/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241010.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, October 10, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 204
Headlines
1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Bishop Says
3M COMPANY: Archuleta Sues Over Exposure to Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Bacon Sues Over Exposure to Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Cordero Sues Over Exposure to Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Defelicibus Sues Over Exposure to Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Lankford Sues Over Exposure to Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: McGee Sues Over Exposure to Chemicals & Foams
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Taylor Suit Transferred to E.D. California
AMGEN USA: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Back Taxes Class Suit
AMMO INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
ANVA LLC: Fails to Pay Workers' Minimum & OT Wages, Escalon Says
ASCENSUS LLC: Hegazy Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
ATLANTA VINYL: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Valencia Says
BAD BOY: Founder Sean Combs Faces Multiple Sexual Assault Suits
BILLYKIRK INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Vega Says
BIOLAB INC: Rockdale Residents Sue Over Chemical Plant Fire
BLEND JET: Counsel Dismisses Duplicate Class Suit in Illinois
BLOOMINGDALE'S INC: Hernandez Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Cir.
BLUE JAY: Faces Neuman Suit Over Hazardous E-Scooters
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Court Dismisses Consumer Class Action Suit
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Koenigsberg Appeals Ruling to 2nd Cir.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Ervin Seeks More Time to File Opposition
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set November 19
DRAFTKINGS INC: Aminov Sues Over Deceptive Online Betting Scheme
ENCORE SENIOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Moe Suit Alleges
FLO HEALTH: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Opposition
FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Dec. 15
FRANKLIN WIRELESS: Settlement in Ali Suit Gets Initial Nod
FUTU HOLDINGS: Wins Dismissal of Securities Fraud Class Action
FUTURESHIRTS INC: Williams Sues for Website's Non-Compliance of ADA
GAL MANUFACTURING: Vellon Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
GLOBAL E-TRADING: Sihler TCPA Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
GLOBAL TEL-LINK: Class Settlement in Albert Gets Initial Nod
GLOBAL THREAT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Morgan Alleges
GOOD HUMOR-BREYERS: Settles Vanilla Class Suit for $8.85-Mil.
GRACE OCEAN: Sued Over Business Losses Due to Bridge Collapse
IHG MANAGEMENT: Seeks to File Class Opposition Brief by Dec. 4
IRIS ENERGY: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action Lawsuit
J.T. WIMSATT: Newcomb Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
JAGUAR LAND: Class Cert Bid in Shelor Due June 30, 2025
JAMARI PETIT: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Senior Suit Says
JAMES HARDIE: Appeals Court Confirms Class Action Dismissal
JANUS HENDERSON: Schissler Bid to Restrict Exhibits Partly OK'd
JENNINGS CENTER: Travit Seeks Nursing Assistants' Overtime Wages
JOSEPH STILWELL: Trial in Khoshaba Suit to Commence July 15, 2025
KELLY SERVICES: Wright EPOA Suit Removed to W.D. Wash.
L'OREAL USA: Judge Refused to Dismiss Consumer Class Action
LEOSOURCE INSURANCE: Robertson Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
MAC COSMETICS: Bid for Class Certification in Maciel Due Oct. 28
MANGLAR LLC: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Brito Says
MANHEAD LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Williams Suit Says
MAPLE LEAF: Denies Class Suit Involvement Over Bread Price Fixing
METAGENOMI INC: Vreeland Alleges Securities Act Breaches
NEXT CHAPTER: Wheatley Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Website
NMS GROUP: Filing for Class Cert Reply Support Revised to Nov. 21
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Appeal Delays $600M Settlement in Derailment Suit
NORTHERN KENTUCKY: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Walston Says
NS CALLI: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Trippett Suit Claims
ONTARIO: Faces Class Suit Over Discriminatory Underfunding
PALM BEACH: Initial Pre-Trial Conference Set for Nov. 21
PARAGON 28: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
PAYCOR INC: Plaintiffs Seek to Hold Deadline to Submit Reply
PAYSEC USA: Massel Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
PDD HOLDINGS: Faces Expanded Securities Class Action Lawsuit
PDD HOLDINGS: Faces Shaw Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
PDD HOLDINGS: Macomb County Sues Over Drop in Share Price
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Settles Consolidated Antitrust Suit
PLATINUM CHOICE: Kotlarsz Suit Seeks Class Certification
PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due May 20, 2025
RALEIGH, NC: Edwards Collective Action Gets Conditional Status
SANFORD SURROUNDED: Foxworth Sues Over Unsolicited Advertisement
SKIN SUPPLY: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Vega Suit Alleges
STAT COURIER: Depositions of Class Cert Experts Due Jan. 20, 2025
STOP & SHOP: Faces Zajac Suit Over Avocado Oil False Ads
TERRAN ORBITAL: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements
TRANSDEV SERVICES: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Briefing
ULTA SALON COSMETICS: Bonezzi Suit Removed to D. New Mexico
UNITED NATURAL FOODS: Faces Sills Suit Over SEC Disclosures
UNITED PARCEL: Malone's Bid for Class Cert. Tossed w/o Prejudice
UNITED STATES: Agrees to Settle Sexual Discrimination Suit for $22M
UNITED STATES: Mathis Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bensignor Says
US STAR TRUCKING: Berry TCPA Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
VISA INC: Monopolizes Debit Network, All Wrapped Suit Alleges
VOGT WESTERN: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
WARNER MUSIC: Hall Seeks to Maintain Class Docs Under Seal
WELSH CARSON: Ropes & Gray Secures Dismissal of Antitrust Suit
WORLD OF JEANS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Jacobs Claims
YOUNG CONSULTING: Underwood Sues Over Private Data Breach
ZIGNEGO CO: Cardenas Bid for Class Cert. Tossed w/o Prejudice
[*] Nelson City to Join "Sue Big Oil" Suit in British Columbia
*********
1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Bishop Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CEDRIC BISHOP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Plaintiff v. 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07436 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2024) alleges
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://cheryls.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.
1-800-Flowers.com, Inc. is a floral and foods gift retailer and
distribution company in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
3M COMPANY: Archuleta Sues Over Exposure to Film-Forming Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Archuleta, 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-05483-RMG
(D.S.C., Oct. 1, 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:
Frederick T. Kuykendall, III, Esq.
THE KUYKENDALL GROUP, LLC
23710 US Hwy A-1
Fairhope, AL 36532
Phone: (205) 252-6127
Facsimile: (205) 449-1132
Email: ftk@thekuykendallgroup.com
3M COMPANY: Bacon Sues Over Exposure to Aqueous Foams
-----------------------------------------------------
Douglas Bacon, III, 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-05498-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 2, 2024), is brought for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per
and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of 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
Hypothyroidism as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frederick T. Kuykendall, III, Esq.
THE KUYKENDALL GROUP, LLC
23710 US Hwy A-1
Fairhope, AL 36532
Phone: (205) 252-6127
Facsimile: (205) 449-1132
Email: ftk@thekuykendallgroup.com
3M COMPANY: Cordero Sues Over Exposure to Aqueous Foams
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Cordero, 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-05466-RMG
(D.S.C., Oct. 1, 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
lymphoma as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Constantine Venizelos, Esq.
CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP
737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440
Cleveland, OH 44115
Phone: 216-815-9000
Facsimile: 216-274-9365
3M COMPANY: Defelicibus Sues Over Exposure to Chemicals & Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Defelicibus, 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-05482-RMG
(D.S.C., Oct. 1, 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
Hypothyroidism as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frederick T. Kuykendall, III, Esq.
THE KUYKENDALL GROUP, LLC
23710 US Hwy A-1
Fairhope, AL 36532
Phone: (205) 252-6127
Facsimile: (205) 449-1132
Email: ftk@thekuykendallgroup.com
3M COMPANY: Lankford Sues Over Exposure to Aqueous Foams
--------------------------------------------------------
Jhamel Lankford, 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-05481-RMG
(D.S.C., Oct. 1, 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:
Frederick T. Kuykendall, III, Esq.
THE KUYKENDALL GROUP, LLC
23710 US Hwy A-1
Fairhope, AL 36532
Phone: (205) 252-6127
Facsimile: (205) 449-1132
Email: ftk@thekuykendallgroup.com
3M COMPANY: McGee Sues Over Exposure to Chemicals & Foams
---------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth McGee, 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-05479-RMG
(D.S.C., Oct. 1, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and
firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
Kidney Cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frederick T. Kuykendall, III, Esq.
THE KUYKENDALL GROUP, LLC
23710 US Hwy A-1
Fairhope, AL 36532
Phone: (205) 252-6127
Facsimile: (205) 449-1132
Email: ftk@thekuykendallgroup.com
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Taylor Suit Transferred to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Antwoine Tyrone Taylor, Caroline Deltoral,
and Natividad M. Quillin, individuals, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. 5:24-cv-01738 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California on Oct. 2, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-01165-KES-BAM to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Labor/Mgmnt.
Relations.
American Airlines -- https://www.aa.com/ -- is a major airline in
the United States headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Emil Davtyan, Esq.
D.LAW, INC.
400 N Brand Blvd., Suite 700
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (818) 875-2008
Fax: (818) 722-3974
Email: emil@d.law
- and -
Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq.
Jean H. Power, Esq.
D.LAW, INC.
450 N Brand Blvd., Ste 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (818) 962-6465
Fax: (818) 962-6469
Email: a.lindsay@d.law
jean@davtyanlaw.com
- and -
Cody R. Kennedy, Esq.
MARLIN & SALTZMAN LLP
29800 Agoura Rd., Suite 210
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Phone: (818) 991-8080
Fax: (818) 991-8081
Email: ckennedy@marlinsaltzman.com
- and -
Corey Scott Smith, Esq.
BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
31365 Oak Crest Dr., Suite 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Phone: (805) 270-7100
Fax: (805) 270-7589
Email: csmith@bradleygrombacher.com
- and -
David Harmik Yeremian, Esq.
D.LAW, INC.
880 E Broadway
Glendale, CA 91205
Phone: (818) 962-6465
Fax: (818) 962-6469
Email: d.yeremian@d.law
- and -
Isandra Y. Fernandez, Esq.
James Ross Hawkins, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS, APLC
9880 Research Dr., Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: (949) 387-7200
Fax: (949) 387-6676
Email: Isandra@jameshawkinsaplc.com
james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
- and -
Jeff Holmes, Esq.
3311 East Pico Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90023
Phone: (310) 396-9045
Email: JeffHolmesJH@gmail.com
- and -
Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
Vahan Mikayelyan, Esq.
HAFFNER LAW PC
15260 Ventura Blvd., Ste 1520
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Phone: (213) 514-5681
Fax: (213) 514-5682
Email: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
vh@haffnerlawyers.com
- and -
Kiley Grombacher, Esq.
Marcus Bradley, Esq.
BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
31365 Oak Crest Dr., Suite 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Phone: (805) 270-7100
Email: kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
- and -
Lonnie C. Blanchard, III, Esq.
THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC
5211 East Washington Blvd. No. 2262
Commerce, CA 90040
Phone: (213) 599-8255
Fax: (213) 402-3949
Email: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com
- and -
Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq.
THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM
3856 Davids Road
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Phone: (818) 883-4900
Email: peter@dionkindemlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Katherine V.A. Smith, SBN 247866
Bradley J. Hamburger, SBN 266916
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Phone: 213.229.7000
Facsimile: 213.229.7520
Email: ksmith@gibsondunn.com
bhamburger@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Megan Cooney, Esq.
Katie M. Magallanes, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1200
Irvine, California 92612-4412
Phone: 949.451.3800
Facsimile: 949.451.4220
Email: mcooney@gibsondunn.com
kmagallanes@gibsondunn.com
AMGEN USA: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Back Taxes Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tristan Manalac, writing for BioSpace, reports that Amgen's motion
for dismissal was denied after a New York judge agreed the company
did not sufficiently disclose to shareholders back taxes and
penalties owed to the Internal Revenue Service.
A New York judge on Tuesday, October 1, denied Amgen's motion to
dismiss a class action lawsuit that claims it owed around $10.7
billion in back taxes and hid it from investors, according to
Reuters.
District Judge John Cronan in his ruling agreed that Amgen's
shareholders were "left in the dark" about the degree of the
company's tax liability. Amgen was not sufficiently forthcoming
with shareholders, according to Cronan, who noted that the
disclosers were like "a child telling his parents that had
'dessert' when in fact he had eaten the 'whole cake," Reuters
reported.
"This court does not believe that analogy would have come out
differently if the child described his treat as merely
'significant' or 'substantial,'" Cronan wrote in his decision. A
trial is currently scheduled for Nov. 4, 2024, according to Amgen's
second quarter earnings report.
The ruling comes after shareholders sued Amgen in March 2023,
alleging that the company misled its investors by delaying the
disclosure of its unpaid taxes and penalties with the IRS, which
amounted to $10.7 billion. Roofers local No. 149 Pension Fund,
which filed the legal complaint, also alleged that investors lost
millions of dollars when Amgen's share price saw substantial drops
once the IRS notices came out, according to Reuters.
The case, proposed as a class action lawsuit and filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, also names
CEO Robert Bradway and CFO Peter Griffith as defendants.
Amgen and the IRS have been locked in a tax dispute for years. In
April 2022, Reuters reported that the IRS was seeking $5.1 billion
in back taxes, plus interest and other penalties, for the company's
profits from 2013 to 2015. The tax discrepancies are related to
Amgen's taxable income that it has been attributing to a
manufacturing unit in Puerto Rico, but which the IRS argues should
be taxable in the U.S. The IRS contends that Amgen has
underreported its tax from 2010 to 2015.
However, Amgen has consistently challenged the the tax claims. In
its first-quarter 2022 earnings call, Griffith contested the tax
claims and called the penalties "wholly unwarranted."
"The amount of adjustments proposed by the IRS for 2010 to 2015 . .
. overstates by billions of dollars the magnitude of the dispute,"
Griffith said at the time, adding that Amgen has always
"appropriately accounted" for its income and expenses.
Amgen called the tax claim "without merit" in its most recent
quarterly report. "We are contesting the 2010 -- 2012 and 2013 --
2015 notices through the judicial process," the company stated. The
IRS is also looking into Amgen's taxes for the years 2016 to 2018.
[GN]
AMMO INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona, captioned Larmay v. AMMO, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:24-cv-02619, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased
or otherwise acquired AMMO, Inc. ("AMMO" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
POWW) securities between August 19, 2020 and September 24, 2024,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").
Investors are hereby notified that they have until 60 days from
this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.
On September 24, 2024, after the market closed, AMMO announced that
its Chief Financial Officer had resigned "at the request of the
Board." Further, the Company disclosed that it is conducting an
independent investigation into its "internal control over financial
reporting for the fiscal years 2020 through 2023." The Company
further disclosed that it had retained a law firm to conduct an
independent investigation into whether the Company and its
management control persons at the time: "(i) accurately disclosed
all executive officers, members of management, and potential
related party transactions in fiscal years 2020 through 2023; (ii)
properly characterized certain fees paid for investor relations and
legal services as reductions of proceeds from capital raises rather
than period expenses in fiscal years 2021 and 2022; and (iii)
appropriately valued unrestricted stock awards to officers,
directors, employees and others in fiscal years 2020 through
2022."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.08, or 5.26%, to
close at $1.44 per share on September 25, 2024, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the company lacked adequate internal controls
over financial reporting; (2) that there was a substantial
likelihood the Company failed to accurately disclose all executive
officers, members of management, and potential related party
transactions in fiscal years 2020 through 2023; (3) that there was
a substantial likelihood the Company failed to properly
characterize certain fees paid for investor relations and legal
services as reductions of proceeds from capital raises rather than
period expenses in fiscal years 2021 and 2022; (4) there was a
substantial likelihood the Company failed to appropriately value
unrestricted stock awards to officers, directors, employees and
others in fiscal years 2020 through 2022; and (5) that, as a result
of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased AMMO securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than 60 days from this notice to ask the
Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you purchased AMMO securities, have information or would
like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law
Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
Contacts:
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]
ANVA LLC: Fails to Pay Workers' Minimum & OT Wages, Escalon Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
TOPILCE TAVIRA ESCALON, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. ANVA LLC (D/B/A ANVA) and ANDRZEJ PASEK (AKA
ANDREW), Case No. 1:24-cv-07412 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2024) seeks to
recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and for violations of the N.Y. Labor
Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and costs.
The suit alleges that the Defendants maintained a policy and
practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work in
excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and
overtime compensation required by federal and state law and
regulations.
Additionally, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff
appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of
pay or for any additional overtime premium.
The Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiff Tavira to all
other similarly situated employees.
The Plaintiff seeks certification of this action as a collective
action on behalf of himself, individually, and all other similarly
situated employees and former employees of Defendants pursuant to
29 U.S.C. section 216(b).
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants at Anva as a
construction worker from March 2023 until Nov. 17, 2023.
Anva operates construction corporation located in in
Manhattan.[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
ASCENSUS LLC: Hegazy Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ascensus LLC. The
case is styled as Ahmed Hegazy, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated v. Ascensus LLC, Case No. 2024-CA-008787-O
(Fla. Cir. Ct., Orange Cty., Oct. 2, 2024).
The Case Type is stated as "Other Civil Action."
Ascensus, LLC -- https://www.ascensus.com/ -- is an American
financial services company that provides financial recordkeeping,
tax-advantaged savings and retirement plan services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Faaris K. Uddin, Esq.
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954-907-1136
ATLANTA VINYL: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Valencia Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN VALENCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ATLANTA VINYL, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-07405 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 01, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, www.atlantavinylstore.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.
Atlanta Vinyl, LLC is a wholesale distributor of heat transfer
vinyl (HTV), adhesive vinyl, transfer tape, and crafting supplies.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
BAD BOY: Founder Sean Combs Faces Multiple Sexual Assault Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Winton and Hannah Fry of Los Angeles Times reports that
more than 100 people, including some who were minors at the time,
are planning to file lawsuits against Sean "Diddy" Combs alleging
that the founder of Bad Boy Entertainment and others sexually
abused and exploited them.
The impending lawsuits, announced Tuesday, October 1, in Houston,
would be the latest in a wave of legal filings against the
disgraced 54-year-old hip-hop mogul since federal prosecutors in
New York unsealed an indictment in September that charged Combs
with sex trafficking, racketeering and transportation to engage in
prostitution. He has pleaded not guilty and denied any wrongdoing.
"This is the beginning of what I hope to be a national dialogue,"
attorney Tony Buzbee said at a news conference. "This type of
sexual assault, sexual abuse and sexual exploitation should never
happen in the United States or anywhere else. This should have
never been allowed to go on for so long. This conduct has created a
mass of individuals who are injured, scared and scarred."
Buzbee said his firm expects to file cases on behalf of 120 people,
an equal number of men and women, who allege they were exploited.
Buzbee said other alleged perpetrators who will eventually be named
in the suits "will shock you."
"They already know who they are," he said. "And I'm talking here
about not just the cowardly but complicit bystanders . . . that we
know watched this behavior occur and did nothing. I'm talking about
the people that participated, encouraged it."
Most of the cases are expected to be filed in New York and
California, and some will be filed within the next month.
Twenty-five of the 120 individuals who have come forward were
minors seeking a career in the music or television industry when
the abuse allegedly occurred, Buzbee said.
Combs' attorney Erica Wolff responded to the latest allegations in
a statement.
"As Mr. Combs' legal team has emphasized, he cannot address every
meritless allegation in what has become a reckless media circus,"
the statement said. "That said, Mr. Combs emphatically and
categorically denies as false and defamatory any claim that he
sexually abused anyone, including minors. He looks forward to
proving his innocence and vindicating himself in court if and when
claims are filed and served, where the truth will be established
based on evidence, not speculation."
Many of the instances of sexual abuse, which spanned from 1991 to
this year, occurred during "white parties," New Year's Eve and
Fourth of July celebrations, auditions and other parties Combs
hosted, according to Buzbee. In some cases, he said, the victims
were given a drink that they suspected was laced.
"Once that drink takes effect, the perpetrators perform all kinds
of sexual acts on the victims, many times passing him or her around
as other people watch and enjoy the show and then leave the victim
ashamed, confused, injured and wondering what happened," Buzbee
said. "When the victim reaches out, he or she is told not to say
anything."
The youngest of the victims was a 9-year-old boy who was allegedly
sexually abused by Combs and others while he was auditioning at Bad
Boy Records in New York City, Buzbee said.
In another incident, Buzbee said, a 15-year-old boy was told by
Combs he would make him a star but he needed to visit him
privately, away from his parents. He allegedly forced the boy to
perform oral sex on him.
The allegations mirror some details in a 14-page indictment
released last month that accuses Combs of luring female victims to
take part in "freak-offs" or elaborate sex performances involving
male sex workers that at times lasted days and were sometimes
recorded. Combs and his associates, the indictment alleges, used
violence, coercion, drugs and bribes to get women to take part in
the freak-offs and to keep the incidents secret.
Prosecutors say victims feared they would be subjected to violence
or their careers or finances would be harmed if they refused to
participate. Buzbee said some of his clients have already been in
contact with the FBI.
Combs has been in federal custody since his arrest on Sept. 16.
Twelve people -- including Combs' former girlfriend Casandra
Ventura -- have recently accused the music mogul of sexual assault
in civil court, according to court filings.
Roughly a week after the indictment became public, Thalia Graves
sued Combs, alleging that he and his bodyguard drugged, bound and
violently raped her in 2001 and later showed a video of the attack
to others. Graves, the former girlfriend of a business associate of
Combs, alleged that Combs had asked to meet with her to "discuss
her boyfriend's supposed performance issues."
When she got inside an SUV with Combs, he handed her a glass of
wine as they drove to Bad Boys Studios in Manhattan. When she got
out of the vehicle, she felt odd but assumed it was her fault, so
she did her best to act normal, the lawsuit alleges. She followed
Combs as he led her to a couch in a private room in the studio,
where she lost consciousness, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit then alleges that Combs' bodyguard slammed her into a
table and forced her to perform oral sex on him and Combs. The
Times does not typically name accusers in sexual assault cases
unless they come forth publicly, as Ventura and Graves have.
A Florida model, who was not named in court documents, also filed a
lawsuit last month against Combs, alleging that he paid for her to
travel overseas with him for years, pressured her to have sex with
other men and women, and gave her drugs and alcohol that caused her
to pass out.
The lawsuit alleges that in one instance at Combs' house in Los
Angeles, she was drugged and impregnated. After she told Combs she
was pregnant, she was contacted repeatedly by the music mogul's
staff, who urged her to have an abortion, the complaint alleges.
According to the lawsuit, the pregnancy ended in a miscarriage.
The allegations have amplified questions around the culture of the
music industry that some contend allowed the assaults to go
unreported for years.
Prosecutors have alleged Combs led a complicated scheme that would
have required multiple people to not only know about the behavior,
but also be involved to recruit victims, prepare hotel rooms with
baby oil, drugs and extra linens for the freak-offs, and clean up
afterward. It's unclear whether more indictments are coming, but
prosecutors said the investigation is continuing.
"Combs did not do this all on his own," Damian Williams, the U.S.
attorney for the Southern District of New York, said in announcing
the charges. "He used his business and employees of that business
and other close associates to get his way." [GN]
BILLYKIRK INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Vega Says
----------------------------------------------------------
NORBERTO VEGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BILLYKIRK, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-09552 (D.N.J., Oct. 1, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, www.billykirk.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.
Billykirk, Inc. is a leather and canvas design company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
BIOLAB INC: Rockdale Residents Sue Over Chemical Plant Fire
-----------------------------------------------------------
FOX 5 Atlanta Digital Team reports that an Atlanta law firm has
filed a class action lawsuit against the companies connected with
the fire at a Rockdale County chemical plant.
-- The lawsuit claims that the companies' negligence delayed the
emergency response and made the fire worse.
-- The plant has dealt with multiple explosions and fires since
2004.
A metro Atlanta law firm has filed a class action lawsuit against
the two companies connected with the massive fire at a Conyers
chemical plant that forced residents to evacuate or shelter in
place over the weekend.
Atlanta-based Stewart Miller Simmons Trial Attorneys filed the
lawsuit on Monday, September 30, against BioLab Inc. and KIK
Consumer Products on behalf of more than 90,000 residents in
Conyers and the surrounding areas.
The lawsuit seeks property-related damages caused by the Sept. 29
fire and smoke plume for lost profits, clean-up costs, and
diminished property values.
"Defendants' negligence, recklessness, and failure to prevent the
fire and toxic smoke and dust plume caused and continues to cause
harm to Plaintiffs and the other Class members," the lawsuit
reads.
The lawsuit has identified all owners or lessees of real property
in Rockdale County and the surrounding communities who were part of
the evacuation or shelter-in-place orders outside of those
connected with BioLab Inc. and KIK Consumer Products.
The attorneys are expected to discuss the lawsuit at a press
conference on October 1 morning.
Second class action lawsuit filed by Morgan & Morgan
On the same day as Stewart Miller Simmons Trial Attorneys'
announcement, national law firm Morgan & Morgan announced that they
have filed their own class action lawsuit against BioLab and KIK
Custom Products on behalf of Rockdale County residents.
In their complaint, attorneys claimed that the company left "super
sacks" of Trichloroisocyanuric Acid stacked on warehouse floors
that were then released into the air.
"When companies mismanage hazardous chemicals, they can upend
entire communities," said Morgan & Morgan attorney Rene Rocha.
"BioLab's alleged recklessness has put thousands of people at risk.
Our goal with this lawsuit is for accountability to prevail so that
this will never happen again."
Both cases were filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.
What happened at BioLab?
The fire started around 5 a.m. on Sept. 29 when a sprinkler
malfunction caused water to come into contact with a water-reactive
chemical. BioLab employees and nearby residents were evacuated, and
several roads were closed, including Interstate 20 in both
directions between Salem Road and Turner Hill. The interstate
remained closed until early morning.
Residents north of Interstate 20 between Sigman Road and I-20 were
within the evacuation zone, while those south of I-20 were deemed
safe. Local officials, including Conyers Mayor Vince Evans and
Rockdale County Sheriff Eric Levett, urged residents not to enter
the evacuation zone for safety reasons.
Officials estimated the number of people forced to evacuate their
homes was about 17,000.
During a morning press conference, officials explained that the
fire began when a malfunctioning sprinkler released water onto a
reactive chemical, causing a small fire and a large plume of smoke.
Though the initial fire was controlled around noon, it reignited as
chemicals were being removed from the building. The fire was fully
extinguished between 4 and 5 p.m.
The attorneys claim that BioLab failed to utilize an effective fire
system, which "exacerbated the harm caused by the fire" and
"delayed emergency response."
"At all relevant times, Defendants failed to act with reasonable
care, acted with utter indifference, recklessly, and with willful
and wanton misconduct," the lawsuit reads.
While the shelter-in-place order was lifted on Monday night,
officials say changing weather patterns caused the smoke plume to
change directions, leading officials to issue a new
shelter-in-place warning for residents who see the haze or smell a
strong odor of chlorine.
History of incidents at BioLab
BioLab's website says it is the swimming pool and spa water care
division of Lawrenceville, Georgia-based KIK Consumer Products. The
Conyers facility opened in 1973.
As part of the lawsuit, attorneys argue that the two companies knew
the plant could be hazardous to Rockdale County residents due to
past incidents.
In May 2004, a huge fire in a warehouse at the Conyers complex set
off multiple explosions and prompted the evacuation of 300 people
as a chlorine-laden cloud rolled through the area. The plume of
green, gray and white smoke stretched 10 miles long. At least nine
people went to hospitals with complaints of burning eyes and
lungs.
After the explosion, the company agreed to a settlement of $7
million.
In June 2015, six Rockdale County firefighters were hurt in a fire
at the complex, but none of the injuries were life-threatening, the
Rockdale Citizen reported at the time. Another fire the following
year prompted some voluntary evacuations near the plant.
In September 2020, a chemical fire at the same plant in Conyers
prompted authorities to shut down both directions of Interstate 20
during the morning rush hour. Inside the plant, BioLab workers used
forklifts to try and move chemicals away from decomposing chemicals
to prevent the catastrophe, but their forklifts were sliding on the
wet floor and fumes of chemicals were forming. Firefighters' access
to the situation was hindered by poorly stacked pallets of
materials, the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board later
determined. Nine firefighters were evaluated at hospitals after
inhaling hazardous vapors.
"At all relevant times, it was reasonably foreseeable to Defendants
that the risk of a chemical fire and the release of a toxic smoke
and dust plume could impact the properties and present a hazard to
the Rockdale residents located near the Conyers Plant," the lawsuit
reads.
If approved, residents will be contacted about the opportunity to
join the lawsuit. [GN]
BLEND JET: Counsel Dismisses Duplicate Class Suit in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for Madison - St. Clair Record, reports that
Texas lawyer Stuart Cochran relieved Chief U.S. District Judge
Nancy Rosenstengel of a duty to decide whether his potential class
action over dangerous blenders duplicated one in California.
Cochran's client Tommy Gould moved to dismiss his complaint against
Blend Jet without prejudice on Sept. 23 and Rosenstengel approved
it on Sept. 25.
Cochran and David Nelson of Belleville sued Blend Jet in St. Clair
County circuit court for Gould in April, claiming blades broke and
blenders overheated and caught fire.
Blend Jet had recalled almost five million blenders.
Blend Jet counsel Alexander Pabon removed the complaint to district
court in May on the basis of diverse jurisdiction as a California
citizen.
In July, lawyer Zachary Arbitman of Philadelphia moved to intervene
on behalf of client Gregory Rittenhouse, lead plaintiff against
Blend Jet in the Eastern District of California.
He claimed Gould's complaint was virtually identical to
Rittenhouse's complaint.
He claimed Rittenhouse's counsel spent more than 100 hours and more
than $10,000 in hard costs thus far.
Cochran responded in August that Gould's complaint didn't copy
Rittenhouse's complaint.
He claimed Gould disputed the adequacy of the recall.
He claimed Gould would amend his complaint.
Arbitman replied that Gould's interest might harm Rittenhouse's
interest.
He claimed Gould demonstrated willingness to compromise in a way
that would harm Rittenhouse and the class.
Rosenstengel took it under advisement and hadn't ruled when Cochran
stopped the action.
He opened and closed 17 consumer suits in district court from 2016
through last year.
He has filed four this year and his complaints against Post
Consumer Brands, Red Lobster, and dip maker La Terra Fine remain
pending. [GN]
BLOOMINGDALE'S INC: Hernandez Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARILYN HERNANDEZ is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
her lawsuit entitled Marilyn Hernandez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bloomingdale's
Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00519-LKG, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland.
The lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for violations of the
Maryland Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act (MWESA) and
intrusion upon seclusion for their use of JavaScript computer code
known as "Session Replay Code" on the Bloomingdales.com website.
On Oct. 16, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack
of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
On Nov. 6, 2023, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
On Mar. 11, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state
a claim.
On July 25, 2024, the Court granted in part the Defendants' motion
to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and dismissed the Plaintiff's
amended complaint without prejudice through an Order entered by
Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby. The Court ruled that the Plaintiff has
not met her burden to show that the exercise of specific personal
jurisdiction over the Defendants is appropriate in this matter.
The appellate case is captioned Marilyn Hernandez v. Bloomingdale's
Inc., Case No. 24-1928, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit, filed on September 25, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants MARILYN HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN
923 Fayette Street
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 234-6486
- and –
Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
HAUSFELD, LLP
33 Whitehall Street
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 357-1194
- and –
James Joseph Pizzirusso, Esq.
HAUSFELD, LLP
888 16th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
Defendants-Appellees BLOOMINGDALE'S INC., et al. are represented
by:
Eric C. Bosset, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP
850 10th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 662-6000
- and –
Jeffrey Huberman, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP
850 10th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 662-5166
BLUE JAY: Faces Neuman Suit Over Hazardous E-Scooters
-----------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA NEUMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE JAY TRANSIT INC. d/b/a BIRD; BLUE JAY
TRANSIT USFM LLC D/B/A BIRD; NEUTRON HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a LIME;
VEORIDE, INC. d/b/a VEO; and CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendants, Case No.
720173/2024 (N.Y., Sup., Sept. 30, 2024) is an action seeking to
prohibit the Defendants from continuing the e-scooter program until
such time that the Defendants satisfactorily demonstrate to the
elected leaders of each area to be impacted by the program that the
e-scooters will not be parked or abandoned in any manner that
interferes with the safety of the public or the public's right to
unobstructed paths for walking and driving.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the e-scooters are
hazardous and a public eyesore. They impede the flow of pedestrian
and vehicle traffic, pose a clear and present danger, and impact
the ability for the elderly, disabled, and others with limited
mobility from traveling unobstructed and unimpeded.
Blue Jay Transit Inc. d/b/a Bird manufactures and sells electric
scooter. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan E. Neuman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN E. NEUMAN, ESQ.
176-25 Union Turnpike, Suite 230
Fresh Meadows, NY 11366
Telephone: (347) 450-6710
Facsimile: (718) 228-3689
Email: jnesq@jenesqlaw.com
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Court Dismisses Consumer Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Scarcella, writing for Reuters, reports that major
casino-hotel operators in Atlantic City including Caesars
Entertainment and MGM Resorts have persuaded a U.S. judge to
dismiss a proposed consumer class action accusing them and a
revenue management platform of overcharging for room rentals.
U.S. District Judge Karen Williams in Camden, New Jersey, ruled,
opens new tab on Tuesday, October 1, that the consumers had failed
to present enough evidence to let their price-fixing lawsuit move
ahead.
Williams dismissed the consumers' lawsuit with prejudice, meaning
it cannot be filed again. The case was part of a wave of new
lawsuits claiming the use of revenue management platforms that rely
on rivals' data can be deemed price-fixing.
The judge's ruling marked a second setback for plaintiffs claiming
that major hotels schemed to artificially jack up room rates.
Consumers in a related case have appealed a Nevada federal judge's
order dismissing their lawsuit against Wynn Resorts, Caesars and
others.
In both cases, the plaintiffs alleged hotel owners fed sensitive
internal information -- such as real-time price and occupancy data
-- to a shared software platform that offered pricing
recommendations.
The hotels and the software maker, Cendyn, which was also a
defendant, have denied any wrongdoing.
Representatives from Cendyn, Caesars Entertainment, MGM Resorts and
Hard Rock did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment.
The plaintiffs' attorneys in the New Jersey case at law firms Lite
DePalma Greenberg & Afanador; Burns Charest; and Susman Godfrey did
not immediately respond to a similar request.
The consumers said in their lawsuit that the hotels used Cendyn's
"Rainmaker" software "as their shared pricing brain" that "does all
the hard work for them."
They said "while the AI-driven technology at issue may be fairly
novel, the underlying conduct is not."
Cendyn and the hotels countered that there was no direct or
circumstantial evidence that the defendants agreed to fix prices.
They also said the hotels were not required to accept the
software's pricing recommendations.
Williams concluded the plaintiffs failed to show how the hotels
used the allegedly confidential data after it was provided to
Cendyn. That missing detail, the court said, makes the consumers'
case "factually and legally incomplete."
Given that the individual hotels could and did set their own rates,
it was "implausible that they tacitly agreed to anything, much less
to fix the prices of their hotel rooms," Williams wrote.
The case is Cornish-Adebiyi v. Caesars Entertainment, U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, No. 1:23-cv-02536.
For plaintiffs: Vineet Bhatia and Stephen Morrissey of Susman
Godfrey; and Warren Burns and Christopher Cormier of Burns Charest
For Cendyn: Sadik Huseny and Anna Rathbun of Latham & Watkins
For Caesars: Boris Bershteyn and Ken Schwartz of Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom
For MGM: Harry Rimm of Womble Bond Dickinson; Bethany Kristovich
and Justin Raphael of Munger, Tolles & Olson
For Hard Rock: Jennifer Del Medico and David Kiernan of Jones Day
[GN]
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Koenigsberg Appeals Ruling to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDRA KOENIGSBERG, et al. are taking an appeal from a court
order denying their motion to alter judgment in the lawsuit
entitled Alexandra Koenigsberg, et al., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Board of
Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-1044, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action complaint is brought against the Defendant for alleged
violations of Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business
Law and unjust enrichment by providing false data in order to get a
higher rating in the U.S. News college rankings.
On July 19, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which the Court granted through an Order entered by
Judge Paul G. Gardephe on Mar. 22, 2024.
Judgment was entered for the Defendant, and the case was closed on
Mar. 25, 2024.
On Apr. 22, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to alter judgment,
which the Court denied on Aug. 20, 2024. The Court ruled that the
proposed amended complaint's new allegations do not assist the
Plaintiffs in resolving the time-bar issue. Accordingly, amendment
would be futile, and the Plaintiffs' motion to vacate or amend the
judgment is denied.
The appellate case is captioned Koenigsberg v. The Board of
Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, Case No.
24-2519, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on September 25, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants ALEXANDRA KOENIGSBERG, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:
Matthew Hurst, Esq.
HEFFNER HURST
30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1210
Chicago, IL 60602
Defendant-Appellee THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN
THE CITY OF NEW YORK is represented by:
Maura Kathleen Monaghan, Esq.
DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP
66 Hudson Boulevard
New York, NY 10001
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Ervin Seeks More Time to File Opposition
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN ERVIN, et al., v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:23-cv-03678-RDM (D.D.C.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for an
enlargement of time to file their Opposition to the Defendant's
partial motion to dismiss, and their Reply to Defendant's
Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
The Plaintiff also asks that Court granting her leave to conduct
percertification discovery after the Court resolves any motion to
dismiss.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7 (d), the Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's
Opposition Brief is due on Monday Oct. 7, 2024. The Plaintiffs'
Opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss is due Oct. 10, 2024.
The Plaintiff asks for an enlargement of time to Nov. 12, 2024, to
file their response to both motions.
District of Columbia is a compact city on the Potomac River,
bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 3, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iNrVh1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Pamela M. Keith, Esq.
CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT JUSTICE
650 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 800-0292
E-mail: pamkeith@centerforemploymentjustice.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Christina Okereke, Esq.
Samantha Lewis, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
400 6th St. NW
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 727-9624
E-mail: Steven.Rubenstein3@dc.gov
Samantha.Lewis1@dc.gov
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set November 19
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP reminds investors that a shareholder filed a class
action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Domino's Pizza, Inc. (NYSE: DPZ) securities
between December 7, 2023 and July 17, 2024. Domino's, through its
subsidiaries, operates as a global pizza company that offers pizzas
and other food products under the Domino's brand name through
Company-owned and franchised stores.
For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas,
Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003.
The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that
Domino's Pizza, Inc. (DPZ) Misled Investors Regarding its Growth
Projections
According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
failed to disclose that: (i) DPE, the Company's largest master
franchisee, was experiencing significant challenges with respect to
both new store openings and closures of existing stores; (ii) as a
result, Domino's was unlikely to meet its own previously issued
long-term guidance for annual global net store growth; and (iii)
accordingly, Domino's business and/or financial prospects were
overstated.
On July 18, 2024, Domino's issued a press release announcing its Q2
2024 financial results. Among other items, Domino's disclosed that
it "expects it will fall 175 to 275 stores below its 2024 goal of
925+ net stores in international primarily as a result of
challenges in both openings and closures being faced by Domino's
Pizza Enterprises ('DPE'), one of its master franchisees."
Accordingly, "[t]he Company is temporarily suspending its guidance
metric of 1,100+ global net stores until the full effect of DPE's
store opens and closures on international net store growth are
known." On this news, Domino's stock price fell $64.23 per share,
or 13.57%, to close at $409.04 per share on July 18, 2024.
What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against Domino's Pizza, Inc. Shareholders who want to serve as lead
plaintiff for the class must submit their application to the court
by November 19, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be
eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can
remain an absent class member.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact:
Aaron Dumas, Jr., Esq.
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com
https://www.facebook.com/RobbinsLLP/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/robbins-llp/ [GN]
DRAFTKINGS INC: Aminov Sues Over Deceptive Online Betting Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
NERYE AMINOV, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DRAFTKINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
720194/2024 (N.Y., Sup., Queens Cty., Sept. 30, 2024) alleges
violation of the New York General Business Law.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that DraftKings' advertising
of the $1,000 Deposit Bonus is unfair and deceptive because an
eligible consumer who, by definition, is a new participant in New
York sports betting, like the Plaintiff, would be unlikely to
understand the costs and risks involved in qualifying for the
$1,000 Deposit Bonus. Moreover, DraftKings concealed the true risks
and costs of its platform from consumers like Plaintiff by using
advertisements that prominently featured materially deceptive
representations while omitting any warnings that it is almost
impossible for any individual to obtain the $1,000 Deposit Bonus.
The marketing representations and omissions made by DraftKings and
upon which Plaintiff relied were false and misleading. If such
marketing had fairly informed of the virtually impossible odds of
obtaining the $1,000 Deposit Bonus, the Plaintiff would not have
signed up for DraftKings, says the suit.
DraftKings Inc. operates as a daily fantasy sports contest and
sports betting company. The Company allows users to enter daily and
weekly fantasy sports-related contests and win money based on
individual player performances in American sports. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
Leanna A. Loginov, Esq.
Edwin E. Elliott, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE First Avenue, Suite 705
Miami, F: 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
edwine@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
sgold@kalielgold.com
- and -
Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, PA
20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
Email: adam@edelsberglaw.com
ENCORE SENIOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Moe Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
KRISTIE MOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENCORE SENIOR LIVING, LLC; 41 MANAGEMENT,
LLC; MATTHEWS SENIOR HOUSING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-1246
(E.D. Wis., Sept. 30, 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 Moe was employed by the Defendant as a staff.
Senior Encore Living LLC was founded in 1996. The Company's line of
business includes providing residential and personal care. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
FLO HEALTH: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Opposition
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERICA FRASCO, et al., v.
FLO HEALTH, INC., GOOGLE, LLC, FACEBOOK, INC., and FLURRY, INC.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00757-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court
to enter an order granting motion to provisionally file under seal
Defendants' Joint Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification and related materials.
The Court entered an Amended Scheduling Order on June 26, 2024, in
which it instructed the parties to file omnibus sealing papers in
connection with class certification on November 21, 2024.
Pursuant to that Order, Defendants submit their joint opposition to
class certification and associated exhibits and supporting
materials under seal, and all parties will submit their
consolidated set of sealing materials on November 21, 2024, once
class certification briefing is complete.
The Defendants seek to provisionally seal the following materials:
Document Portion To Designating
Be Filed Parties
Under Seal
Defendants' Joint Opposition Entire document Plaintiffs
to Plaintiffs' Motion for and
Defendants
Class Certification
Appendix of Evidence in Entire document Plaintiffs
Support of Defendants' Joint and
Defendants
Opposition to Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class
Certification
Flo is a maker of the Flo Period & Ovulation Tracker mobile app.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 3, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eoNC5p at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Ashley Rogers, Esq.
Christopher Chorba, Esq.
Lauren Blas, Esq.
Joseph R. Rose, Esq.
Abigail A. Barrera, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2100
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 698-3100
Facsimile: (214) 571-2900
E-mail: ARogers@gibsondunn.com
CChorba@gibsondunn.com
LBlas@gibsondunn.com
JRose@gibsondunn.com
ABarrera@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Benjamin Sadun, Esq.
Brenda R. Sharton, Esq.
Theodore E. Yale, Esq.
DECHERT LLP
US Bank Tower
633 West 5th Street, Suite 4900
Los Angeles, CA
Telephone: (213) 808-5700
Facsimile: (213) 808-5760
E-mail: benjamin.sadun@dechert.com
brenda.sharton@dechert.com
- and -
Benedict Y. Hur, Esq.
Simona Agnolucci, Esq.
Eduardo E. Santacana, Esq.
Tiffany Lin, Esq.
Yuhan Alice Chi, Esq.
Argemira Florez, Esq.
WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER
One Front Street, 34th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 858-7400
Facsimile: (415) 858-7599
E-mail: BHur@willkie.com
SAgnolucci@wilkie.com
ESantacana@wilkie.com
TLin@wilkie.com
- and -
Jason J. Kim, Esq.
Ann Marie Mortimer, Esq.
Samuel A. Danon, Esq.
John J. Delionado, Esq.
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
550 S. Hope St., Suite 2000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 532-2000
Facsimile: (213) 532-2020
E-mail: KimJ@HuntonAK.com
AMortimer@HuntonAK.com
sdanon@HuntonAK.com
jdelionado@HuntonAK.com
FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Dec. 15
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TREY SMITH-JOURNIGAN, et
al., individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly
situated, v. FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO, Case No. 2:18-cv-00328-MHW-CMV
(S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Chelsey Vascura entered a case
management order extending deadlines as follows:
-- All class-related discovery shall be completed by Dec. 15,
2024.
-- Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification by
Jan.
31, 2025.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IVQiqm at no extra
charge.[CC]
FRANKLIN WIRELESS: Settlement in Ali Suit Gets Initial Nod
----------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Wireless Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on September 30, 2024, that on April 22, 2024, after
resubmission of the application, the court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement for shareholder action, "Ali vs.
Franklin Wireless Corp. et al.," Case #3:21-cv-00687-AJB-MSB,
(April 16, 2021, S.D. Cal.).
On May 6, 2024, per the terms of the settlement agreement, the
company sent $2,400,000 to an account specified by the class action
claim administrator.
The suit alleged, among other things, that the company had prior
knowledge that the recall of the Verizon Ellipsis Jetpack mobile
hotspot device due to overheating, was likely and that the company
did not disclose that information to investors in a timely manner.
The class and defendants have executed a stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement under which the class releases all claims against the
defendants in exchange for $2.4 million. The class has submitted a
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, which the court
denied on January 24, 2024.
Franklin Wireless Corp. does business as "FranklinAccess," a global
provider of integrated wireless solutions utilizing the latest 5G
(fifth generation) and 4G LTE (fourth generation long-term
evolution) technologies including mobile hotspots, fixed wireless
routers, and mobile device management solutions.
FUTU HOLDINGS: Wins Dismissal of Securities Fraud Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Skadden reports that on September 25, 2024, Skadden secured the
dismissal of a putative securities fraud class action on behalf of
Futu Holdings, which operates a leading digitized brokerage and
wealth management platform in China, Hong Kong, the United States,
and elsewhere. The plaintiffs brought claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Futu and
its senior executives, alleging defendants misrepresented Futu's
regulatory compliance and failed to disclose that it was operating
in China without a brokerage license.
Judge Brian Martinotti of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey granted Futu's motion to dismiss. The court held that
the plaintiffs failed to plead any actionable misstatement or
omission. Robert Fumerton, Steve Kwok and Scott Musoff led the
Skadden team. [GN]
FUTURESHIRTS INC: Williams Sues for Website's Non-Compliance of ADA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MILTON WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FUTURESHIRTS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-07258 (S.D.N.Y., September 25, 2024) accuses the
Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New
York Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The alleged violations arise from Defendant's failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://futureshirts.co/, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons.
Futureshirts, Inc. operates the Graham Nash online interactive
website and retail store that offers goods and services, including
include information about its official Graham Nash apparel,
accessories & merchandise. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
GAL MANUFACTURING: Vellon Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NOUCHIE VELLON, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
and the Class v. G.A.L. MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LLC, and VANTAGE
ELEVATION LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-07424 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2024)
seeks to recover from Defendants unpaid wages, including overtime,
due to uncompensated off-the-clock work, and unpaid wages,
including overtime, due to improper rounding, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff says that Defendants' common payroll system is
calibrated to round employees' hours towards their scheduled hours.
The Defendants' practice was not neutral and was implemented to the
employees' detriment. He seeks to recover spread of hours premiums,
statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs. Further, he alleges that he and others similarly situated
are entitled to recover from Defendants, the following pursuant to
breach of contract and unjust enrichment: wrongfully withheld or
diverted payments, and punitive damages due to egregious conduct.
The Plaintiff, potential collective members, and putative class
members are current and former production line and packaging
workers, employed by Defendants.
GAL is a manufacturing business specializing in the production and
sale of elevator related products, such as doors, controls,
hydraulics, fixtures, and gears.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
GLOBAL E-TRADING: Sihler TCPA Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Janet Sihler, Charlene Bavencoff,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Global E-Trading LLC doing business as: Chargebacks911, Gary
Cardone, Monica Eaton, Case No. 8:23-cv-01450-VMC-LSG was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington on Oct. 2, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-mc-00062-TL to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Global E-Trading, LLC operates within the Data Processing, Hosting,
and Related Services industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Caitlin Skurky, Esq.
KNEUPPER & COVEY (SEA)
600 1st Ave., Ste. 102, Pmb 2072
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 759-7520
Email: caitlin@kneuppercovey.com
GLOBAL TEL-LINK: Class Settlement in Albert Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY ALBERT, et al., v.
GLOBAL TEL-LINK CORP., et al., Case No. 8:20-cv-01936-LKG (D. Md.),
the Hon. Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby entered an order:
1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of
the
settlement;
2. preliminarily certifying the following Settlement Class for
the
purpose of the Settlement Agreement:
"All persons and entities that, during the period Jan. 1,
2010
until the date of preliminary approval of this Settlement
Agreement, paid: (i) a flat fee of $14.99 through Securus's
PayNow program; (ii) a flat fee of $14.99 through GTL's
Collect2Card program; (iii) a flat fee of $9.99 through the
Securus's Text2Connect program; and/or (iv) a flat fee of
$9.99
through GTL's Collect2Phone program;"
3. preliminarily holding that the Settlement Class excludes:
Defendants and their employees, subsidiaries, affiliates,
predecessors, officers, directors, legal representatives,
heirs,
and successors; co-conspirators; federal, state, and local
governmental entities; and the judge, judicial officers, and
associated court staff assigned to this case and their
immediate
family members;
4. preliminarily finding that the Settlement Class fully
complies
with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23;
5. preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement;
6. appointing the following named Plaintiffs as representatives
of
the Settlement Class: Ashley Albert, Ashley Baxter, Lupei
Zhu,
and Rhonda Howard; and
7. appointing the following law firms as Settlement Class
Counsel:
Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC and Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll,
PLLC,
Global Tel-Link is a Reston, Virginia–based telecommunications
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xkzrdQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
GLOBAL THREAT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Morgan Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
DEMETRIUS MORGAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL THREAT SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-02461-D (N.D., Tex., Sept. 30, 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.
The Plaintiff Morgan was employed by the Defendant as a security
guard.
Global Threat Reduction Solutions LLC was founded in 2006. The
company's line of business includes providing business consulting
services on a contract or fee basis. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Allen R. Vaught
Vaught Firm, LLC
1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (972) 707-7816
Facsimile: (972) 591-4564
Email: avaught@txlaborlaw.com
GOOD HUMOR-BREYERS: Settles Vanilla Class Suit for $8.85-Mil.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saleen Martin, writing for USA Today, reports that U.S. customers
who have bought Breyers Natural Vanilla ice cream over the past
eight years may be eligible for cash payment in a nearly $9 million
settlement against the ice cream company.
The lawsuit applies to customers in the U.S. who bought the ice
cream between April 21, 2016 and August 14, 2024, according to a
news release from the Supreme Court of the State of New York in the
Bronx.
An $8.85 million settlement has been reached in the class action
lawsuit, which was filed against both Unilever United States, Inc.,
which owns Breyers, and Conopco, Inc., the New York-based
advertiser Breyers works with, according to the lawsuit.
According to the court's news release, the lawsuit alleges the ice
cream was labeled "vanilla" as if its flavor came only from the
vanilla plant when in reality, the product's flavor contained
non-vanilla plant flavors.
"The Defendants dispute all of these allegations and deny any
wrongdoing," the news release read. "The Court has not decided who
is right."
Still, Conopco, Inc. and Unilever United States, Inc. have agreed
to create a settlement fund of $8,850,000.
How to get your cash settlement
According to the news release, customers may be eligible for a cash
settlement if they bought Breyers Natural Vanilla ice cream in any
size in the U.S. between April 21, 2016 and Aug. 14, 2024.
Cash settlements will be awarded to:
1. Settlement class members who submit valid claim forms by
Feb. 19, 2025.
2. Valid claims with proof of purchase ($1 per product).
3. Valid claims without proof or purchase ($1 per product with
a maximum of eight products).
Settlement class members who submit a valid claim for products with
both proof of purchase and without proof of purchase (these
customers will get combined cash payment benefits)
According to the companies, each household can only submit one
single claim form.
The court has ruled that the companies must develop a new product
formula that does not include vanilla derived from non-vanilla
plant sources within 12 months of the settlement's finalization,
according to the news release.
Can I still sue the companies individually?
The court said in its news release that customers who want to
exercise their right to sue have to "exclude" themselves from the
settlement by completing an exclusion form found on the settlement
website.
Customers can also mail or email a written request for exclusion by
Oct. 31 to the claims administrator.
"If you choose to exclude yourself from the Settlement, you will
not be bound by the Settlement or any judgment in this lawsuit,"
the court said in its news release.
Customers can also object to the settlement by Oct. 31.
The court plans to hold a fairness hearing on Nov. 21 to determine
whether or not the settlement is reasonable. The court will
consider any objections.
Customers can attend the final approval hearing if they'd like but
it's not a requirement.
"Please do not call the Court or the Clerk of the Court for
information about the Settlement," the court wrote.
Forms can be found at
www.vanillaicecreamsettlement.com/Home/Documents.
For more information, call 1-888-603-5137 and for a complete list
of included products, visit www.VanillaIceCreamSettlement.com. [GN]
GRACE OCEAN: Sued Over Business Losses Due to Bridge Collapse
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sea and Job reports that attorneys for Milberg Coleman Bryson
Phillips Grossman ("Milberg") have filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of all companies that either did business directly at the
Port of Baltimore, are part of the shipping/trucking business that
relies on the Port, or were economically impacted by the
destruction of the Francis Scott Key Bridge.
The Class Representatives named in the lawsuit are R.E. West, Inc.,
E. Marine Motor Yacht Sales Pty Ltd., Captain C Logistics, LLC,
American Publishing LLC, B&R Construction Services, Inc., and
International Trading Solutions, Inc. Each of these claimants
allegedly suffered, and continues to suffer, extraordinary business
losses and costs as a result of the container ship Dali destroying
the Key Bridge on March 26, 2024.
Milberg was the first firm to file a claim in this maritime action
and has been actively engaged in the investigation of the
catastrophic bridge collapse. The firm's class action accuses Grace
Ocean Private, the owner of the Dali, and the ship's operator,
Synergy Marine Group, of recklessly leaving the dock that day with
a ship they knew could not safely navigate the narrow passage
through the Patapsco River Channel.
Milberg also alleges that Grace Ocean Private and Synergy Marine
Group knowingly interfered with the contractual and business
relationships of Milberg's clients in the Baltimore Harbor business
community by sailing an unseaworthy ship into the Patapsco River
Channel, aware that a blockage of the Channel would risk a major
disruption to the many profitable Port-based business
relationships.
"Thousands of businesses have unfairly paid the financial price for
the Dali's destruction of the Key Bridge," said Milberg Senior
Partner Marc Grossman. "With this lawsuit we seek to shift those
costs back to the entities that bear ultimate responsibility for
them."
The collapse of the Key Bridge stopped transportation on Interstate
695 and closed the Port of Baltimore for 78 days. This disruption
affected businesses nationally to the tune of billions of dollars
in damages. Nonetheless, the owners of the Dali seek to limit their
liability to a paltry $44 million. This limitation will cover about
1% of the total damages caused by the bridge's destruction. [GN]
IHG MANAGEMENT: Seeks to File Class Opposition Brief by Dec. 4
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT MARTINEZ,
individually, and on behalf of all other 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, inclusive, Case No.
3:24-cv-00210-L-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order that:
1. The deadline for Defendants to file the opposition brief to
Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be Dec. 4,
2024;
2. The deadline for Plaintiff to file the reply brief shall be
Jan. 8, 2025;
3. Subject to the Court's availability, the class certification
hearing date shall be Jan. 22, 2025; and
4. If either party submits signed declarations from the proposed
class members to support or oppose a motion for class
certification in this case, the submitting party shall
promptly
provide available deposition dates, upon request from the
opposing party, so that depositions of the declarants can be
conducted in a timely manner. IT IS SO STIPULATED.
On May 15, 2024, the Parties filed their Joint Discovery Plan.
On May 22, 2024, the Magistrate Judge held a Case Management
Conference and set a class certification deadline in this case for
Sept. 27, 2024.
On Sept. 24, 2024, the Parties filed a Stipulation and [Proposed]
Order Regarding Class Certification Briefing Schedule, setting
forth Defendants' deadline to file their opposition brief to be
Dec. 4, 2024, and Plaintiff's deadline to file his reply to be Jan.
8, 2025.
On September 30, 2024, the Court ordered that the clerk strike
Plaintiff’s motion from the record due to Plaintiff’s failure
to obtain a hearing date.
On Oct. 4, 2024, Plaintiff re-filed his same Motion as an Amended
Motion for Class Certification with a noticed hearing date of
November 4, 2024 that was provided by the Court clerk.
IHG Management is a Maryland-based hospitality company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MoT7dP at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon Brouillette, Esq.
Karen L. Wallace, Esq.
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, PC
1800 Century Park E
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 438-5565
The Defendants are represented by:
Leo Q. Li, Esq.
Eric E. Hill, Esq.
Ping Wang, Esq.
Yoon-Woo Nam, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Telephone: (310) 277-7200
Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
E-mail: lli@seyfarth.com
ehill@seyfarth.com
pwang@seyfarth.com
ynam@seyfarth.com
IRIS ENERGY: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Mitchelhill, writing for Coin Telegraph, reports that a United
States District Court judge has dismissed a class-action lawsuit
brought by investors in Bitcoin miner Iris Energy, who alleged the
mining firm concealed key risks and misled investors during its
initial public offering in 2021.
In a Sept. 27 opinion order, US District Court Judge Jamel Semper
dismissed the class-action lawsuit without prejudice, ruling that
the investors who brought the lawsuit could not prove that IREN had
ever falsified statements or intentionally misled investors.
The lawsuit alleged Iris Energy, its executives, and its
underwriters -- which include J.P. Morgan and Citigroup Global
Markets -- violated both the Securities Act and the Securities
Exchange Act during its 2021 initial public offering.
The plaintiffs claimed several key inaccuracies were in documents
concerning the Australia-based crypto miner's November 2021 IPO and
several other statements in the months that followed.
Additionally, they alleged that IREN had concealed risks and failed
to disclose information regarding loans it took on to finance
mining equipment and had made several "false and misleading"
statements concerning the firm's overall financial condition,
including its profits, losses, and assets on hand.
However, Judge Semper found that Iris had no duty to disclose all
details concerning its loan financing and that the plaintiffs had
failed to prove there was anything materially misleading about
Iris' disclosures.
Iris Energy (IREN) went public on Nov. 17, 2021, after raising $232
million through an IPO. After debuting at a share price of $28, the
firm's share price tumbled quickly amid a broader sell-off
throughout the rest crypto market.
By Jan. 24, 2022, IREN's share price had plummeted 69% alongside a
similar decline in the price of Bitcoin BTC , which fell more than
36% in the same timeframe.
In a Sept. 30 statement concerning the dismissal, Davis Polks --
the firm representing Iris Energy and its executives -- said the
plaintiffs had "sought to recover for their losses during the
broad, marketwide decline in the value of Bitcoin in 2022."
Separate from the class action suit, Iris Energy was recently
targeted by short-selling firm Culper Research, which accused the
Bitcoin miner of being "wildly overvalued," adding that the firm
wasn't investing enough to remain competitive in the
high-performance computing (HPC) industry.
Culper -- which disclosed its short-selling position on IREN --
accused the company of talking "big game" about its
high-performance computing plans while investing far less than
required. [GN]
J.T. WIMSATT: Newcomb Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
April Newcomb, individually, and on behalf of other similarly
situated employees v. J.T. WIMSATT CONTRACTING CO., INC.; and DOES
1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV25657 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Oct. 2, 2024), is brought to recover damages on behalf of Plaintiff
and all current and former hourly-paid and/or non-exempt employees
who worked for Defendants in the State of California at any time
during the period from four years prior to the date of the filing
of this Complaint through final judgment as a result of the
Defendants failure to pay minimum wages, straight time wages, and
overtime wages.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants hired Plaintiff and Class
Members but, among other things, failed to properly pay them all
wages owed for all time worked (including minimum wages, straight
time wages, and overtime wages), failed to provide them with all
meal periods and rest periods and associated premium wages to which
they were entitled, failed to timely pay them all wages due during
their employment, failed to timely pay them all wages due upon
termination of their employment, failed to provide them with
accurate itemized wage statements, and failed to reimburse them for
necessary business expenses. As a result, Defendants violated,
inter alia, California Labor Code and the applicable Industrial
Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Order. Through this action,
Plaintiff seeks to recover all available remedies including but not
limited to actual and liquidated damages and attorney's fees and
costs, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants from May 2018 through April
2021 as an Accounts Payable Specialist.
J.T. WIMSATT CONTRACTING CO., INC. was and is an employer Who does
business in California, With locations throughout the State Of
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Genish, Esq.
Megan E. Ross, Esq.
BLACKSTONE LAW, APC
8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Phone: (310) 622-4278
Facsimile: (855) 786-6356
Email: mross@blackstonepc.com
JAGUAR LAND: Class Cert Bid in Shelor Due June 30, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WARREN SHELOR ET AL., v.
JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No.
3:23-cv-00908-MMH-PDB (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Patricia
Barksdale entered an amended case management and scheduling order:
Action or Event Deadline or Date
Deadline for notifying the Court of the Feb. 27, 2025
parties’ preferred mediator
Deadline for completing fact discovery Apr. 25, 2025
and filing any motion to compel discovery
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37
Deadline to conduct mediation May 15, 2025
Deadline for dispositive motions on any June 30, 2025
named plaintiffs’ individual claim
Deadline for moving for class certification June 30, 2025
under Rule 23(c) and for serving expert
disclosures under Rule 26(a)(2) in support
of class certification, including any report
required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B)
Deadline for completion of depositions of July 31, 2025
experts in support of class certification
Deadline for replies on class certification Oct. 1, 2025
and any dispositive motion
Hearing on motion for class certification Nov. 3, 2025
and related Rule 702 motions
Date and time of the final pretrial conference Aug. 24, 2026
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e) (Courtroom 10B)
Jaguar is a manufacturer of luxury sedans, sports cars and SUVs.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xkyf4V at no extra
charge.[CC]
JAMARI PETIT: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Senior Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
MILAGROS SENIOR, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated v. JAMARI PETIT BATEAU, INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-07400 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2024) contends that the Defendant
failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive
website, https://petitbateau.us, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
Aug. 5, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a Baby Girl 3-Piece Floral
Solid Bodysuit, as a gift, from the Defendant and to view the
information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple
access barriers that denied the Plaintiff a shopping experience
similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to
the goods and services offered to the public and made available to
the public, the lawsuit alleges.
The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and
humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on
the Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue
to contribute to Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation,
the lawsuit adds.
This discrimination is particularly acute during the current
COVID-19 global pandemic.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Ms. Senior is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.
The Defendant offers children's clothing & accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
JAMES HARDIE: Appeals Court Confirms Class Action Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kirsten Massey, Chris Curran, James Tocher, Yang Li of Russell
McVeagh report that the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in
the only remaining weathertightness class action against James
Hardie (two similar actions settled in August 2021 and April 2023
respectively). The Court upheld the High Court finding that
manufacturers of cladding products owe a duty of care in negligence
to homeowners. However, the Court agreed that James Hardie had not
breached its duty of care. It also dismissed related claims under
the Fair Trading Act 1986.
Our analysis of the Court of Appeal's judgment is set out below,
along with our thoughts on several lessons that can be taken from
the judgment for the conduct of future class actions and complex
litigation generally.
Background
The defendants -- two James Hardie companies -- manufactured,
designed and supplied a cladding system called Harditex between
1987 and 2005 that was used in the construction of approximately
117,000 buildings in New Zealand. The plaintiffs brought a class
action representing owners of 149 properties built using Harditex.
They claimed that Harditex was "inherently defective" (ie would
fail irrespective of how it was installed) because it lacked
adequate drainage and drying capabilities, and that their homes had
suffered water damage as a result. They also claimed that James
Hardie provided misleading information in the technical information
provided for Harditex.
The class action began with a stage-one trial of the plaintiffs'
two properties, as well as six other test properties from the
class. The High Court trial took 84 days and produced over 70,000
pages of evidence. Both sides called a long list of expert
witnesses. The essential conclusion of the High Court was that the
test properties were water damaged, but this was due to incompetent
building work.
On appeal, the plaintiffs advanced a "complete re-litigation" of
the High Court's factual findings in a two-week hearing. James
Hardie sought to support the High Court's decision on other
grounds, namely, that it did not owe a duty of care and that the
claims were time-barred.
Manufacturers owe a duty of care
Since the 1960s, New Zealand law has recognised that builders owe a
duty of care to subsequent purchasers. This duty of care has been
extended to engineers, architects and building inspectors. However,
before this case, it had not been extended to manufacturers of
building products, although the Supreme Court considered the issue
arguable in Carter Holt Harvey v Minister of Education [2016] NZSC
95, [2017] 1 NZLR 78.
Applying the usual two-stage test for recognising a novel duty of
care, which involves consideration of the proximity of the
relationship between the parties and any relevant policy factors,
the Court determined that James Hardie did owe a duty of care:
Foreseeability of harm was considered obvious.
There was sufficient proximity between a manufacturer and a
homeowner despite the intermediate role played by the builders who
installed Harditex. In particular, the Court emphasised that it was
only imposing a duty of care in relation to conduct within a
manufacturer's control, ie the manufacture, design and supply of
the cladding system.
Responding to a submission that manufacturers have no general duty
to avoid economic loss from selling a defective (but not dangerous)
product, the Court noted this was not a case about "mere defects of
quality" as the water damage posed a health risk. Whether the duty
can extend to other types of defect will need to "await future
cases", the Court said.
The Court did not consider a novel duty analysis necessary for the
plaintiffs' misleading information claim. Rather, any misleading
information in the technical instructions would constitute
negligent misstatement, which already has well-established
requirements.
No finding of negligence
The Court conducted a thorough review of the expert evidence and,
like the High Court, ultimately preferred James Hardie's experts
over the plaintiffs' experts on the basis that James Hardie's
experts had greater expertise and gave less partisan evidence.
The Court accepted that the test properties were water damaged.
However, the Court found that these properties had not been built
in compliance with James Hardie's instructions and contained
significant workmanship defects. The Court reasoned that, if any of
the class members owned a property that was water damaged despite
being built in compliance with James Hardie's instructions, the
plaintiffs would have selected that property as a test property.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court that the technical
instructions did not contain misleading information and that
installation of Harditex did not require building expertise beyond
the skill of a reasonable builder.
Limitation: reasonable discoverability principle applies
Since the claims related to conduct before 2011, they fell under
the Limitation Act 1950 (now replaced by the Limitation Act 2010).
Under the 1950 Act, tort claims could not be brought more than six
years after the cause of action accrued. A negligence claim usually
accrues once both the negligence and its resulting damage have
occurred. However, for latent building defects, accrual only occurs
once the damage is reasonably discoverable - since the damage is
the loss in value of the property, and value is only lost once the
defect becomes apparent.
James Hardie argued that the reasonable discoverability approach
did not apply since, if its product was "inherently defective" as
the plaintiffs claimed, any building would be damaged from the
outset. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, concluding that
there was no reason why a hidden defect created by a manufacturer
should be treated differently.
James Hardie also argued that the damage became reasonably
discoverable in 2002 when the leaky building crisis came to the
public's attention. The Court of Appeal, however, did not think
that it was reasonable to expect every homeowner to call in an
expert to investigate their home if it was not showing any signs of
weathertightness problems.
Since the Building Act longstop does not apply to manufacturers,
James Hardie only had the protection of the general 15-year
longstop (applicable to proceedings, like this one, filed after 1
January 2011).
Fair Trading Act claims also failed
The Fair Trading Act claim focused on the description of the
qualities and attributes of Harditex in James Hardie's technical
instructions.
The Court of Appeal found that the target audience of the technical
information was competent professionals who could read the
descriptions in light of their building knowledge. The Court said
the trial Judge's approach was consistent with the case law to
consider the documents "as a whole and in context". The technical
information did not contain misleading statements, except for
potentially one statement that fibre cement is "completely
unaffected by water" when, in fact, it does absorb water but then
dries.
In any case, the Court of Appeal found no evidence that the
plaintiffs or their builders relied on these statements, so they
caused no loss. Claims under the Fair Trading Act for earlier
versions of the technical information were also time-barred
pursuant to the Fair Trading Act limitation period applicable at
the time.
Observations
There are several lessons that can be taken from the Court of
Appeal's judgment for future class actions and complex litigation
generally:
Briefing credible experts is critical - the finding that Harditex
was not defective went against established (but untested) belief
prevailing through earlier leaky building litigation. That finding
largely depended on which party's experts the Court preferred. The
Court of Appeal repeatedly emphasised the greater expertise and
impartiality of James Hardie's experts.
An appeal is no replacement for trial on factual issues - while the
Court of Appeal reconsidered the evidence, it properly acknowledged
the trial Judge's advantages of seeing and hearing all of the
witnesses and "evaluating the evidence as it unfolded over a
three-month period" (compared with the two weeks it had to hear
submissions). In that context, it is perhaps unsurprising that the
Court reached the same conclusions on the factual issues.
Stage one class action hearings can have stage two impacts - the
Court of Appeal judgment contains conclusions on causation and
limitation that would have been significant at a stage two trial,
had the plaintiffs succeeded in establishing negligence. Some of
these findings went beyond the common issues and individual claims
of the representative plaintiffs and seemed to rule out potential
stage two liability being established by some class members.
Class action plaintiffs need to carefully choose their test cases -
the Court of Appeal was willing to draw an adverse inference that
there was no better case available within the class than the test
cases before the Court. It is clear that the Court expects
representative plaintiffs to engage with class members to identify
the most meritorious claims and present them at trial. [GN]
JANUS HENDERSON: Schissler Bid to Restrict Exhibits Partly OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Schissler v. Janus
Henderson US (Holdings) Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02326 (D.
Colo., Filed Sept. 9, 2022), the Hon. Judge Raymond P. Moore
entered an order granting in part motion for leave to restrict by
Magistrate Judge Susan Prose on Oct. 3, 2024.
-- The Plaintiffs' motion for leave to restrict asks the court to
maintain Level One restrictions on three exhibits (4, 6, and 7)
to
the Declaration of Brock J. Specht as well as portions of the
Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in support of motion to certify
class.
-- There are nine exhibits to the Specht Declaration, all but one
of
which have been filed under restriction. The Plaintiffs' Motion
for Leave to Restrict explains the reasons for restricting
exhibits 4, 6, and 7, but fails to address why exhibits 1, 2,
3,
5, or 9 were also filed under restriction.
The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) involving recovery of Benefits to Employee.
Janus is a leading global active asset manager.[CC]
JENNINGS CENTER: Travit Seeks Nursing Assistants' Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
JASMINE TRAVIT, On behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JENNINGS CENTER FOR OLDER ADULTS, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01647 (N.D. Ohio, September 26, 2024), arises from
Defendant's practices and policies of failing to include bonuses,
shift differentials, and/or other remuneration earned by Plaintiff
and other similarly situated employees in their regular rate of pay
for purposes of calculating their overtime compensation in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant employed Plaintiff
between August 2023 and April 2024 as a nursing assistant. The
Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours in a work week and
frequently worked between 40 to 45 hours per week. However, the
Defendant failed to include the bonuses, incentives, shift
differentials, and/or other remuneration in the calculation of
overtime compensation. As a result, the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees were denied significant amounts of
overtime compensation, says the suit.
Headquartered in Garfield Heights, OH, Jennings Center for Older
Adults provides assisted living, adult day services, home care, and
rehabilitation care to its customers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq.
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
The Heritage Building, Suite 250
34555 Chagrin Boulevard
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 696-5000
Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com
anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
JOSEPH STILWELL: Trial in Khoshaba Suit to Commence July 15, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL KHOSHABA, V. JOSEPH
D. STILWELL, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00237-MSD-DEM (E.D. Va.), the
Hon. Judge Mark Davis entered a scheduling order as follows:
1. Trial shall commence on July 15, 2025. at 10:00 a.m., at
Norfolk.
2. The party having the burden of proof upon the primary issue
to
which potential Rules 702, 703 or 705 evidence is directed
shall
identify expert witnesses to be proffered upon such an issue
by
name, residence and business address, occupation and field of
expertise on Feb. 18.2025.
The disclosure outlined in Rule 26(a)(2)(B) shall be made on
Feb. 18. 2025.
3. Discovery shall be commenced timely and, except as to expert
witnesses, shall be completed by plaintiff(s) and by
defendant(s) on or before April 25, 2025.
4. All discovery of experts, and all depositions taken by the
proponent of a witness for presentation in evidence in lieu
of
the appearance of the witness at trial, shall be concluded on
or
before May 2, 2025.
5. The pretrial disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(3) shall be
delivered to all counsel and unrepresented parties on or
before
June 11, 2025.
6. An attorneys' conference is scheduled in the office of
counsel
for plaintiff or, if the plaintiff is unrepresented, at the
office of counsel for the defendant whose office is located
closest to the courthouse at Norfolk on June 20. 2025, at
10:00
a.m.
7. A final pretrial conference shall be conducted on June 27,
2025,
at 11:00 a.m..
8. Trial by jury has been demanded. Counsel shall electronically
file proposed voir dire and Jury instructions. Counsel shall
also deliver to the Clerk, two typewritten sets of Jury
instructions, one set with authorities in support thereof,
and
one set without authorities, along with a CD, on or before
July
8, 2025.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=32JywE at no extra
charge.[CC]
KELLY SERVICES: Wright EPOA Suit Removed to W.D. Wash.
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KATHERINE WRIGHT, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KELLY SERVICES, INC., a
foreign profit corporation doing business as KELLY SERVICES; KELLY
SERVICES GLOBAL, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; KELLY
SERVICES USA, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; and DOES
1-20, Defendants, Case No. 24-2-19175-5 SEA, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of Washington, for King County, to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on
September 25, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-01532 to the proceeding.
The case arises from Defendants' alleged violations of the State of
Washington's Equal Pay and Opportunities Act.
Kelly Services, Inc. is a human resource consulting services
company headquartered in Troy, MI. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Daniel B. Heidtke, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
701 Fifth Avenue
Columbia Tower, 42nd Floor
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (512) 277-2300
E-mail: DBHeidtke@duanemorris.com
- and -
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq.
Jennifer A. Riley, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3700
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 499-6710
E-mail: GMaatman@duanemorris.com
JARiley@duanemorris.com
L'OREAL USA: Judge Refused to Dismiss Consumer Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Diana Novak Jones, writing for Reuters, reports that the judge
overseeing the sprawling litigation over claims that chemical hair
relaxer products made by L'Oreal USA, Revlon and others cause
cancer refused to dismiss a proposed class action brought by
consumers seeking reimbursement for products they say they would
not have purchased had they known of the risks.
U.S. District Judge Mary Rowland in Illinois on Friday, September
27, largely rejected L'Oreal, Revlon, Namaste Laboratories and
other companies' bid to dismiss the consolidated consumer class
action, which seeks economic damages for the products purchased,
punitive damages and medical monitoring funds for some plaintiffs
who say they are at increased risk for uterine cancer and other
health problems because of their use of the products.
The class action represents a different prong of the litigation
over hair relaxer products, which includes thousands of lawsuits
filed by women who say the products caused their uterine cancer and
other health problems.
The proposed economic damages class would cover any U.S. consumer
who purchased the products. The medical monitoring class would
cover consumers in certain states who used the products at least
four times a year and had not been diagnosed with uterine or
ovarian cancer.
Attorneys for the companies did not immediately respond to requests
for comment nor did attorneys for the consumers.
The products, which include chemicals to permanently straighten
textured hair, are typically marketed to women of color. The first
lawsuits hit court dockets after the October 2022 publication of a
National Institutes of Health study that found women who used the
products multiple times a year were more than twice as likely to
develop uterine cancer.
In a statement posted online after the first lawsuits were filed,
L'Oreal said it was "confident in the safety of our products and
believe the recent lawsuits filed against us have no legal merit."
A Revlon representative previously told Reuters the company did not
"believe the science supports a link between chemical hair
straighteners or relaxers and cancer."
Rowland has already rejected the companies' separate effort to
dismiss the injury claims in the litigation, which includes 8,500
lawsuits, according to recent data from the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation.
In November, Rowland said the plaintiffs had put forward sufficient
facts to support their allegations accusing the companies of
negligence, defective design of the products and failure to warn
customers of the risks. [GN]
LEOSOURCE INSURANCE: Robertson Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Leosource Insurance
Agency, LLC. The case is styled as Erin Robertson, individually and
on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated
v. Leosource Insurance Agency, LLC, Case No. 0:24-cv-61826-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., Oct. 2, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Leo Source -- https://leosourceinsuranceagency.com/ -- is an
Insurance Agency that is licensed in 49 State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
31 Samana Drive
Miami, FL 33133
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
- and -
Rachel E Kaufman
KAUFMAN PA
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com
MAC COSMETICS: Bid for Class Certification in Maciel Due Oct. 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IGNACIO MACIEL, RUTH
TORRES, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
persons, v. M.A.C. COSMETICS INC., a New York corporation; and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-03718-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an order grating the parties
stipulation to the following modification of the existing briefing
schedule on the Daubert Motions and Motion for Class Certification
as follows:
1. Daubert Motions and Motion for Class Certification due by
Oct. 28, 2024.
2. Oppositions to Daubert Motions and Motion for Class
Certification due by Dec. 10, 2024.
3. Replies re: Daubert Motions and Motion for Class
Certification
due by Jan. 10, 2025
MAC Cosmetics is a Canadian cosmetics manufacturer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qVkxkc at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew Righetti, Esq.
John Glugoski, Esq.
RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C.
2001 Union Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94123
Telephone: (415) 983-0900
E-mail: matt@righettilaw.com
jglugoski@righettilaw.com
- and -
Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Telephone: (949) 270-2798
Facsimile: (949) 209-0303
E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Allison S. Wallin, Esq.
Susan T. Ye, Esq.
Nathaniel H. Jenkins, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
Telephone: (310) 553-0308
Facsimile: (800) 715-1330
E-mail: awallin@littler.com
sye@littler.com
njenkins@littler.com
MANGLAR LLC: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Brito Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS BRITO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MANGLAR, L.L.C.; D.H. ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN
LLC d/b/a GELATERIA MADE IN ITALY; GOLD CHICKEN GOLD CORP d/b/a
GOLD CHICKEN GOLD; and PANGOLD, LLC d/b/a DON PAN INTERNATIONAL
BAKERY, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-23787-XXXX (Oct. 1, 2024)
alleges Defendants' violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants'
commercial property at 4179 NW 107th Avenue, Doral, Florida, 33178,
is not accessible to mobility-impaired individuals in violation of
ADA.
MANGLAR, L.L.C., owns, operates, and oversees the commercial
properties, including general parking lot and parking spots. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beverly Virues, Esq.
Armando Mejias, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 553-3464
Primary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com
Secondary Email: amejias@lawgmp.com
jacosta@lawgmp.com
aquezada@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL, 33155
Telephone: (305) 350-3103
Primary Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com
Secondary Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com
MANHEAD LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Williams Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
MILTON WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. MANHEAD LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-07437
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2024) contends that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://dollyparton.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
During the Plaintiff's visits to the Website, including on June 26,
2024 and the last occurring on Sept. 27, 2024, in an attempt to
purchase a Jolene Woven Blanket from the Defendant and to view the
information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple
access barriers that denied the Plaintiff a shopping experience
similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to
the goods and services offered to the public and made available to
the public, the lawsuit alleges.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer
frustration and humiliation as a result of the discriminatory
conditions present on the Defendant's Website. These discriminatory
conditions continue to contribute to Plaintiff's sense of isolation
and segregation, the suit asserts.
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.
Manhead operates the Dolly Parton online interactive Website and
retail store across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
MAPLE LEAF: Denies Class Suit Involvement Over Bread Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ontario Farmer reports that Maple Leaf Foods has filed court
documents arguing it should not be made part of a class-action
lawsuit over price-fixing prices for bread and buns.
The company has been sued because the federal government has argued
that it and Weston Bread, plus a number of supermarket chains and
food retailers, conspired to hike prices.
Weston has pleaded guilty and paid the federal government a
record-breaking $500-million fine and offered customers of its
Loblaws-owned supermarkets, including Zehrs Markets, $25 vouchers.
Maple Leaf and Canada Bread, which it owned at the time, denied
wrongdoing.
Bimbo Bakery of Mexico has since bought Canada Bread and it has
argued that it is innocent and the price-fixing must have been done
by the previous owners.
Michael McCain, at the time the president, chief executive officer
and majority shareholder of Maple Leaf Foods, denied any
involvement in the scheme, saying that was all Canada Bread staff.
But he also said at the time that what was done "was consistent
with industry practice and, above all, lawful."
Maple Leaf is saying on its website now that it "has done nothing
wrong." [GN]
METAGENOMI INC: Vreeland Alleges Securities Act Breaches
--------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN VREELAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. METAGENOMI INC., BRIAN C. THOMAS, PAMELA
WAPNICK, JUERGEN ECKHARDT, SEBASTIAN BERNALES, RISA STACK, and
WILLARD DERE, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-06765 (N.D. Cal.,
September 26, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other
shareholders that purchased stock pursuant and/or traceable to
Metagenomi's registration statement for the initial public offering
held between February 9 and 13, 2024. He and other similarly
situated investors bought Metagenomi stock in the initial public
offering based on false and/or materially misleading information
concerning its collaboration agreement with Moderna. The company's
initial public offering represented to the public that the
collaboration between Metagenomi and Moderna would be lasting and
would potentially lead to breakthrough scientific technologies and
therapeutics. Contrary to these representations, Metagenomi's
collaboration with Moderna would not extend into the future but
instead terminate in the immediate future. In fact, on May 1, 2024,
Metagenomi announced that it and Moderna had mutually agreed to
terminate their collaboration agreement, alleges the Plaintiff.
Founded in 2016, Metagenomi is a genetics medicine company
headquartered in Emeryville, CA. Following its initial public
offering, Metagenomi's stock traded on the Nasdaq under the symbol
"MGX". [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam M. Apton, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
1160 Battery Street East, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 373-1671
E-mail: aapton@zlk.com
NEXT CHAPTER: Wheatley Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Website
----------------------------------------------------------
HANNIBAL WHEATLEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE NEXT CHAPTER NY LLC d/b/a TREEHOUSE,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07312 (S.D.N.Y., September 26, 2024)
arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate the Defendant's website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by visually-impaired people.
Plaintiff Wheatley alleges that Defendant's website has
accessibility barriers that deny him and other visually-impaired
persons to their full and equal access to and enjoyment of the
goods, benefits, and services of its website. Moreover, the
Defendant failed to provide the online content and services in a
manner that is compatible with screen reader technology.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York Human Rights Law, the
New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights
Law, and for declaratory relief.
Headquartered in Nyack, NY, The Next Chapter NY LLC owns and
maintains the website, www.treehousecannabis.com. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
NMS GROUP: Filing for Class Cert Reply Support Revised to Nov. 21
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Elewood Torres v. NMS
Group LLC d/b/a MMS Group, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-06142-DEH-VF
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Dale Ho entered an order revising the
Court's
Briefing Schedule for the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification as follows:
Event Old Deadline New
Deadline
TUC and Housing Defendants to each Oct. 7, 2024 Oct. 21,
2024
serve their opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification
Plaintiff to serve his reply in Nov. 7, 2024 Nov. 21,
2024
further support of his Motion for
Class Certification
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WrSJEU at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Stephen G. Rickershauser, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
77 Water Street, Suite 2100
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 863-9522
E-mail: Stephen.Rickershauser@lewisbrisbois.com
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Appeal Delays $600M Settlement in Derailment Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Funk, writing for Yahoo!Finance, reports that settlement
checks related to Norfolk Southern's disastrous 2023 derailment
could be delayed up to two years now because an appeal of a federal
judge's decision last week to approve the $600 million deal has
been filed, lawyers in the case said September 30.
Many residents of East Palestine, Ohio, expressed outrage about the
appeal because it will delay the payments they had been counting on
to help them recover from the toxic train crash that disrupted
their lives when it spewed hazardous chemicals into their
community. Some people had planned to use the money to relocate.
People in town who are frustrated they won't get their money right
away lashed out at Rev. Joseph Sheely and started threatening him
and his wife because his name is on the appeal. Sheely did
challenge the settlement this summer but said he specifically asked
his lawyer to leave him out of any appeal and doesn't want any part
in it. He said with the serious health concerns he and his wife
developed since the derailment, they can no longer tolerate the
stress of being at the center of the case.
"I was trying to do something for the residents of East Palestine,
including myself," Sheely said. "But it seems like they don't want
anybody to do anything. They just want the cash. And so I'm done.
I'm so totally done."
The plaintiffs' attorneys had hoped to start sending out the first
checks before the end of the year, but that won't happen because
the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals will first have to address
concerns about whether the deal offers enough compensation and
whether residents were given enough information to decide whether
it is fair.
"We will do everything in our power to quickly resolve this appeal
and prevent any further burdens on the residents and local
businesses that want to move forward and rebuild their lives," the
plaintiffs' attorneys said in a statement. "It is tragic that one
person is substituting their judgment for the entire community who
wants this settlement, and instead of opting out, they have gone
this route."
The lawyers estimated that the payments will be delayed at least
six to 12 months while the appellate court considers the appeal
that was filed Sept. 27 but they could be delayed even longer if
the case is appealed up to the U.S. Supreme Court or sent back for
additional proceedings in Judge Benita Pearson's court.
Sheely's attorney, David Graham, said the statement from the
plaintiff's attorneys only served to put more pressure on his
client and spurred on the threats.
"Their reckless statements have put my client in jeopardy and make
my client feel unsafe in his own community," Graham said.
The settlement offered payments of up to $70,000 per household for
property damage and up to $25,000 per person for injuries to those
who lived within two miles of the derailment. The payments would
drop off significantly further out with only a few hundred dollars
offered to people who live closer to the limit of 20 miles (32
kilometers) away.
The appeal won't increase the $162 million in legal fees and $18
million in expenses the judge awarded to the plaintiff's attorneys
last week unless the deal is overturned and new fees are awarded as
part of the case.
Residents posting on the "East Palestine off the rails!" Facebook
group accused the pastor who filed the appeal of being greedy
because one of his objections to the deal is the frustration that
any payments residents received from the railroad since the
derailment to temporarily relocate or replace damaged belongings
will be deducted from any settlement they receive. Some
characterized that as a desire to be compensated twice for the
derailment.
But the vocal few who objected to the deal have said they have
deeper concerns. They have said they don't know the full extent of
the chemicals they were exposed to because the plaintiff's lawyers
have refused to disclose what their expert found when he tested in
town and because the Environmental Protection Agency doesn't
disclose everything it knows about the extent of the lingering
contamination.
The town of East Palestine remains deeply divided over the
derailment with some residents eager to move forward and put the
disaster behind them while others who are still dealing with
unexplained health problems can't see how to do that. The dispute
over the appeal in the class action case only adds to the
divisions. [GN]
NORTHERN KENTUCKY: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Walston Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Walston, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Northern Kentucky Behavioral, LLC dba Sun Behavioral
Health, Case No. 2:24-cv-00156-DCR (E.D. Ky., Oct. 1, 2024) seeks
damages for the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff time and
one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40
during each seven-day workweek, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Defendant's practice of failing to relieve hourly-paid direct
patient care workers of their duties during meal periods, while
simultaneously using timekeeping software to deduct meal periods
from the total time paid per shift, had the effect of depriving
hourly-paid direct patient care workers of overtime compensation
due to them under the FLSA in each workweek in which they worked
more than 40 hours, and straight-time compensation at their
respective contractual hourly rate(s) in weeks in which they worked
fewer than 40 hours in a week, the suit contends.
The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit individually and as an FLSA
collective action on behalf of all similarly situated current and
former hourly-paid direct patient care workers who, like the
Plaintiff, were deprived of federally guaranteed overtime pay.
The Plaintiff also brings this lawsuit as a Rule 23 class action
asserting Kentucky state law claims for unpaid straight-time
compensation owed at a contractual hourly rate, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated hourly-paid direct patient
care workers.
The Plaintiff and the Class Action Members further seek all damages
available under state law, including compensatory damages,
consequential damages, incidental damages, punitive damages, legal
fees, costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest.
Mr. Walston worked for the Defendant from Sept. 15, 2023 to Feb.
14, 2024.
Sun Behavioral is a psychiatric hospital providing mental health
and substance use disorder treatments.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert L. Abell, Esq.
ROBERT ABELL LAW
120 N. Upper St.
Lexington, KY 40507
Telephone: (859) 254-7076
E-mail: Robert@RobertAbellLaw.com
- and -
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
WAGE AND HOUR FIRM
5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75254
Telephone: (214) 489-7653
Facsimile: (469) 319-0317
E-mail: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com
rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com
NS CALLI: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Trippett Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALFRED TRIPPETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NS Calli Soho, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-06916 (E.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 1, 2024) sues the Defendant for their failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website,
https://www.calligarisnyc.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons, under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to services NS Calli
Soho provides to their non-disabled customers through their
website, the Plaintiff contends.
On July 29, 2024, the Plaintiff searched for furniture stores in
NYC and encountered the Defendant’s website. He intended to
purchase new dining chairs to replace the old ones and to make the
sitting area of his kitchen larger for family gathering. He browsed
the website to analyze the available products but faced many
accessibility difficulties. The Plaintiff tried to learn more
information about the goods and services offered by the company,
but was unable to do so independently because of the many access
barriers on Defendant's website, the suit alleges.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Rescue Spa New York'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.
Mr. Trippett is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
NS Calli Soho offers a wide range of furniture items, including
chairs, stools, dining tables, bookshelves, sofas, beds, bedroom
furniture.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
ONTARIO: Faces Class Suit Over Discriminatory Underfunding
----------------------------------------------------------
George Macauley, writing for Jurist News, reports that two Ontario
First Nations bands -- Oneida of the Thames and the Sandy Lake
First Nation -- have filed a class-action lawsuit against the
Ontario provincial government alleging discriminatory underfunding
of fire protection services.
Per a CBC report, the lack of proper funding is cited by the bands
as being responsible for the disproportionately high fatality rate
of Indigenous people in forest fires. The plaintiffs contend the
government has been aware of the elevated risk of fire on reserves
for over two decades and has "done nothing about it." Government
inaction here infringes section 7 charter rights to life and
security of the person, they argue. Attorneys for the plaintiff
also filed for a supervisory order, seeking to keep the case within
the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. They ask that the federal
court maintain its jurisdiction over the file until the Canadian
government alters its fire funding strategies in alignment with the
charter.
Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms entitles all
Canadian citizens to protection against any government action that
directly or indirectly threatens their "life, liberty and security
of person." Where any threat is posed to a claimant's life or their
right to avoid interference with their body -- life and security
rights are generally engaged. However, these rights are not
absolute, and the government may limit any rights set out within
the charter if they can be "reasonably justified" under section 1
of the charter.
A recent Statistics Canada report found Indigenous people are four
times more likely to suffer fire fatalities than the general
Canadian population, and a report from Ontario's coroner general
found Indigenous children are 86 times more likely to die from fire
than non-Indigenous children. In the Oneida nation alone, more than
30 structural fires have occurred since 2016. Few fire hydrants
currently exist in the reserve either, despite the band petitioning
the federal government for adequate fire hydrant coverage for over
26 years.
At this time, no claims have been proven, and the defendant, the
Attorney General, has not provided any statements of defense.
Indigenous Services Canada, the federal agency responsible for
administrating Indigenous affairs within Canada, did not respond to
local media's requests for comment. [GN]
PALM BEACH: Initial Pre-Trial Conference Set for Nov. 21
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEX HUDSON v. PALM BEACH
TAN, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00486-WO-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge
Joi Elizabeth Peake entered an order that:
-- The deadline for the Defendant to file a preliminary injunction
motion for summary judgment is Oct. 15, 2025.
-- The deadline for the Plaintiff to respond is Nov. 14, 2024.
-- The case is set for an in-person Initial Pretrial Conference on
Nov. 21, 2024, to address the schedule for discovery, the
schedule
for class certification briefing and the schedule for
dipositive
motions.
Palm Beach is a chain of indoor tanning facilities based in Dallas,
Texas.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xnJxWk at no extra
charge.[CC]
PARAGON 28: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a securities class action
lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Paragon 28, Inc. ("Paragon 28" or
the "Company") (NYSE: FNA) securities between May 5, 2023 and
August 8, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for the Company's investors under the federal
securities laws.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Paragon 28's
financial statements were misstated; (2) Paragon 28 lacked adequate
internal controls and at times understated the extent of the issues
with its internal controls; and (3) as a result, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Paragon 28
should contact the Firm prior to the November 29, 2024 lead
plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests
regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212)
983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or
gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN]
PAYCOR INC: Plaintiffs Seek to Hold Deadline to Submit Reply
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLIN JOHNS and JUAN
BARRON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. PAYCOR, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00264-DWD (S.D. Ill.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their
motion to hold in abeyance Plaintiffs' deadline to submit their
Reply in support of Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class
certification until 14 days after David Goodwin's deposition.
The Plaintiffs also request that the Court order the Defendants to
immediately provide the Plaintiffs with an unredacted version of
its opposition, and to re-file it on the public docket with all
arbitrary redactions removed.
The Plaintiffs filed their renewed motion for class certification
on July 3, 2024.
On Sept. 17, 2024, the Defendant filed its opposition to
Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification and submitted a
declaration from a Paycor employee, of nearly nine years, David
Goodwin.
On Sept. 27, 2024, the Plaintiffs served a notice of deposition of
David Goodwin, currently scheduled to proceed remotely on Oct. 24,
2024.
Paycor provides cloud-based on-boarding, human resources, payroll,
and time-keeping software solutions.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 1, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=98Zb72 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
James B. Zouras, Esq.
Catherine Mitchell Duffy, Esq.
Justin M. Caparco, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC
222 W. Adams St., Suite 2020
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 233-1550
Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 f
E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
jzouras@stephanzouras.com
cmitchell@stephanzouras.com
jcaparco@stephanzouras.com
- and -
Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE CONWAY & WISE,
LLP
One US Bank Plaza, Suite 1950
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 833-4825
E-mail: bwise@peifferwolf.com
PAYSEC USA: Massel Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Massel, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PaySec USA, LLC d/b/a Victoria Milan, Case No.
1:24-cv-09122 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 29, 2024), is brought pursuant to
against the Defendant its subsidiaries and affiliates, to redress
and curtail Defendant's unlawful collections, obtainments, use,
storage, and disclosure of Plaintiff's sensitive and proprietary
biometric identifiers and/or biometric information (collectively
referred to herein as "biometric data" and/or "biometrics").
In recognition of these concerns over the security of individuals'
biometrics--particularly in the City of Chicago, which has been
selected by major national corporations as a "pilot testing site
for new applications of biometric-facilitated financial
transactions, including finger-scan technologies at grocery stores,
gas stations, and school cafeterias"--the Illinois Legislature
enacted the BIPA, which provides, inter alia, that a private entity
like PaySec USA, LLC d/b/a Victoria Milan may not obtain and/or
possess an individual's biometrics unless it: informs that person
in writing that biometric identifiers or information will be
collected or stored; informs that person in writing of the specific
purpose and length of term for which such biometric identifiers or
biometric information is being collected, stored and used; receives
a written release from the person for the collection of his or his
biometric identifiers or information; and publishes
publicly-available written retention schedules and guidelines for
permanently destroying biometric identifiers and biometric
information, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff opened an account on Victoria Milan within the five
years immediately preceding the filing of this matter.
Victoria Milan is a dating website and mobile application owned and
operated by PaySec USA, LLC.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
8401 Crawford Ave., Ste.104
Skokie, IL 60076
Phone: 847-986-5889
Facsimile: 847-673-1228
Email: mike@fradinlaw.com
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
SIMON LAW CO.
11 1/2 N. Franklin Street
Chagrin Falls, Ohio 44022
Phone: (216) 816-8696
Email: james@simonsayspay.com
PDD HOLDINGS: Faces Expanded Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP ("Labaton") announces that, on
September 30, 2024, it filed a securities class action lawsuit (the
"Complaint") on behalf of its client Macomb County Retiree Health
Care Fund against PDD Holdings Inc. ("PDD" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: PDD) and certain PDD officers (collectively,
"Defendants"). The action, which is captioned Macomb County Retiree
Health Care Fund v. PDD Holdings Inc. f/k/a Pinduoduo Inc., No.
24-cv-6881 (E.D.N.Y. September 30, 2024) asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act"), and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
securities publicly traded on the NASDAQ Stock Market (the
"NASDAQ") between April 30, 2021 and August 23, 2024, inclusive
(the "Class Period").
The Complaint expands upon the related action against PDD captioned
Baxter v. PDD Holdings Inc. f/k/a Pinduoduo Inc., No. 24-cv-05653
(E.D.N.Y. August 13, 2024) (the "First Complaint") by extending the
initial class period of April 30, 2021 to June 25, 2024, in the
First Complaint, to an expanded Class Period of April 30, 2021 to
August 23, 2024 in the newly filed Complaint.
Pursuant to the notice published on August 13, 2024, in connection
with the filing of the First Complaint, as required by the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, investors wishing to
serve as Lead Plaintiff in these related securities actions pending
against Defendants are required to file a motion for appointment as
Lead Plaintiff by no later than October 15, 2024.
PDD operates the online marketplaces Pinduoduo and Temu, which
allow Chinese merchants to sell goods to consumers around the
world. The new Complaint expands on the fraud claims in the First
Complaint. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that during the
Class Period, Defendants misled investors by touting its growth
while concealing several factors that rendered this growth
unsustainable and posed substantial risks to PDD's business,
including: (a) merchant policies that made it unprofitable for
vendors to do business on PDD platforms while allowing PDD to grow
revenues and save on operational costs; (b) malware issues on PDD
applications that exploited customers and obtained user data
without consent, including accessing sensitive information; (c)
PDD's failure to implement effective compliance systems, including
a system to prevent goods made by forced labor from being sold on
its platform; and (d) that, due to the foregoing, PDD faced
undisclosed risks of poor merchant and customer relations as the
platforms scaled, which ultimately led to hundreds of millions of
dollars in fees returned to merchants, merchants defecting to
competing sites, and the slowing growth of its customer base.
Defendants' fraud began to be revealed through a series of
disclosures in 2023 and 2024, culminating on August 26, 2024, when
PDD disclosed its quarterly results for the second quarter of 2024
and announced that it had decided not to issue dividends or
repurchase shares for the "foreseeable years ahead," and stated
that it expects that future profitability will be weighed down by a
reduction in transaction fees for high quality merchants to drive
the "high-quality development" of its merchant ecosystem. On this
news, the price of PDD ADSs fell $39.87, or 29 percent, to close at
$100.00 on August 26, 2024.
If you purchased or acquired PDD securities publicly traded on the
NASDAQ during the Class Period and were damaged thereby, you are a
member of the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as Lead
Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff motion papers must be filed no later than
October 15, 2024. The Lead Plaintiff is a court-appointed
representative for absent members of the Class. You do not need to
seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff to share in any Class recovery
in this action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery
for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class
member. You may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in
this action.
If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have any
questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Francis P.
McConville, Esq. of Labaton at (212) 907-0650 or via email at
fmcconville@labaton.com. You can view a copy of the Complaint
online here.
Plaintiff Macomb County Retiree Health Care Fund is represented by
Labaton Keller Sucharow, which represents many of the largest
pension funds in the United States and internationally with
combined assets under management of more than $3.5 trillion.
Labaton Keller Sucharow's litigation reputation is built on its
half-century of securities litigation experience, more than 80
full-time attorneys, and in-house team of investigators, financial
analysts, and forensic accountants. Labaton Keller Sucharow has
been recognized for its excellence by the courts and peers, and it
is consistently ranked in leading industry publications. Offices
are located in New York, Delaware, London, and Washington, D.C.
More information about Labaton Keller Sucharow is available at
labaton.com. [GN]
PDD HOLDINGS: Faces Shaw Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------------
JARED SHAW, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PDD HOLDINGS INC. F/K/A PINDUODUO INC., LEI CHEN, JING
MA, and JUN LIU, Case No. 1:24-cv-06950 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2024) is
a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded PDD
American Depositary Shares between April 30, 2021, and Sept. 12,
2024, inclusive (the "Class Period") including those who purchased
PDD call options or sold put options during the Class Period.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants acted with scienter in
that they knew that the public documents and statements issued or
disseminated in the name of the Company were materially false and
misleading; knew that such statements or documents would be issued
or disseminated to the investing public; and knowingly and
substantially participated, or acquiesced in the issuance or
dissemination of such statements or documents as primary violations
of the securities laws.
On April 30, 2021, the Company filed with the SEC its Annual Report
on Form 20- F for the year ended Dec. 31, 2020. Attached to the
2020 Annual Report were signed certifications pursuant SOX signed
by Defendant Chen and Ma attesting to the accuracy of financial
reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company's
internal controls over financial reporting, and the disclosure of
all fraud.
On March 21, 2023, after market hours, Reuters published an article
entitled "Google suspends China's Pinduoduo app on security
concerns."
On Sunday April 2, 2023, CNN published an article entitled "'I've
never seen anything like this:' One of China's most popular apps
has the ability to spy on its users, say experts."
Then, on June 25, 2024, Tim Griffin, the Attorney General of
Arkansas, issued a release in which he announced that he is suing
Temu for violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
("ADTPA") and the Arkansas Personal Information Protection Act. On
this news, PDD's American Depositary Shares fell by 1.26% on June
26, 2024, and 4.55% on June 27, 2024. The Plaintiff seeks to
recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
PDD purports to be "a multinational commerce group that owns and
operates a portfolio of businesses."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: philkim@rosenlegal.com
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
PDD HOLDINGS: Macomb County Sues Over Drop in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------
MACOMB COUNTY RETIREE HEALTH CARE FUND, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PDD HOLDINGS INC.
f/k/a PINDUODUO INC.; LEI CHEN; JIAZHEN ZHAO; JING MA; and JUN LIU,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-06881 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 30, 2024)
alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the reports of the
Defendants submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission were
materially false and misleading because they touted PDD's growth
while concealing several factors that rendered this growth
unsustainable and posed substantial risks to PDD's business. The
price of PDD ADSs fell $39.87, or 29 percent, to close at $100.00
on August 26, 2024. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts
and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of
the Company's common shares, Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages, the suit asserts.
PDD Holdings Inc., a multinational commerce group, owns and
operates a portfolio of businesses. It operates Pinduoduo, an
e-commerce platform that offers products in various categories,
including agricultural produce, apparel, shoes, bags, mother and
childcare products, food and beverage, electronic appliances,
furniture and household goods, cosmetics and other personal care,
sports and fitness items and auto accessories; and Temu, an online
marketplace. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
Francis P. McConville, Esq.
LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
Email: ebelfi@labaton.com
fmcconville@labaton.com
- and -
Aaron L. Castle, Esq.
VANOVERBEKE MICHAUD & TIMMONY P.C
79 Alfred Street
Detroit, MI 48201
Telephone: (313) 578-1200
Facsimile: (313) 578-1201
Email: acastle@vmtlaw.com
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Settles Consolidated Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------
JBS S.A. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 5, 2024 that on June 24, 2024, a settlement
was reached in the amount of US$100.0 million in connection with
the federal class action lawsuits that were filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against its
subsidiary, Pilgrim's Pride Corporation (PPC), and other defendants
by and on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of broiler
chickens alleging violations of antitrust and unfair competition
laws and styled as "In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation."
JBS is a Brazilian meat-processing company in Sao Paolo. JBS S.A.
beneficially owns approximately 83% of PPC outstanding common
stock.
PLATINUM CHOICE: Kotlarsz Suit Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Melanie Kotlarsz and
Joseph Allen Davis, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. Platinum Choice Healthcare, LLC, Case No.
9:24-cv-80835-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting motion for class certification under Rule
23(b)(3), or in the alternative, under Rule 23(b)(2) against the
Defendant.
However, Plaintiff requests the Court defer ruling on such Motion
until after the parties have had a reasonable opportunity to
conduct pre-certification discovery and Plaintiff is able to
re-file a Motion with information obtained during the discovery
process.
Accordingly, Plaintiff and Class members need for injunctive and
declaratory relief provides adequate basis for certification under
Rule 23(b)(2).
The Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on July 9, 2024. On Aug. 21,
2024, the Defendant filed its Answer to the Complaint.
The Plaintiff Kotlarsz "registered her number with the National Do
Not Call Registry on August 21, 2004." On Nov. 21, 2023, the
Plaintiff Kotlarsz "received an autodialed phone call from the
phone number (336) 866-5374."
The Plaintiff Kotlarsz received many subsequent phone calls from
the Defendant.
On Nov. 28, 2023, the Plaintiff Kotlarsz "spoke with a supervisor
for Platinum Choice healthcare so she could be free of these
telemarketing solicitations." Unfortunately, the Defendant
continued to call her.
The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following "Federal DNC Class"
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), (3):
"All persons within the United States who received two
telemarketing phone calls within a 12-month period from
Defendant
to the person's residential telephone, and such person had
previously included their name on the National Do Not Call
Registry
at least 31 days prior to receiving Defendant’s first call,
within
the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint.
Excluded from the proposed Class is Defendant’s officers,
directors, affiliates, legal representatives, employees,
successors, subsidiaries, and assigns. Also excluded from the
proposed class is any judge, justice, or judicial officer
presiding
over this matter and the members of their immediate families and
judicial staff."
The Plaintiff seeks to also certify the following Class pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), (3):
"All persons within the United States who, within the four years
prior to the filing of this Complaint, were called by Defendant
or
anyone on Defendant's behalf, for telemarketing purposes, to
said
person's residential telephone after making a request to
Defendant
to not receive future calls. (the “Internal DNC Class”)
Excluded
from the proposed Class is Defendants’ officers, directors,
affiliates, legal representatives, employees, successors,
subsidiaries, and assigns. Also excluded from the proposed class
is
any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over this
matter
and the members of their immediate families and judicial
staff."
Platinum Choice provides hospital indemnity insurance.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 3, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LrPlzN at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mohammad Kazerouni, Esq.
Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Ave., Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: mike@kazlg.com
ryan@kazlg.com
PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due May 20, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROLINE ANGULO, et al.,
v. PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES WASHINGTON, et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-00915-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge James Robart entered
a scheduling order regarding class certification motion as
follows:
Deadline to complete discovery on class Feb. 4, 2025
certification (not to be construed as a
bifurcation of discovery)
Deadline to Serve Expert Reports Relating Mar. 6, 2025
to Class Certification
Deadline to Serve Rebuttal Expert Reports Apr. 8, 2025
Relating to Class Certification
Deadline to Complete Class Certification Apr. 29, 2025
Expert Discovery
Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion for May 20, 2025
class certification (noted as a 28-day
motion pursuant to Local Rules W.D. Wash.
LCR 7(d)(3) unless the parties agree to
different times for filing the response
and reply memoranda).
Providence Health is a not-for-profit Catholic healthcare system.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=spywZ2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
RALEIGH, NC: Edwards Collective Action Gets Conditional Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEO J. EDWARDS, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF RALEIGH,
Case No. 5:23-cv-00683-FL (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Louise
Flanagan entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification of a collective action pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
-- The Defendant is directed to provide to the Plaintiff's counsel
an
updated listing, in electronically readable/importable form, of
the names, last known mailing addresses, last known telephone
numbers, email addresses, work locations, and dates of
employment
of all putative Plaintiffs who worked for Defendant at any time
during the three (3) years preceding the filing of this action
and
consistent with Plaintiff's proposed collective notice
definitions.
-- The Defendant shall produce such a list in native format within
15 days of this order.
-- The Plaintiff shall mail to each listed putative plaintiff a
copy
of Plaintiff's revised proposed notice and opt-in form, and
that
the notice shall also be emailed and/or sent via text message,
as
well as posted at Defendant's station locations, consistent
with
Plaintiff's revised proposed notice, which has been approved by
the Court and a reminder shall be mailed 45-days after the
initial
mailing to all non-responding putative plaintiffs.
Raleigh is the capital city of North Carolina. It's known for its
universities, including North Carolina State University.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I1vxQn at no extra
charge.[CC]
SANFORD SURROUNDED: Foxworth Sues Over Unsolicited Advertisement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tracie Foxworth, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Sanford Surrounded LLC, eXp Realty LLC, and eXp Realty
of Southeast NC, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00818 (M.D.N.C., Sept. 29,
2024), is brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") as a result of the Defendants' unsolicited advertisement
or marketing call or text message.
The Defendants routinely violate the TCPA by delivering more than
one advertisement or marketing call or text message to residential
or cellular telephone numbers registered with the National
Do-Not-Call Registry ("DNC Registry") without the prior express
invitation or permission required by the TCPA.
The Plaintiff did not request real estate services from Defendants,
did not use Defendants' website or submit any inquiries on it, and
did not otherwise communicate with Defendants prior to receiving
these telemarketing communications. The text messages and phone
calls at issue were sent by Defendants voluntarily. The text
messages at issue were sent for non-emergency purposes.
The Plaintiff suffered actual harm as a result of the text messages
at issue in that she suffered an invasion of privacy, an intrusion
into her life, and a private nuisance. The Defendants knew, or
should have known, that Plaintiff registered her cellular telephone
number with the DNC Registry, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff uses her cellular telephone as her personal
residential telephone number.
Sanford Surrounded is a North Carolina limited liability company
that runs a real estate business, and its principal place of
business and headquarters is located in Sanford, North
Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian L. Kinsley, Esq.
COX, STANSBERRY & KINSLEY LLC
2024 Main Avenue SW, Suite B
Cullman, AL 35055
Phone: (205) 870-1205 F: (205) 870-1252
Email: Blkinsley@cskattorneys.com
- and -
Alex D. Kruzyk, Esq.
PARDELL, KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO, PLLC
7500 Rialto Blvd. Suite 1-250
Austin, Texas 78735
Phone: (561) 726-8444
Email: akruzyk@pkglegal.com
SKIN SUPPLY: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Vega Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
NORBERTO VEGA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SKIN SUPPLY USA, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-09558 (D.N.J.,
Oct. 1, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.skinsupply.com,
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
On Feb. 2, 2024, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant's website to
purchase the Cloud Cream Daily Facial Moisturizer. Despite his
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 contends.
Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would
provide 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.
Skin Supply offers facials and a curated selection of skincare
items such as moisturizers, serums, cleansers, and treatments for
various skin concerns.[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
STAT COURIER: Depositions of Class Cert Experts Due Jan. 20, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEMISON v. STAT COURIER,
INC. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01322 (W.D. Pa., Filed Sept. 15,
2022), the Hon. Judge W. Scott Hardy entered an order granting
third joint rule 6(b) motion to extend deadlines:
-- The parties shall now complete ADR by: Dec. 10, 2024
-- State Law Putative Class Certification March 1, 2025
phase of discovery shall now be
completed by:
-- Expert reports as to class certification Jan. 20, 2025
shall be disclosed on or before:
-- Depositions of class certification Jan. 20, 2025
experts shall be completed by:
-- Discovery relating to Plaintiff's Jan. 20, 2025
individual wrongful termination
claims shall now be completed by:
-- The telephonic Post-Discovery Status March 10, 2025
Conference previously set for
Jan. 6, 2025, is now rescheduled for:
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Stat Courier was founded in 1994. The Company's line of business
includes provides trucking or transfer services.[CC]
STOP & SHOP: Faces Zajac Suit Over Avocado Oil False Ads
--------------------------------------------------------
CARA ZAJAC and LACHAE VICKERS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE STOP & SHOP HOLDINGS, INC., Case
No. 1:24-cv-12512 (D. Mass., Oct. 1, 2024) alleges that Stop & Shop
marketed, labeled, advertised, and sold its Stop & Shop brand
Avocado Oil to consumers with packaging that prominently and
unequivocally states that the oil is "Avocado Oil."
The Avocado Oil Representation conveys the unequivocal message that
the Class Products are pure avocado oil. Moreover, the front label
depicts an avocado cut open, adding to the effect of the
representation. This message is further reinforced by the
ingredient list on the Class Products' back label, which lists
"extra virgin avocado oil" as the only ingredient, the suit says.
The Plaintiffs contend that Class Products are not pure avocado
oil. Based on Plaintiffs' investigation, the Class Products are not
pure avocado oil and are in fact adulterated. Thus, the claim is
false and misleading. They would have paid less for the Class
Products, or would not have purchased them at all, if not for the
Avocado Oil Representation. Therefore, the Plaintiff and Class
members have suffered a financial injury in the form of paying a
price premium that the Class Products command in the market as a
result of Defendant's representations that the Class Products are
pure avocado oil, the Plaintiffs say.
The Plaintiffs seek relief in this action individually, and on
behalf of all other similarly situated individuals who purchased
the falsely and deceptively labeled Product during the statute of
limitations period, for violations of New York's Gen. Bus. Law
sections 349 and 350, breach of express warranty, and fraud.
Within the past three years, the Plaintiff Zajac purchased a bottle
of Stop & Shop's Avocado Oil at a Stop & Shop store near her
residence in Massachusetts. The Plaintiff Zajac saw and relied on
the Avocado Oil Representation in making her purchase.
Stop & Shop operates retail food stores primarily in the United
States and Europe.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC
867 Boylston Street 5th Floor #1520
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 377-4704
Facsimile: (888) 410-0415
E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com
yeremey@skclassactions.com
TERRAN ORBITAL: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Terran
Orbital Corporation ("Terran" or the "Company") (NYSE: LLAP). The
lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse
information regarding the Company's business, operations, and
prospects, including allegations that: (i) 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; (ii) Terran did not have adequate liquidity to operate its
business while waiting for the Customer Contracts to generate
revenue and free cash flow; and (iii) Terran had concealed the true
scope and severity of its dire financial situation.
If you bought shares of Terran between August 15, 2023 and August
14, 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/terran-orbital/to learn more.
The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the
case is November 26, 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]
TRANSDEV SERVICES: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Briefing
-------------------------------------------------------------
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 modifying the class certification briefing schedule
as follows:
1. Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification shall be filed on or before Oct. 9, 2024.
2. Plaintiff's Reply in support of her Motion for Class
Certification shall be filed on or before Oct. 30, 2024
Transdev provides passenger transportation services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZVx8Sz 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
ULTA SALON COSMETICS: Bonezzi Suit Removed to D. New Mexico
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Olivia Levario, individually, and on behalf of
other similarly situated individuals v. ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY; ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY; ALLSTATE INSURANCE
COMPANY; ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY;
ENCOMPASS HOME AND AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY; ENCOMPASS INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA; ENCOMPASS PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY; ENCOMPASS INDEMNITY COMPANY; ESURANCE PROPERTY AND
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; and
CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY as successor by merger to Glen Falls,
Case No. D-202-CV- 2024-06738 was removed from the New Mexico
Second Judicial District Court, County of Bernalillo, to the United
States District Court for the District of New Mexico on Oct. 2,
2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00995.
The Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action: Negligence;
Violations of the New Mexico Unfair Trade Practices Act; Violations
of the New Mexico Unfair Insurance Practices Act; Reformation of
Insurance Policy and Claim for Violation of Broader Fundamental
Rights Under the New Mexico Constitution for Spanish-Language
Access; Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing;
Negligent Misrepresentation; and Declaratory Judgment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kedar Bhasker, Esq.
Geoffrey Romero, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KEDAR BHASKER, LLC
4801 All Saints Road NW, Suite 206
Albuquerque, NM 87120
- and -
Nikko Harada, Esq.
Christopher P. Winters, Esq.
HARADA & WINTERS
Post Office Box 65659
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87193-5659
- and -
Andrea D. Harris, Esq.
VALLE, O'CLEIREACHAIN, ZAMORA & HARRIS, P.C.
1805 Rio Grande Boulevard NW, Suite 2
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104
The Defendants are represented by:
Eric R. Burris, Esq.
Debashree Nandy, Esq.
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
201 Third Street NW, Suite 1800
Albuquerque, NM 87102-4386
Phone: (505) 244-0770
Facsimile: (505) 244-9266
Email: eburris@bhfs.com
rnandy@bhfs.com
- and -
Angela F. Ramson, Esq.
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
999 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1500
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (404) 658-9726
Fax: (404) 962-1200
Email: aramson@foxrothschild.com
- and -
Stephanie B. Fineman, Esq.
2800 Kelly Road, Suite 200
Warrington, PA 18976
Phone: (215) 918-3545
Fax: (215) 345-7507
Email: sfineman@foxrothschild.com
- and -
Aaron Wynhausen, Esq.
4900 Main Street, Suite 150
Kansas City, MO 64112
Phone: (816) 919-7908
Fax: (816) 919-7901
Email: awynhausen@foxrothschild.com
UNITED NATURAL FOODS: Faces Sills Suit Over SEC Disclosures
-----------------------------------------------------------
United Natural Foods, Inc. (UNFI) disclosed in its Form 10-Q report
for the fiscal year ended August 3, 2024, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 30, 2024, that the company, CEO
J. Alexander Miller Douglas and board members John Howard and Chris
Testa were named in a putative securities class action that was
originally filed on March 29, 2023. In "Dan Sills, et al. v. United
Natural Foods, Inc., et al.," pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, the plaintiffs allege that
defendants violated federal securities laws by making materially
false and/or misleading statements and failing to disclose material
facts about UNFI’s business, operations and prospects.
The defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on December 21, 2023, and
on September 13, 2024, the court issued an opinion granting in part
and denying in part the motion.
UNFI is a distributor of grocery and non-food products, and support
services provider to retailers in the United States and Canada with
over 30,000 customer locations with over 250,000 products
consisting of grocery and general merchandise; perishables; frozen
foods; wellness and personal care items; and bulk and foodservice
products.
UNITED PARCEL: Malone's Bid for Class Cert. Tossed w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL MALONE, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE,
INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-03643-JDW (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Joshua
Wolson entered an order denying without prejudice Mr. Malone's
motion for class certification.
On Oct. 11, 2024, the Parties shall submit a joint letter to me via
email to chambers of judge wolson@paed.uscourts.gov, setting forth
their proposed schedule for:
(a) reopened discovery limited to UPS’s assertion that Mr.
Malone
and/or putative class members are exempt from the PMWA’s
overtime requirements under the MCA,
(b) renewed briefing as to class certification, and
(c) a schedule for Mr. Malone to submit a fee petition
following
the conclusion of renewed discovery. If the Parties cannot
agree on a proposed schedule, then they should include
their
respective proposals in the joint letter, which may not
exceed
5 pages.
United Parcel is an American multinational shipping & receiving and
supply chain management company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JaMApx at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Agrees to Settle Sexual Discrimination Suit for $22M
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Mustian, writing for ABC News, reports that the FBI agreed
Monday, September 30, to pay more than $22 million to settle a
class-action lawsuit alleging female recruits were singled out for
dismissal in training and routinely harassed by instructors with
sexually charged comments about their breast size, false
allegations of infidelity and the need to take contraception "to
control their moods."
The payout to 34 women dismissed from the FBI's training academy in
Quantico, Virginia -- still subject to approval by a federal judge
-- would rank among the biggest lawsuit settlements in the history
of the bureau.
"These problems are pervasive within the FBI and the attitudes that
created them were learned at the academy," said David J. Shaffer,
the lawyer for the women. "This case will make important major
changes in these attitudes."
Filed in 2019, the lawsuit contends that female recruits had been
subjected to a hostile working environment in which they were
judged more harshly than their male peers and "excessively targeted
for correction and dismissal in tactical situations for perceived
lack of judgment" and subjective "suitability."
One of the women said she was admonished to "smile more" and
subjected to repeated sexual advances. Another said an instructor
leered at her and stared at her chest, "sometimes while licking his
lips."
"Through passive tolerance," the lawsuit said, "the FBI has
intentionally allowed the Good Old Boy Network to flourish
unrestrained at the FBI Academy."
The FBI said in a statement that the bureau has "taken significant
steps over the past five years to further ensure gender equity in
the training and development of all our trainees."
Many of the allegations in the lawsuit were confirmed in a 2022
internal watchdog report. Men still make up some three-quarters of
the bureau's special agents despite efforts to diversify in recent
years.
Among the provisions of the settlement was that the FBI would offer
the plaintiffs a chance to continue training toward becoming
agents, with "guaranteed placement" for those who pass in one of
their top three preferred field offices. The bureau also has agreed
to a review by outside experts who will work to ensure that female
recruits face a fair evaluation process.
Some of the women have moved on to other careers, Shaffer said,
adding "the FBI has deprived itself of some genuinely exceptional
talent."
Paula Bird, a lead plaintiff in the case who is now a lawyer, said
that while the experience has been "disillusioning," she was
"pleased that this settlement will bring a measure of justice to
the women who were unfairly dismissed."
The lawsuit came amid a flurry of sexual misconduct claims within
the bureau that included several against senior FBI officials
identified in an Associated Press investigation who quietly left
the bureau with full benefits even after allegations against them
were substantiated. Those claims ranged from unwanted touching and
advances to coercion. In one case, an FBI assistant director
retired after the inspector general's office concluded he harassed
a female subordinate and sought an improper relationship with her.
In response to AP's reporting, the FBI announced a series of
reforms, including a 24/7 tip line, intended to take a tougher
stand against agents found to have committed misconduct and help
accusers.
The latest settlement comes less than six months after the Justice
Department announced a $138.7 million settlement with more than 100
people who accused the FBI of grossly mishandling allegations of
sexual assault against the sports doctor Larry Nassar. [GN]
UNITED STATES: Mathis Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM MATHIS and KENNEDY
DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., Case No.
1:24-cv-01312-TNM (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order to certify this case as a class action, with the following
class definition:
"All people with a disability who are on or will be on parole
or
supervised release in the District of Columbia under the
Commission's and CSOSA's supervision, and who need
accommodations
in order to have an equal opportunity to succeed on parole or
supervised release."
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(m), Plaintiff’s counsel met and
conferred with Defendants' counsel regarding this motion on
September 17, 2024, and Defendants' counsel advised that Defendants
will oppose the motion.
United States Parole Commission is responsible for granting or
denying parole to, and supervising the parole releases of,
incarcerated individuals who fall under its jurisdiction.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 3, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cvTGMf at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Allison Frankel, Esq.
Ashika Verriest, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (617) 650-7741
E-mail: afrankel@aclu.org
averriest@aclu.org
- and -
Scott Michelman, Esq.
Michael Perloff, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
529 14th Street NW, Suite 722
Washington, DC 20045
Telephone: (202) 457-0800
E-mail: smichelman@acludc.org
mperloff@acludc.org
- and -
Hanna M. Perry, Esq.
Zoe Friedland, Esq.
PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
633 3rd Street NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 579-0633
E-mail: hperry@pdsdc.org
zfriedland@pdsdc.org
- and -
Samir Deger-Sen, Esq.
Peter E. Davis, Esq.
Christine C. Smith, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
1271 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 906-1200
Facsimile: (212) 751-4864
E-mail: samir.deger-sen@lw.com
peter.davis@lw.com
christine.smith@lw.com
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bensignor Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
PAULETTE BENSIGNOR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED;
UNITEDHEALTHCARE,INC.; OPTUM, INC.; and CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-03787-DWF-DJF (D. Minn., Oct. 1, 2024)
is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly
secure and safeguard sensitive information of its customers.
On February 21, 2024, the Defendants revealed that it had fallen
victim to the massive data breach, with hackers known as
"ALPHV/Blackcat" ("Blackcat") gaining unauthorized access to the
Defendants' networks (the "Data Breach").
The Plaintiff alleged in the complaint that the Defendants failed
to implement security measures to protect the Personally
Identifiable Information of the Plaintiff and the Class and the
harm, or risk of imminent harm, suffered by the Plaintiff and the
Class. The PHI of Plaintiff and the Class was lost and accessed as
the proximate result of Defendants’ failure to exercise
reasonable care in safeguarding such PHI by adopting, implementing,
and maintaining appropriate security measures, says the suit.
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated owns and manages organized health
systems. The Company provides employers products and resources to
plan and administer employee benefit programs. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
Emma Ritter Gordon, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 Washington Ave S., Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Email: khriebel@locklaw.com
kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
erittergordon@locklaw.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
bcaldes@srkattorneys.com
jspector@srkattorneys.com
dzinser@srkattorneys.com
US STAR TRUCKING: Berry TCPA Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Raymond Berry, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situate v. US Star Trucking, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-07348 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on Oct. 2, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-06961-HG to the
proceeding.
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 P.A.
14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
VISA INC: Monopolizes Debit Network, All Wrapped Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALL WRAPPED UP SIGNS AND GRAPHIX LLC, v. VISA INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-07435 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2024) is a class action contending
that Visa has monopolized the debit network on which debit card
transactions run.
The Defendant alleges entered into agreements to punish businesses
that seek to use alternative networks or methods to process debit
transactions. And it has entered into contracts to pay off
potential competitors so that they do not build new products or
networks that would threaten Visa's debit network dominance.
Accordingly, Visa's anticompetitive conduct harms merchants like
Plaintiff and members of the Class. It ensures that Visa continues
to dominate the debit network market in the United States without
having to meaningfully compete on the price of its fees, driving up
costs for small and large businesses alike. And it prevents
merchants like Plaintiff from having meaningful alternatives to
process debit transactions, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and other members of the Class have been injured in
their businesses and property by paying more for fees on debit card
transactions than they would have in the absence of Visa's willful
and unlawful maintenance of its monopoly in the relevant markets.
The Plaintiff brings this action under Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. sections 1, 2, and pursuant to various state
laws to put a stop to Visa's exclusionary and anticompetitive
schemes and remedy the harm Visa has caused. The Plaintiffs seek
damages in excess of $5 million.
All Wrapped Up is an advertising and marketing company specializing
in vehicle wraps, custom designs, solar film paint protection and
architectural films. It accepts general purpose debit cards that
run on Visa's debit network.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational payment card services
corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent W. Johnson, Esq.
Benjamin D. Brown, Esq.
Daniel McCuaig, Esq.
Christopher J. Bateman, Esq.
Manuel J. Dominguez, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
E-mail: bbrown@cohenmilstein.com
bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com
dmccuaig@cohenmilstein.com
cbateman@cohenmilstein.com
jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com
VOGT WESTERN: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VOGT WESTERN SILVER, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-07238 (S.D.N.Y., September 25, 2024) arises from
Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate
Defendant's website, www.vogtsilversmiths.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people, asserting claims for violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights
Law.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's website contains access
barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using
keyboards and screen-reading software. Accordingly, the Plaintiff
seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to retain a
qualified consultant acceptable to Plaintiff to assist Defendant to
comply with WCAG 2.1 guidelines for Defendant's website.
Vogt Western Silver, Inc. owns and operates the website,
www.vogtsilversmiths.com, which serves as an online store for
sterling silver accessories and leather goods. [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
WARNER MUSIC: Hall Seeks to Maintain Class Docs Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN HALL, an individual;
and LANCE HOPPEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. WARNER MUSIC GROUP CORP., a Delaware Corporation;
WARNER MUSIC INC., a Delaware Corporation; and WARNER RECORDS,
INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-00457 (M.D. Tenn.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to
maintain documents filed under seal.
Pursuant to Rule 5.2(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
Local Civil Rule 5.03, and the Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No.
69), the Plaintiffs submit this motion to maintain under seal
certain exhibits filed with the declaration of Sean A. Commons in
support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek to seal portions of Exhibits 1-2
and 11 through 38 to the Commons Declaration as they are non-public
documents which Plaintiffs have designated as "Confidential"
pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order.
The Plaintiffs' request is narrowly tailored to their sensitive
information being sealed. However, if the Court declines to seal
the full royalty statements and audit file, Plaintiffs ask the
Court to seal the dollar amounts and tax withholding percentages
discussed throughout the Earnings Summaries, audit file, and
deposition transcript excerpts.
Warner is an American multinational entertainment and record label
conglomerate.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 3, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=96QwFy at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq.
Nicole Ramirez Jones, Esq.
Haley G. Clark, Esq.
KIESEL LAW LLP
8648 Wilshire Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 854-4444
Facsimile: (310) 854-0812
E-mail: koncius@kiesel.law
ramirezjones@kiesel.law
clark@kiesel.law
- and -
Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
Bobby Pouya, Esq.
Matthew A. Pearson, Esq.
PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (818) 788-8300
Facsimile: (818) 788-8304
E-mail: dwarshaw@pwfirm.com
bpouya@pwfirm.com
mapearson@pwfirm.com
- and -
Neville L. Johnson, Esq.
Douglas L. Johnson, Esq.
Melissa N. Eubanks, Esq.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON LLP
439 North Canon Drive, Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 975-1080
Facsimile: (310) 975-1095
E-mail: njohnson@jjllplaw.com
djohnson@jjllplaw.com
meubanks@jjllplaw.com
- and -
John J. Griffin, Esq.
Michael A. Johnson, Esq.
KAY GRIFFIN PLLC
222 Second Ave. North, Suite 340M
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: (615) 742-4800
Facsimile: (615) 742-4801
E-mail: john.griffin@kaygriffin.com
mjohnson@kaygriffin.com
WELSH CARSON: Ropes & Gray Secures Dismissal of Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Following a high-profile victory over the Federal Trade Commission
earlier this year, a Ropes & Gray litigation team secured a full
dismissal for our client, Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe, in a
class action antitrust lawsuit brought against Welsh Carson and its
portfolio company, U.S. Anesthesia Partners, Inc., a leading
provider of anesthesiology services. As a result of this decision,
Welsh Carson has been dismissed from a lawsuit seeking substantial
civil damages for the alleged antitrust violations of its portfolio
company arising from the same allegations that were asserted by the
FTC.
In September 2023, the FTC sued Welsh Carson and USAP in a novel
enforcement action against a private equity firm, alleging that
defendants had collectively engaged in a scheme to consolidate
anesthesiology practices and raise prices in Texas. According to
the FTC, Welsh Carson created USAP in 2012 and then orchestrated a
"roll-up strategy" by which USAP would acquire large anesthesiology
practices and use anticompetitive arrangements with other providers
to monopolize the anesthesiology market. The FTC's lawsuit
generated significant media coverage and was closely followed by
the private equity industry. A Ropes & Gray litigation team moved
to dismiss the FTC's complaint, and in May 2024, U.S. District
Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt of the Southern District of Texas agreed with
Ropes & Gray's arguments that the FTC failed to allege any ongoing
or imminent antitrust violations by Welsh Carson. Judge Hoyt
adopted Ropes & Gray's core corporate separateness argument,
finding that the private equity sponsor (Welsh Carson) could not be
liable for the actions of its portfolio company (USAP). The victory
by the Ropes & Gray team was highlighted in the media and in the
industry, including by the Wall Street Journal's editorial board,
which, in a standalone editorial dedicated to the dismissal, titled
"Another Lina Khan Theory Loses in Court," (May 15, 2024), noted
that the FTC had "hoped to use the case to expand liability under
the antitrust laws."
Shortly after the FTC filed suit, two Texas employee benefit plans
represented by prominent plaintiff firm Lieff Cabraser filed a
class action complaint against Welsh Carson and USAP, asserting
antitrust claims materially identical to the FTC's and seeking
hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, which would be trebled
under the antitrust laws. Ropes & Gray moved to dismiss this civil
suit, arguing that the plaintiffs' claims were time-barred because
Welsh Carson's alleged conduct took place outside of the applicable
four-year limitations period. The motion emphasized that Welsh
Carson, as a private equity investor, was legally incapable of
conspiring with USAP, and that Welsh Carson was not alleged to have
independently participated in any of USAP's alleged violations
during the relevant period. Ropes & Gray made strategic use of
Judge Hoyt's dismissal of the FTC's complaint, which was on
different grounds, and again highlighted its core corporate
separateness argument.
On September 27, U.S. District Judge Alfred H. Bennett of the
Southern District of Texas granted Welsh Carson's motion to dismiss
with prejudice. Of note, Judge Bennett adopted Ropes & Gray's
argument in concluding that Welsh Carson was not liable for the
alleged antitrust violations of its portfolio company under a
conspiracy theory because its economic interests were aligned with
the economic interests of its portfolio company. This dismissal
marks Ropes & Gray's second prominent victory for Welsh Carson in
2024.
The team was led by litigation & enforcement partners David Hennes
and Jane Willis and included Kathryn Caldwell, senior attorney
David Young, associates Elena Davis, Sandra Hough Masselink, Ioana
Moldovan, Logan Hovie, Rebecca Michelson, and Rory Skowron, and
paralegal Jerome Genova. [GN]
WORLD OF JEANS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Jacobs Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIA JACOBS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WORLD OF JEANS & TOPS, D/B/A TILLYS,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06762 (E.D.N.Y., September 25, 2024)
alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
New York City Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Defendant for
its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website, www.tillys.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people. Plaintiff alleges that the website
contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the
Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software.
World of Jeans & Tops owns and maintains the website which sells
women's footwear. [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
YOUNG CONSULTING: Underwood Sues Over Private Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
DAMIAN UNDERWOOD as parent and legal guardian of his minor child
S.R., on behalf of himself all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. YOUNG CONSULTING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04319-TWT
(N.D. Ga., September 25, 2024) arises from Defendant's failure to
properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its clients'
customers.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal
information--which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual
understanding that Defendant would protect it against
disclosure--was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due
to the data breach that occurred between April 10, 2024, and April
13, 2024.
On or about August 26, 2024, the Defendant began sending Plaintiff
and other data breach victims a Notice of Data Breach letter.
However, Defendant's data breach notice failed to inform, with any
degree of specificity, Plaintiff and Class Members of the data
breach's critical facts. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress
for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claim for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary contract,
unjust enrichment, and for violations of the California Consumer
Privacy Act and Georgia Code's Sections 13-6-11.
Headquartered in Atlanta, GA, Young Consulting LLC is a limited
liability company that offers software development services for the
marketing, underwriting and administering of medical stop loss
insurance for carriers, brokers and third party administrators.
[BN]
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
E-mail: shireen@norcrosslawfirm.com
Website: www.norcrosslawfirm.com
- and -
M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL CORP.
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: (916) 777-7777
Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com
gharoutunian@justice4you.com
ZIGNEGO CO: Cardenas Bid for Class Cert. Tossed w/o Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cardenas v. Zignego Co.
Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00961 (E.D. Wisc., Filed Aug. 22, 2022), the
Hon. Judge Pamela Pepper entered an order:
-- The parties subsequently seemed to disagree about whether there
actually was a settlement, and Judge Joseph has scheduled a
second
mediation hearing for Oct. 22, 2024.
-- The court denies without prejudice the plaintiff's motion for
class certification. If the forthcoming mediation is
unsuccessful,
the plaintiff may re-file the motion.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).[CC]
[*] Nelson City to Join "Sue Big Oil" Suit in British Columbia
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Metcalfe, writing for Cranbrook Daily Townsman, reports that
Nelson City Council has been asked to join a group of B.C.
municipalities pledged to participate in a class action lawsuit
against several big oil companies.
Greg Amos and Ron Robinson, representing Sue Big Oil West Kootenay,
said the lawsuit would ask the court to order that oil companies
compensate municipalities for costs incurred because their products
have caused damage due to climate change.
This includes the need for preventive measures like upgrading storm
water systems and mitigating the risks of wildfires and flooding.
"In the summertime, we're looking at heat, drought and smoke, and
increasingly dangerous fire seasons," Amos said at a Sept. 24
meeting. "In winter, we're looking at erratic snowfall, polar
vortexes, things that can harm tourism and agriculture."
Sue Big Oil is a province-wide organization organized by the
non-profit West Coast Environmental Law in Vancouver.
Amos said that the 2021 heat dome in B.C. cost $17 billion in
economic losses, extreme heat killed more than 600 British
Columbians, and 2023 saw the most destructive and costly wildfire
season ever recorded in B.C. and Canada.
Robinson said the major oil companies have known for decades that
burning fossil fuels would cause heat waves, wildfires, drought and
flooding. He said they have actively deceived the public about
this, and should be forced to pay their fair share of the harm they
have caused.
A class action is a lawsuit started by one person on behalf of
members of a group that have a similar claim against a person or
company. In this case, the claim would be advanced by the lead
plaintiff -- one municipality (its identity not yet decided) -- on
behalf of a group of municipalities.
Sue Big Oil is attempting to raise $500,000 to start the action and
to identify the lead plaintiff. The group is approaching
municipalities across B.C., asking for pledges of $1 per population
-- in Nelson's case about $11,500 -- from those who sign on. Nelson
and other municipalities would only pay the pledged amount if total
pledges reach the $500,000 goal.
The $500,000 would pay for an application to the court (not by
Nelson but by the lead plaintiff) asking a judge to declare that
the case has legal merit as a class action, and that it may proceed
to a trial.
At that point Sue Big Oil would begin fundraising through
foundations, philanthropists, and crowdfunding to pay for the
hearing.
Andrew Gage, a lawyer at West Coast Environmental Law who is
co-ordinating the formation of the class action group, told council
that individual municipalities don't have to hire their own lawyer
but that a lawyer hired by the lead plaintiff would represent the
entire group. He said Nelson, as an individual member of the group,
would not be named in the court documents.
Amos added said there is little financial risk in joining the class
action.
"In B.C. there is a law that protects municipalities from having to
pay legal costs if they happen to lose a (class action) case. So as
a municipality, you're protected in that sense. So there isn't the
financial risk. It's a case of pooling resources and support."
Amos reported that nine B.C. municipalities have so far pledged and
signed on: Burnaby, Cumberland, Gibsons, Port Moody, Qualicum
Beach, Sechelt, Slocan, Squamish, and View Royal. Burnaby's
involvement is contingent on another municipality of about the same
size also joining. He said the group is in active discussions with
16 more.
Amos said the nine municipalities have raised a total of
approximately $352,000 so far.
Amos and Robinson said that more than 70 lawsuits have been
launched against big oil at the city, county and state level in the
U.S., including the cities of New York and Chicago and the State of
California.
The Sue Big Oil presentation was made at a Committee of the Whole
meeting, during which council hears from delegations but does not
make decisions. Council will make a decision at a budget meeting
sometime this fall. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***