune"
subclass from the class pleadings;
-- denying Defendant's motion to strike the Religious, Disability,
and Regarded-As-Disabled Classes;
-- granting Defendant's motion to file a brief in excess of 8,400
Words; and
-- denying without prejudice Defendant's motion to compel
arbitration
for Plaintiff Jennifer Cipollino.
For the purposes of a motion to dismiss, the status of being
"naturally immune" is insufficient to give rise to a separate claim
of discrimination under Title VII or the ADA because it is not a
protected class. For these reasons, the defendant's motion to
dismiss the natural immunity claims is granted.
Beginning in September 2021 , Syneos adopted a vaccine policy
requiring certain U.S. based employees to be vaccinated against
COVID-19 unless they were granted a religious or disability-based
accommodation.
In December 2021 , Syneos determined that continuing to allow these
accommodations would impose an undue hardship on the company, and
sent a form email to the plaintiffs informing them that they must
receive the COVID vaccine or face termination. The plaintiffs
refused to be immunized, and their employment was terminated on
January 31, 2022.
Syneos is a biopharmaceutical solutions company headquartered in
Morrisville, North Carolina.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0lltKY at no extra
charge.[CC]
TERRAN ORBITAL: Lewitter Sues Over Violations of Securities Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lewitter, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TERRAN ORBITAL CORPORATION, MARC H. BELL,
MATHIEU RIFFEL, GARY A. HOBART, and STRATTON SCLAVOS, Case No.
9:24-cv-81191-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 27, 2024), is brought on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Terran securities
between August 15, 2023 and August 14, 2024, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company
and certain of its top officials.
As of October 31, 2022, Lockheed owned approximately 9.5% of
Terran's stock, and by May 2, 2024, Lockheed owned an approximate
28.3% stake in the Company. Likewise, as of December 21, 2021,
contracts with Lockheed represented approximately 50% of Terran's
consolidated revenues, whereas Lockheed comprised approximately 70%
of Terran's consolidated revenues during the three months ended
June 30, 2024.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: it would take
much longer than Defendants had represented to investors and
analysts for Terran to convert its contracts with its customers
(collectively, "Customer Contracts") into revenue and free cash
flow; Terran did not have adequate liquidity to operate its
business while waiting for the Customer Contracts to generate
revenue and free cash flow; Terran had concealed the true scope and
severity of its dire financial situation; and as a result of the
foregoing, Terran's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
In February 2023, Terran issued a press release announcing that its
wholly owned subsidiary Tyvak Nano-Satellite Systems, Inc.
("Tyvak") had been awarded a $2.4 billion contract from Rivada
Space Networks GmbH ("Rivada") to produce a total of 300 satellites
for Rivada (the "Rivada Contract"). Throughout the Class Period,
Defendants repeatedly represented to investors and analysts that
Terran would rapidly convert the Rivada Contract and other Customer
Contracts into revenue and free cash flow, and that Terran had
ample liquidity to operate its business while waiting to generate
revenue and free cash flow from the Customer Contracts. On March 1,
2024, Lockheed made a non-binding offer to acquire all of Terran's
outstanding common stock for $1.00 per share in cash (the "Initial
Buyout Offer"). On this news, Terran's stock price fell $0.22 per
share, or 17.05%, to close at $1.07 per share on May 3, 2024.
On September 9, 2024, Terran filed a preliminary proxy ("Proxy")
with the SEC in connection with the Transaction. The Proxy revealed
that the reason Lockheed had withdrawn the Initial Buyout Offer,
and was only willing to offer $0.25 per share in cash to acquire
Terran, was because Terran had long suffered from severe liquidity
challenges and was on the verge of bankruptcy. The Transaction
announced on August 15, 2024, thus represented a materialization of
the risks posed by Terran's severe liquidity challenges that
Defendants had deliberately concealed from Terran stockholders
throughout the Class Period. As a result of Defendants' wrongful
acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value
of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff acquired Terran securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.
Terran manufactures and sells satellites for aerospace and defense
industries in the U.S. and internationally.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
2103 N. Commerce Parkway
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33326
Phone: (954) 515-0123
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
Email: jagoldstein@millershah.com
nczipperian@millershah.com
- and -
Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
Email: tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com
- and -
Joshua E. Fruchter, Esq.
WOHL & FRUCHTER LLP
25 Robert Pitt Drive, Suite 209G
Monsey, NY 10952
Phone: (845) 290-6818
Facsimile: (718) 504-3773
Email: jfruchter@wohlfruchter.com
THOMAS JENEBY: Knight Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Nicole Knight and Alveza Valenzuela, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Thomas Jeneby, M.D. a/k/a
"Dr. Boom Boom Pow," The Plastic and Cosmetic Center of South
Texas, P.A., Palm Tree Plastic Surgi-Center, LLC, Trilogy by Dr.
Jeneby, Inc., Advanced Medical Support Services, PLLC, Chrysalis
Cosmetic Surgery Center, PLLC, South Texas Aesthetic Training LLC
and Shining Palm Tree Series, LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-01097 (W.D.
Tex., Sept. 27, 2024), is brought against the Defendants to recover
unpaid overtime that is required by the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").
The Defendants have a business plan that includes paying allegedly
salaried employees their "faux" salaries only when they work 40 or
more hours in a workweek and paying them on an hourly basis in
those weeks in which they work less than 40 hours. Jeneby
implements this wage theft plan through numerous companies and
entities that he controls. The Defendants' failure to pay the
overtime premium required by law allows them to gain an unfair
advantage over competitors who follow the law in their employment
practices, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are two of the employees hired by Defendants.
The Defendant Jeneby is a plastic surgeon practicing in San
Antonio, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 10099
Houston, TX 77206
Phone: 713-868-3388
Facsimile: 713-683-9940
Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
- and -
Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
WELMAKER LAW, PLLC
409 N. Fredonia, Suite 118
Longview, TX 75601
Phone: (512) 799-2048
Email: doug@welmakerlaw.com
TICKETMASTER LLC: Carranza Files Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ticketmaster LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Iran Carranza, an individually, and on
behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. Ticketmaster LLC,
Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-06863-MCS-AS (C.D.
Cal., Aug. 13, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Ticketmaster Entertainment, LLC -- https://www.ticketmaster.com/ --
is an American ticket sales and distribution company based in
Beverly Hills, California with operations in many countries around
the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kaveh Sam Elihu, Esq.
Saima Ali, Esq.
EMPLOYEE JUSTICE LEGAL GROUP, PC
1001 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 382-2222
Fax: (213) 382-2230
Email: kelihu@ejlglaw.com
sali@ejlglaw.com
TICKETMASTER LLC: Dickey-Johnson Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Chastine Dickey-Johnson, and Serena Chapman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
TICKETMASTER, LLC, and LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Case No.
2:24-cv-06940-MEMF-AS was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 12, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-06940 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Ticketmaster Entertainment, LLC is an American ticket sales and
distribution company based in Beverly Hills, California with
operations in many countries around the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 322-9243
Fax: (412) 231-0246
Email: gary@lcllp.com
- and -
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (803) 222-2222
Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
cmad@poulinwilley.com
TIM GRIFFIN: Bid to Quash Subpoenas Denied w/o Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STACEY EUGENE JOHNSON, v.
TIM GRIFFIN, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00373-KGB (E.D. Ark.), the
Hon. Judge Kristine Baker entered an order denying without
prejudice Non-Party Prosecutors' motion to quash subpoenas on
behalf of non-party prosecutors.
-- The Court notes that the parties previously filed a joint
motion
to extend motions deadline and continue trial date. In that
motion, the parties stated that their preference was for the
Court to rule on the pending motion to quash before motions
are
due so the parties will know the extent to which Mr. Johnson
will
receive requested documents from the Non-Party Prosecutors.
-- Additionally, the parties stated that they agreed to meet and
confer after the Court's ruling on the motion to quash to
determine a mutually agreeable schedule for receiving
additional
documents from Non-Party Prosecutors, filing motions, and
holding
a trial in this matter.
Mr. Johnson alleges violations of his due process rights, right to
access the courts, and rights under the Eighth Amendment.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x09pqD at no extra
charge.[CC]
TOMOCREDIT INC: Ivy Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Sophia Ivy, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Tomocredit Inc., Case No. 24-CA-001955
was removed from the Edgecomb Courthouse, to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida on Aug. 13, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:24-cv-01904-TPB-TGW to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Constitutional - State Statute.
TomoCredit -- https://tomocredit.com/ -- is a fintech company that
focuses on helping young adults build and establish good credit
scores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander J. Korolinsky, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ALEXANDER J. KOROLINSKY, P.A.
1580 Sawgrass Corporate Prkw, Suite 130
Sunrise, FL 33323
Phone: (877) 448-8404
Email: korolinsky@ajklegal.com
- and -
Joshua Harris Eggnatz, I, Esq.
EGGNATZ PASCUCCI, P.A.
7450 Griffin Rd. Suite 230
Davie, FL 33328
Phone: (954) 889-3359
Email: Jeggnatz@JusticeEarned.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Curt Brown, Esq.
GLENDALE
500 N Brand Blvd., Suite 800
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (323) 607-2914
Email: cbrown@lfbrown.law
TRACTOR SUPPLY: Faces Keesler Suit Over Illegal Tobacco Surcharge
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHELSEA L. HARRISON KEESLER, individually, on behalf of all others
similarly situated, and on behalf of the Plan v. TRACTOR SUPPLY
COMPANY, Case No. 3:24-cv-01612-JFS (M.D. Pa., Sept. 23, 2024)
contends that Tractor Supply collected tobacco surcharge in
violation of the law and in violation of its duties to plan
participants and the Tractor Supply Company Health and Welfare
Plan.
The suit alleges that the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated were, for plan years 2023 and earlier required to pay an
additional "premium or contribution" of $30 per pay period, or $780
per year, based on a "health status-related factor," that being
their use of tobacco products.
Specifically, pursuant to Tractor Supply's enrollment rules for the
Plan, any employee or covered dependent who used use any form of
tobacco or vaping products were required to declare themselves to
be tobacco users as part of the enrollment process and were
subsequently required to pay the tobacco surcharge to maintain
coverage. By collecting the tobacco surcharge, Tractor Supply has
both taken money for itself that, even if unlawfully collected in
violation of 29 U.S.C. section 1182(b)(1), should have been paid
into the Plan and reduced the amount of its own contributions but
also used those funds to increase its profits, the suit says.
Further, Tractor Supply's plan materials used for communicating
information about the surcharge with participants make no mention
of an opportunity to earn the full reward for the entire plan year
by completing a reasonable alternative standard. Further, many of
those communications, including the 2024 Open Enrollment Guide do
not tell participants at all about the ability to avoid the tobacco
surcharge.
Moreover, those materials do not include a disclosure that the
recommendations of an individual's personal physician would be
accommodated. Thus, the surcharge violates ERISA's
anti-discrimination requirements, and its collection by Tractor
Supply was and remains unlawful, the suit added.
Plaintiff Keesler brings this lawsuit on behalf of herself and all
similarly situated plan participants and beneficiaries, seeking to
have these unlawful fees returned, and for plan-wide relief under
29 U.S.C. Section 1109.
Ms. Keesler was a regular, full-time Tractor Supply employee who
worked as an outfitter support specialist and who was required to
pay the illegal tobacco surcharge to maintain health insurance
coverage.
Tractor Supply is a Fortune 500 retailer that sells agricultural,
farming, and ranching products like work clothes, tools, machine
parts, pet food, and animal feed.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Derrek W. Cummings, Esq.
Larry A. Weisberg, Esq.
WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C.
2704 Commerce Dr., Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 238-5707
Facsimile: (717) 233-8133
E-mail: dcummings@weisbergcummings.com
lweisberg@weisbergcummings.com
- and -
George A. Hanson, Esq.
Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
Caleb J. Wagner, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
ricke@stuevesiegel.com
wagner@steuvesiegel.com
- and -
Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
McCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
The Flagship Building
200 Westwoods Drive
Liberty, MO 64068-1170
Telephone: (816) 781-0002
Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com
TRANSDEV SERVICES: Reply in Support of Class Cert Due Oct. 24
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERISHA LOVEJOY, v.
TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
3:23-cv-00380-AJB-MMP (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order
granting the following modifications to the class certification
briefing schedule:
1. Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class
certification shall be filed on or before Oct. 4, 2024.
2. Plaintiff's reply in support of her motion for class
certification shall be filed on or before Oct. 24, 2024.
Over the course of the last two weeks, counsel for Defendant, Olga
Savage, has been ill with a lung infection. Ms. Savage’s recovery
from her illness has taken longer than anticipated, and the illness
and recovery has impacted Ms. Savage's ability to prepare
Defendant’s Opposition. In light of Ms. Savage's illness,
Defendant respectfully seeks a brief extension of its deadline to
file its Opposition.
Specifically, Defendant seeks a four-day extension to October 4,
2024. Plaintiff does not object to the requested extension.
However, a corresponding extension of Plaintiff’s deadline to
file her Reply (to October 18) would result in the Reply being due
at a time when Plaintiff's counsel has multiple additional
litigation deadlines, including a deadline to file an opposition to
a motion for summary judgment.
Therefore, the Parties respectfully propose that Plaintiff’s
deadline to file its Reply be continued to October 24, 2024.
Transdev provides passenger transportation services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 26, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3Z7z1g at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Hewgill, Esq.
Efaon Cobb, Esq.
HEWGILL COBB & LOCKARD, APC
1620 Fifth Avenue, Suite 325
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 432-2520
Facsimile: (619) 377-6026
E-mail: Contact@hcl-lawfirm.com
- and -
Helen I. Zeldes, Esq.
Aya Dardari, Esq.
Joshua A. Fields, Esq.
SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS
HOFFMAN & ZELDES, LLP
501 W. Broadway, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 400-4990
Facsimile: (310) 399-7040
E-mail: hzeldes@sshhzlaw.com
adardari@sshhzlaw.com
jfields@sshhzlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Olga Savage, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1300
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 768-0913
E-mail: olga.savage@huschblackwell.com
TRICIDA INC: Court Certifies Class of Investors in Pardi Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL PARDI, et al., v.
TRICIDA, INC., et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00076-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Haywood Gilliam, Jr. entered an order:
-- granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification and
certifies
a class of investors defined as:
"All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
common stock of Tricida, Inc. during the period from May 8,
2020
to Feb. 25, 2021, inclusive."
Excluded from the Class are defendant and Tricida, Inc. and
their
families, the officers, directors, and affiliates of Defendant
and
Tricida, Inc., at all relevant times, members of their
immediate
families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or
assigns, and any entity in which Defendant or Tricida, Inc.
have
or had a controlling interest; and.
-- appointing Lead Plaintiff Jeffrey M. Fiore as Class
Representative
and Lead Counsel Block & Leviton LLP shall serve as Class
Counsel.
The Court further sets a telephonic case management conference on
Oct. 22, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. The hearing will be held by Public Zoom
Webinar. All counsel, members of the public, and media may access
the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/hsg. All
attorneys and pro se litigants appearing for the case management
conference are required to join at least 15 minutes before the
hearing to check in with the courtroom deputy and test internet,
video, and audio capabilities.
The Court further directs the parties to meet and confer and submit
a joint case management statement by Oct. 15, 2024.
The Defendant fails to sever the price impact from the full
corrective disclosure on Feb. 25, 2021. The Court finds that
Defendant has failed to rebut the Basic presumption.
Because the Basic presumption applies, the Plaintiff will not need
to show that individual class members were aware of, and relied
upon, the Defendant's alleged misrepresentations. Instead, class
members may be presumed to have relied on the integrity of
Tricida's stock price.
The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the
predominance requirement.
On Jan. 6, 2021, the Plaintiff Michael Pardi filed this lawsuit
asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.
On March 11, 2024, the Court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part Defendant Klaerner's motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint.
Tricida is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jmbyQR at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNITED MORTGAGE: Mattson Must Object to Findings by Oct. 7
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mattson v. United Mortgage
Corporation, Case No. 3:18-cv-00996 (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Youlee
Yim You entered an order that the Plaintiff's deadline for filing
his objections to the findings and recommendations to Rocket
Mortgages Motion to Deny Class Certification is due Oct. 7, 2024.
The suit alleges violation of the Telecommunications Act of
1996.[CC]
United has provided mortgage services.[CC]
UNITED PARCEL: Extension on Class Cert. Bid Filing Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Timothy Brown, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. United
Parcel Service of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01672-TCB
(N.D. Ga.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending
the deadlines as proposed below:
Action Current Proposed
Deadline Deadline
Defendants' expert report Oct. 15, 2024 Oct. 22, 2024
Plaintiffs' rebuttal expert Nov. 11, 2024 Nov. 25, 2024
report
Expert discovery completed Dec. 13, 2024 Jan. 10, 2025
Plaintiffs' class certification Jan. 7, 2025 Jan. 14,
2025
motion
Response to Motion Feb. 14, 2025 Feb. 21, 2024
Reply in support of Motion March 7, 2025 March 14,
2024
On July 18, 2024, the Parties filed a joint motion to modify the
deadlines in the Court's existing Scheduling Order regarding expert
disclosures, expert discovery, and class certification briefing,
which the Court granted on July 19.
United Parcel is an American multinational shipping & receiving and
supply chain management company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 26, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hCVi66 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert A. Izard, Esq.
Christopher Barrett, Esq.
IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP
29 South Main Street, Suite 305
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 493-6292
Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com
cbarrett@ikrlaw.com
- and -
James M. Evangelista, Esq.
EVANGELISTA WORLEY, LLC
500 Sugar Mill Road, Ste. 245A
Atlanta, GA 30350
Telephone: (404) 205-8400
E-mail: jim@ewlawllc.com
- and -
Douglas Needham, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
One Corporate Center
20 Church Street, 17th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 218-2720
E-mail: dneedham@motleyrice.com
- and -
Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
Mark G. Boyko, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 463-2101
Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com
mboyko@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Erin M. Riley, Esq.
Jeffrey Lewis, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
E-mail: eriley@kellerrohrback.com
jlewis@kellerrohrback.com
The Defendants are represented by:
R. Blake Crohan, Esq.
Michelle Jackson, Esq.
Emily S. Costin, Esq.
David R. Godofsky, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
1201 West Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 881-7000
Facsimile: (404) 881-7777
E-mail: blake.crohan@alston.com
michelle.jackson@alston.com
emily.costin@alston.com
david.godofsky@alston.com
UNITED STATES: Faces Jacobson Class Suit Over Driving Privileges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES E. JACOBSON, JR., a citizen of the State of Oregon, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. The United States
of America, The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, The
Washington State Department of Licensing, The Oregon Department of
Motor Vehicles, jointly and severally, Case No. 3:24-cv-01601-IM
(D. Or., Sept. 23, 2024) is a class action complaint for injunctive
relief, declaratory judgment, and damages.
This is a companion case and/or derivative action related to Case
No. 3:24-CV-1590-YY. Both matters are based on the same set of
facts. This complaint addresses the means by which Defendants
continue to inflict the damages described in Case No
3:24-CV-1590-YY.
The Plaintiff is representative of a class of individuals who are
out-of-state drivers who suffered adverse actions in their home
state resulting in the loss of driving privileges due to reporting
through the NDR the Interstate Compact.
-- Summary of the Driver License Compact (DLC)
The Driver License Compact (DLC) is an interstate agreement
among U.S. states to share information about traffic
violations, including driving under the influence (DUI)
offenses, and to enforce penalties across state lines.
The compact is designed to promote highway safety by ensuring that
drivers cannot escape the consequences of serious traffic offenses
by simply moving to another state.
The Plaintiff is a resident of Oregon and has been damaged by the
Defendants' actions, and the damages continue to accrue to this
day. The Plaintiff is a disabled and/or vulnerable person as
defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
United States, acting through the National Highway Traffic
Administration, maintains and operates the National Driver Registry
(NDR), which is at the center of this dispute. Every day the system
continues to publish false and derogatory information regarding
Plaintiff, the suit says.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
UNITED WHOLESALE: Putative Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth H. Ryesky, writing for VitalLaw, reports that a broker had
refused to amend its agreement with lender in defiance of the
ultimatum issued by UWM CEO as a video on Facebook website during
online event.
The federal district court in Jacksonville, Florida has dismissed a
mortgager broker's putative class action lawsuit against America's
second largest mortgage lender. The broker had sued the lender
after the lender ceased to do business with the broker because the
broker continued to do business with the lender's competitors. The
broker objected to a federal magistrate judge's recommendation that
the complaint be dismissed. Ruling on the broker's objections, the
federal district judge upheld the magistrate's recommendations in
full. Between the magistrate's recommendations and the judge's
adoption of them, a federal district judge in Michigan had, in a
separate and nearly identical case, followed and adopted the
reasoning of the Florida magistrate's report in which the same
mortgage lender was a party. The Florida judge dismissed the
broker's complaint without prejudice (Okavage Group, LLC v. United
Wholesale Mortgage, LLC, No. 3:21-cv-00448-WWB-LLL (M.D. Fla. Sept.
23, 2024)).
A mortgage is an arrangement whereby a lien is placed on real
property, or title to such real property is conveyed, as a security
for a loan of money, usually (but not necessarily) for the purpose
of purchasing or improving the real property. The placement of the
lien or conveyance of the title is very paperwork-intensive. The
term "mortgage" is frequently used to refer to the secured loan
itself. Mortgage lenders make such loans to real property owners.
Mortgage brokers are intermediaries between the lenders and the
borrowers; they match the borrowers to the lenders and perform
tasks such as investigation of the prospective borrower and
preparation of documents for lender approval, for which the broker
is paid compensation from the lender and/or the borrower.
Okavage Group LLC (Okavage), is a Florida-based mortgage broker.
Michigan-based mortgage lender United Wholesale Mortgage LLC (UWM)
is America's second largest mortgage lender. Mat Ishbia is the CEO
of UWM. Ishbia took note of market share gains by two mortgage
lenders that compete with UWM (Fairway and Rocket), and on March 4,
2021, at an online Internet event, Ishbia posted a video in which
he informed the mortgage brokers who had contracts with UWM that
they had until March 15, 2021 to agree to an addendum to their
respective contracts. The addendum provided that the brokers would
not do business with Fairway or Rocket, that UWM would cease doing
business with brokers who did business with Fairway or Rocket, and
brokers who violated this provision would be liable to UWM for a
minimum of $50,000.
Okavage declined to sign on to Ishbia's addendum, and was cut off
from all business with UWM; other mortgage brokers similarly
refused Ishbia's addendum and were similarly cut off from dealing
with UWM. Okavage then filed a putative class action against UWM
and Ishbia, alleging Sherman Act violations plus some Florida law
causes of action. UWM and Ishbia moved to dismiss the complaint. A
federal magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R)
that the complaint be dismissed [Report and Recommendation, The
Okavage Group, LLC v. United Wholesale Mortgage, LLC, case No.
3:21-cv-00448 (M.D. Fla., February 6, 2024)]. Okavage filed its
objections to the R&R, and the district court judge ruled on
Okavage's objections.
Jurisdiction. The court adopted the magistrate judge's
recommendation that the complaint be dismissed with respect to
Ishbia for lack of jurisdiction. Here, the magistrate found that
Ishbia as an individual was acting in furtherance of his corporate
employer, and accordingly protected by the corporate shield
doctrine, and the tortious interference predicate for the
intentional tort exception to the doctrine was not properly
pleaded. Finding the corporate shield doctrine applicable, the
magistrate did not need to address the issue of whether Ishbia's
electronic communications would serve as a basis for jurisdiction
under Florida's longarm statute.
Sherman Act. The court adopted the magistrate judge's
recommendation that the Sherman Act allegations in the complaint be
dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. Under a per se
analysis, Okavage did not allege any horizontal agreement at all,
but did insinuate a hub and spokes scheme as a basis for a per se
Sherman Act violation. This, the magistrate found, was not
plausibly pleaded because there was no allegation of any
"agreement" among the mortgage brokers who did accept Ishbia's
ultimatum. In addition to Fairway and Rocket, the objects of
Ishbia's ultimatum, there were many other mortgage lenders with
whom UWM did not prohibit its corresponding mortgage brokers to
deal with. The market of mortgage lenders accordingly was far from
being totally cut off from brokers who sought to negotiated better
deals for borrowers than what UWM was offering.
As for a rule of reason analysis, Okavage's assertion that the
boycott artificially increased the costs of mortgage loans and
operating expenses was not sufficiently supported by factual
particulars, including market definition. Having not adequately
defined a relevant market, Okavage also could not sustain its
attempted monopolization claim under the Sherman Act.
Okavage's claim under Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act (FDUPTA) failed for the same reasons its Sherman Act
claims were unsuccessful.
Tortious interference. The court adopted the magistrate judge's
recommendation that the Tortious Interference with Business
Contracts allegations in the complaint be dismissed. Okavage's
allegation that it lost customers who wanted UWM loans was
insufficient to show any "actual and identifiable understanding or
agreement" that did not come to fruition on account of UMW's
ultimatum. Additionally, as alleged in the complaint, the intent
behind UWM's actions was to impede business for Rocket and Fairway;
the complaint was silent regarding any intention to disrupt
Okavage's relationships with its actual or potential customers.
The Case is No. 3:21-cv-00448-WWB-LLL.
Judge: Berger, W.
Attorneys: Joseph E. Parrish (Parrish & Goodman PLLC) for The
Okavage Group, LLC. Avi Benayoun (Greenberg Traurig, LLP) for
United Wholesale Mortgage, LLC and Mathew Ishbia.
Companies: The Okavage Group, LLC; United Wholesale Mortgage, LLC
Cases: Antitrust FloridaNews [GN]
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Ingram Sues Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Ingram, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED;
UNITEDHEALTHCARE INC.; OPTUM, INC.; and CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC.,
Case No. 0:24-cv-03760-DWF-DJF (D. Minn., Sept. 27, 2024), is
brought on behalf of patients whose sensitive personal information
was stolen by cybercriminals in a cyber-attack that accessed
patient data through Change Healthcare's services between February
17, 2024 and February 20, 2024 (the "Data Breach").
The Defendants store a tremendous amount of Plaintiff's PII,
including her name, birth date, billing and mailing address,
prescriptions, financial information, treatment history, and Social
Security number. Presumably, this information has been compromised
for Plaintiff and Class members.
As of the date of filing, Defendant has yet to provide any
information to Plaintiff on mitigating the fallout of this Data
Breach. Change Healthcare and associated entities, as medical
industry experts, knew and should have known how to prevent a
common cyberattack.
If Plaintiff knew her PII would have been improperly handled, she
would have refused to share PII with Defendants. Accordingly,
Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of negligence, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of implied contract,
and unjust enrichment/quasi contract, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff's PII is stored and handled by Defendants.
Change Healthcare, LLC is a limited liability company that provides
healthcare IT services, including security consulting and risk
management.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
David A. Goodwin, Esq.
Mary M. Nikolai, Esq.
Gabrielle M. Kolb, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 333-8844
Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
mnikolai@gustafsongluek.com
gkolb@gustafsongluek.com
UNIVERSAL SCREEN: Randolph Slams Mass Layoff Without Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------
AUTUMN RANDOLPH, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL SCREEN ARTS, INC.; UNIVERSAL
SCREEN ARTS HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-01636
(N.D. Ohio, Sept. 24, 2024) is a class action brought under the
Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act by the Plaintiff
on her own behalf and on behalf of the other similarly situated
persons against Defendants, her employers for WARN Act purposes.
According to the complaint, over the last 90 days, the Defendants
abruptly terminated or is terminating several groups of employees,
unilaterally and without proper notice to employees or staff,
terminating over 50 employees and at least 33% of active full-time
employees, including Plaintiff, at the Universal Screen Arts
Facility.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated former employees who worked for Defendants and
were terminated as part of the foreseeable result of a mass lay off
or plant closing ordered by Defendants on September 10, 2024 and
within 90 days of that date and who were not provided 60 days'
advance written notice of their terminations by Defendants, as
required by the WARN Act.
Universal Screen Arts, Inc. is an Internet retailer and mail-order
cataloguer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Caleb Harbison, Esq.
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Michael C. Iadevaia, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: charbison@stranchlaw.com
gstranch@stranchlaw.com
miadevaia@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina Borelli, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS, LLP
613 Williamson St., Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com
raina@turkestrauss.com
UPS STORE: Bid to Conduct Investor Discovery OK'd
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALYSSON MILLS, in her
Capacity as Receiver for Arthur Lamar Adams and Madison Timber
Properties, LLC, v. THE UPS STORE, INC. (TUPSS); HERRING VENTURES,
LLC, d/b/a The UPS Store; AUSTIN ELSEN; TAMMIE ELSEN; COURTNEY
HERRING; DIANE LOFTON; CHANDLER WESTOVER; and AMERICAN CASUALTY
COMPANY OF READING PA, Case No. 3:19-cv-00364-CWR-BWR (S.D. Miss.),
the Hon. Judge Bradley Rath entered an order granting TUPSS's
motion to conduct investor discovery.
The Court entered an order that October 11, 2024 is the deadline
for all parties to supplement their initial disclosures in the
detail and manner dictated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(a)(1) and (e).
Alysson Mills, the Courtappointed Receiver for Arthur Lamar Adams
and Madison Timber Properties, LLC, has filed a Response and TUPSS
a Reply. Having considered the matter, TUPSS's motion to conduct
investor discovery is granted. A discovery conference will be
scheduled to determine the first group of investors to be deposed
and further discuss proportionality and Receiver's objections, if
any, to a questionnaire.
The UPS Store provides shipping, shredding, printing, fax, passport
photos, personal and business mailboxes, and notary services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e3o6RU at no extra
charge.[CC]
US BANCORP: Adams Plaintiffs Win Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sue Ann Adams, Patricia J.
Pettenger, and Marla K. Snead, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. U.S. Bancorp, the Benefits
Administration Committee, and John/Jane Does 1-5, Case No.
0:22-cv-00509-NEB-LIB (D. Minn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting their motion for class certification.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs seeks an order providing for the
following:
1. Certifying the action as a class and finding that the
prerequisites of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) are satisfied and that
subdivision Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), (b)(2),
and/or (b)(3) has been satisfied.
2. The Class is defined as:
"All participants and beneficiaries in the U.S. Bank Pension
Plan or U.S. Bank Legacy Pension Plan (1) who started
receiving
Part B benefits reduced by Part B's early commencement
factors
(ECFs) on or after March 1, 2016, and (2) whose monthly
pension
benefit would be greater if calculated using the Applicable
Mortality Table as defined in Internal Revenue Code section
417(e)(3)(B) in the year of the participant's Benefit
Commencement Date and the Applicable Interest Rate as defined
in
Internal Revenue Code section 417(e)(3)(C) from the October
preceding the participant's Benefit Commencement Date."
Excluded from the Class are Plan participants receiving an
Estate Protection Annuity (EPA), Defendants and any
individuals
who are subsequently to be determined to be fiduciaries of
the
Plans.
3. Appointing Sue Ann Adams, Patricia J. Pettenger, and Marla K.
Snead as class representatives.
4. Appointing Izard, Kindall & Raabe, LLP and Motley Rice LLC as
Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).
5. Appointing Gustafson Gluek PLLC as Local Counsel pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).
6. Directing such other and further relief as may be just and
proper. This Motion is based on the pleadings, files and
records.
U.S. Bancorp is an American bank holding company based in
Minneapolis, Minnesota, and incorporated in Delaware.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 26, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=m0yFsi at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Douglas P. Needham, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
One Corporate Center
20 Church Street, 17th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 218-2720
E-mail: dneedham@motleyrice.com
- and -
Robert A. Izard, Esq.
Christopher M. Barrett, Esq.
IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP
29 South Main Street, Suite 305
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 493-6292
E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com
cbarrett@ikrlaw.com
- and -
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
Amanda M. Williams, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK LLP
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
awilliams@gustafsongluek.com
US STAR TRUCKING: Berry Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against US Star Trucking,
LLC. The case is styled as Raymond Berry, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. US Star Trucking, LLC,
Case No. 1:24-cv-07348 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 27, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
US Star Trucking LLC -- https://www.usstartruckingllc.com/ -- is
one of the country's top Auto Transport firms, specializing in the
shipping of privately owned vehicles, motorcycles, and heavy
equipment to and from all fifty states as well as
international.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
VISA INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Visa Inc. (NYSE: V) resulting from allegations that
Visa may have issued materially misleading business information to
the investing public.
So What: If you purchased Visa securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=29131 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
What is this about: On September 24, 2024, during market hours, The
United States Department of Justice issued a release entitled
"Justice Department Sues Visa for Monopolizing Debit Markets." In
this release, the DOJ announced that it had "filed a civil
antitrust lawsuit against Visa for monopolization and other
unlawful conduct in debit network markets[.]" The release further
stated that the "complaint alleges that Visa illegally maintains a
monopoly over debit network markets by using its dominance to
thwart the growth of its existing competitors and prevent others
from developing new and innovative alternatives."
The release quoted Attorney General Merrick Garland as stating that
"[w]e allege that Visa has unlawfully amassed the power to extract
fees that far exceed what it could charge in a competitive
market[.] Merchants and banks pass along those costs to consumers,
either by raising prices or reducing quality or service. As a
result, Visa's unlawful conduct affects not just the price of one
thing – but the price of nearly everything."
On this news, the price of Visa stock fell 5.4% on September 24,
2024.
Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
WALMART INC: Bid for Class Certification Terminated
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Haro, et al., v. Walmart
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00239 (E.D. Cal., Filed Feb. 23, 2021), the
Hon. Judge Kirk E. Sherriff entered an order that in light of the
pending motion for final approval of class action settlement, the
motions related to the motion for class certification and
opposition thereto shall be administratively terminated and will be
re-activated, if necessary.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores in the United States and 23 other countries.[CC]
WALMART INC: Faces Castillo Suit Over Yogurt Bites' Deceptive Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
REBECA CASTILLO on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. WALMART INC., Case No. 5:24-cv-06757 (N.D. Cal., Sept.
26, 2024) is a proposed class action on behalf of a nationwide and
California class of consumers seeking redress for Defendant's
deceptive practices associated with the advertising, labeling, and
sale of its Parent's Choice Yogurt Bites Freeze-Dried Yogurt &
Fruit Snacks.
The Product's principal display makes several clean label claims
designed to tout its health benefits, especially in light of the
fact it is being specifically targeted to parents of young
children. Among four representations, Walmart boldly claims the
Product contains "No Preservatives." The import of this claim
cannot be understated as it is repeated in bold on the back label
and located in the upper right corner where it is most likely to be
seen. By falsely labeling the Products as having "No
Preservatives," the Defendant has profited from consumers'
preference for offerings that are perceived to be healthier clean
label products, the suit adds.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's conduct is in breach of
warranty, violates California's Business and Professions Code
section 17200, et. seq., California's Business & Professions
Code section l7500, et. seq., California Civil Code section 1750,
et seq., and is otherwise grounds for restitution on the basis of
quasi-contract/unjust enrichment.
Ms. Castillo regularly purchased Walmart's Yogurt Bites over the
past 2 years making her final purchase in May 2024 from the Walmart
Supercenter located at 777 Story Road, San Jose, CA 95122.
Walmart Inc. operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department
stores, and grocery stores in the United States and 23 other
countries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael D. Braun, Esq.
KUZYK LAW, LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 800
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (213) 401-4100
Facsimile: (213) 401-0311
E-mail: mdb@kuzykclassactions.com
- and -
Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK
1307 Chalkstone Avenue
Providence, RI 02908
Telephone: (401) 831-7730
Facsimile: (401) 861-6064
E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com
WELLS FARGO: Violated Federal Reserve Regulation E, Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH BACIGALUPI, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., WELLS FARGO & CO,,
AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION, INC., and DOES 1 through 5,
inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-06778 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 26, 2024)
contends that Wells Fargo has violated Federal Reserve Regulation
E, and that Wells Fargo and AAA have materially misrepresented the
arbitration process and fraudulently induced customers to give up
their right to litigate their claims in court.
Through May 2022, Wells Fargo attempted to comply with Regulation E
by providing customers with a Regulation E opt-in disclosure
agreement describing the bank's debit card overdraft service
("DCOS"), called "What You Need to Know About Overdrafts and
Overdraft Fees." Unfortunately, the document used ambiguous and
misleading language to describe when Wells Fargo charged overdraft
fees. The statements Wells Fargo and AAA have made to fraudulently
induce consumers to accept arbitration are false. The arbitration
process promised is actually riddled with complex and onerous
procedures, is unduly one-sided by denying consumers the right to
their own information and thus to a fundamentally fair hearing, and
is far from a time or cost efficient process, the suit alleges.
As a result of Wells Fargo and AAA's material misrepresentations
concerning the arbitration process, they fraudulently induced the
Plaintiff and Wells Fargo customers to rely on their promises and
enter into a binding contract. In addition, the arbitration process
designed by Wells Fargo with the cooperation of AAA is
fundamentally unfair and in direct contradiction to what was
promised to them.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff and other Wells Fargo customers are
entitled to void the contract with Wells Fargo requiring
arbitration, or enjoin its enforcement as fundamentally unfair, and
proceed with litigating their Regulation E and other fee claims in
court.
Wells Fargo is a bank with its headquarters located in San
Francisco, California, and its principal place of business in Sioux
Falls, South Dakota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard D. McCune, Esq.
Steven A. Haskins, Esq.
Valerie L. Savran, Esq.
Emily J. Kirk, Esq.
McCUNE LAW GROUP, APC
3281 E. Guasti Road, Suite 100
Ontario, CA 91761
Telephone: (909) 557-1250
Facsimile: (909) 557 1275
E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
sah@mccunewright.com
vls@mccunewright.com
ejk@mccunewright.com
WESTERN GLOBAL: Pilots Reach Agreement Over ESOP Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Damian Brett, writing for Aircargo News, reports that Western
Global pilots have reached an agreement over a class action lawsuit
alleging that an employee share ownership plan (ESOP) overpaid for
airline stock.
The two pilots that led the lawsuit reached an agreement with
Western Global Airlines and its investment manager worth $14.5m,
which will be paid out pro rata to approximately 353 members of the
ESOP scheme.
The Delaware District Court gave its preliminary approval to the
settlement saying it was "fair, reasonable, and adequate" and "was
the product of informed, good-faith, arm's-length negotiations
between the Settling Parties and their counsel".
A final approval hearing will take place on January 14 while there
will also be a chance for class members to object to the
settlement.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants (shareholder and trustee)
violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) when
they allegedly caused the ESOP to pay more than fair market value
for shares of Western Global Airlines.
Court documents show that the ESOP purchased 37.5% of Western
Global from shareholders in the airline for $510m.
The company later went through bankruptcy resulting in the
elimination of all shares, including those held by the ESOP.
The defendants have denied the allegations, which they say were not
proven, and also deny any wrongdoing or liability.
"The Shareholder Defendants have asserted that they acted in good
faith, in the best interests of Western Global and the ESOP
Participants, followed all of the recommended best practices --
including those supported by the US Department of Labor, and relied
upon exceptionally qualified experts and advisors, in full
compliance with all ERISA and ESOP requirements," the court
documents read.
They also stated that they were not involved in the selection of
the ESOP trustee or in the selection of the independent appraiser
and did not determine the value of the ESOP Shares.
The shareholders added that the only valuation information made
available to them indicated that the ESOP was paying less than fair
market value and that the value of the company increased in the
first full year following the launch of the ESOP.
Meanwhile, the trustee defendants "asserted that they acted
prudently, in good faith, and in the best interests of the ESOP
participants, engaged in a thorough due diligence process prior to
the ESOP Transaction with the assistance of highly-qualified
advisors, and zealously negotiated the terms of the ESOP
Transaction on behalf of the ESOP".
They also said that the purchase price was "within the range of
fair market value for WGA's stock", and that they complied with
ERISA and all other applicable laws with respect to the
transaction. [GN]
WINE.COM INC: Fails to Pay Straight Time & OT Wages, McCloud Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EUGENE MCCLOUD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WINE.COM, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-06760 (E.D.N.Y., Sept.
25, 2024) sues the Defendant for failure to pay straight time wages
and overtime wages pursuant to the New York Labor Law.
The lawsuit says that despite working overtime hours throughout his
employment, he was never paid overtime. Additionally, the Plaintiff
was not paid at all for the work he performed on March 3, 5, and
20, 2020.
Plaintiff McCloud also brings this action on behalf of himself and
all similarly situated manual workers who furnished labor to the
Defendant who were not timely paid their wages under NYLL section
191(1)(a), on behalf of himself and all similarly situated workers
who were not paid all their straight time wages, and on behalf of
himself and all similarly situated workers who were not paid their
overtime wages.
Plaintiff McCloud was employed by Wine.com as a warehouse
Associate-QC/Packer from Dec. 12, 2019 to March 3, 2020 and was
paid $13 per hour.
Wine.com is engaged in the sale of wine throughout the country from
its Westbury, NY facility.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason L. Abelove, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JASON L. ABELOVE, P.C.
666 Old Country Road, Suite 303
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 222-7000
E-mail: jason@jasonabelove.com
- and -
Paul A. Pagano, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PAUL A. PAGANO, P.C.
100 Duffy Avenue, Suite 510
Hicksville, NY 11801
Telephone: (917) 589-1479
E-mail: paul@lawofficepaulpagano.com
XTO ENERGY: Bid to Stay Deadlines Pending Class Cert Ruling OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hystad Ceynar Minerals,
LLC, on behalf of itself and a class of similarly situated persons,
v. XTO Energy, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00030-DLH-CRH (D.N.D.), the
Hon. Judge Clare Hochhalter entered an order granting the Parties
motion to stay deadlines pending the court's ruling on Defendant's
upcoming motion to strike class allegations.
-- Case deadlines shall be stayed during the pendency of
Defendant's
motion to strike.
-- Within 14 days of the Court's ruling on Defendant's motion to
strike, the Parties will confer on an appropriate schedule and
will submit the same to the court.
All three factors weighs in favor of granting the Parties' motion.
Neither party will be prejudiced or incur hardship if the case is
stayed as they agree that a stay is appropriate. A stay will also
conserve judicial resources.
The Parties advise that Defendant agreed not to oppose Hystad's
motion to file an amended complaint with the understanding that,
once Plaintiff filed its amended complaint, Defendant will file a
motion to strike the amended complaint's class allegations.
Recognizing that the court's ruling on Defendant's motion to strike
will directly impact the scope of discovery and the current
briefing schedule for class certification, the Parties request that
the court stay the case deadlines during the pendency of
Defendant's motion.
XTO Energy is an American energy company and subsidiary of
ExxonMobil principally operating in North America.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TJ0w9Q at no extra
charge.[CC]
YOUNG CONSULTING: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Pottinger Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAMIEN POTTINGER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YOUNG CONSULTING, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-04318-TWT (N.D. Ga., Sept. 25, 2024) is a class
action lawsuit against Defendant for its failure to use reasonable
means to safeguard the personally identifiable information" or
"PII" of the Plaintiff and the Class.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Data Breach was a
direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and
reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to
protect consumers' PII from a foreseeable and preventable
cyber-attack.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk
because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that the
Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired
by data thieves.
Young Consulting, LLC specializes in the development of integrated
software solutions for marketing underwriting and administrators.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shireen Hormozdi Bowman, Esq.
Hormozdi Law Firm, LLC
1770 Indian Trail Lilburn Road, Suite 350
Norcross, GA 30093
Telephone: (678) 395-7795
Facsimile: (866) 929-2434
Email: shireen@norcrosslawfirm.com
- and -
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
Spencer D. Campbell, Esq.
MARKOVITS STOCK &
DEMARCO, LLC
119 E. Court St., Ste. 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513)651-3700
Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com
scampbell@msdlegal.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***