/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241011.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, October 11, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 205
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Bass Sues Over Exposure to Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Frank Sues Over Exposure to Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Friddle Sues Over Exposure to Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Howell Sues Over Exposure to Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Rodriguez Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Taylor Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Williams Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
A1 DEL MONTE INC: Ordonez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
AARON CROWN INC: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
ABG-ROCKPORT LLC: Sumlin Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Smith Sues Over Police Extortion Scheme
ALL ELITE WRESTLING: Foote Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
ALLEVIATE TAX LLC: Barack Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
ALTMAN SPECIALTY: Zwernemann Files Suit in S.D. California
ANDERSON COUNTY SCHOOL: Owens Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
ANZ GROUP: Settles Two Securities Class Action Suits for $68M
ARDEN CLAIMS: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Gomez Alleges
ATKORE INC: Bill Wagner & Son Alleges Price Fixing of PVC Pipes
AVIS RENT: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Wise Class Suit Alleges
BATH & BODY: Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
BIO-LAB INC: Faces Tzikas Suit Over Chemical Fire & Toxic Plume
BIOLAB INC: Conyers Sues Over Substantial Lost Income
BREAKWATER TREATMENT: Robles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
BROOKLYN BEDDING: Faces Sheil Class Suit Over Fake Discounts
COGNYTE SOFTWARE: Wins Dismissal of Securities Fraud Class Lawsuit
DEERE CREDIT: $1.5MM TCPA Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod
ENVIVA INC: Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filings Dismissed
EVOLVE BANK & TRUST: Meadows Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee
FALL LINE CAPITAL: Serven Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
GATEWAY CHURCH: Leach Files Suit in E.D. Texas
GETAROUND INC: Anderson Sues Over Unlawful Collections of Data
GRAMERCY SURGERY: Horvath Sues Over Failure to Secure Information
HANNAFORD BROS: Vye Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
HERTZ LOCAL: Warren Suit Removed to C.D. California
ILLINOIS FARMERS: Implications in Consumer Fraud Suit Discussed
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Saputo Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
JUSTFAB LLC: Rogers Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado
KNAUF INSULATION: Guerra Suit Removed to N.D. California
LA PLAYA: Buzzard Sues Over Unlawful Taking of Security Deposits
MARRIOTT HOTEL: Eugenio Suit Removed to N.D. California
MCCLAIN'S LONGHORN RV: Ackeren Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct.
META PLATFORMS: Novelist to Pursue Copyright Class Action Suit
METAGENOMI INC: Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Pending
MICHIGAN: Lebanese Americans Sue to Secure Assistance
MICRO ELECTRONICS: Arnold Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
MICROSOFT CORP: Sihler Compels Production of Class Documents
MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Wolf Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee
NAPLETON ENTERPRISES: Sued for Illegally Obtaining Credit Report
NEW METRO: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Wheatley Suit Says
NORTON SCOTT: Bogard Sues Over Improper Disclosure PII & PHI
NVIDIA CORP: DOJ, SEC Back Investor Class Suit in Supreme Court
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Layoffs
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Faces Jien Suit in Maryland Court
POSITIVE BEHAVIOR: Staten Files FLSA Suit in D. Hawaii
PROPARK LLC: Fails to Safeguard Employees' Info, Sowe Suit Alleges
RANGE RESOURCES: Fed. Court Certifies Landowners Class Action
RENT THE RUNWAY: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Granted in Part
SANGAMO THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Suit in Delaware Court
SEARCH SOLUTION GROUP: Wilkins Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
SHISEIDO AMERICAS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Bishop Suit Says
SMARTSHEET INC: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Einstein Parent
TARGET CORPORATION: Valdovinos Sues Over Misleading Labeling
TENARIS BAY CITY: Painter Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
TOG HOTEL: Fails to Pay Front Desk Clerks' Minimum Wages, Cruz Says
TOPCO ASSOCIATES: Bellomo Sues Over False and Misleading Omissions
TOPO DESIGNS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Suarez Suit Says
UNITED PARCEL: Brinkman Suit Removed to N.D. California
UNIVERSITY OF MAINE: Students to Receive Tuition Fee Refunds
VISA INC: Faces Merchant Class Suit Amid DOJ Antitrust Action
WELLS FARGO: Bacon Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
WHALECO INC: Brown Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
XANDR INC: Allen Files Suit in C.D. California
[*] Courts Scrutinize High Attorneys' Fees in Class Settlements
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Upends $260MM Verdict Against J&J Talc Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Presperse Files Ch. 11 to Resolve Tort Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Talc Suit Law Firms Clash Over $6.5BB Settlement
*********
3M COMPANY: Bass Sues Over Exposure to Film-Forming Foams
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert Bass, 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-05503-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
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: Frank Sues Over Exposure to Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------
Edward Frank, 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-05508-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
Hyperparathyroidism 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: Friddle Sues Over Exposure to Chemicals & Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------
Toby Friddle, 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-05509-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
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: Howell Sues Over Exposure to Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Howell, Jr., 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-05500-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: Rodriguez Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Rodriguez, 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; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:24-cv-05517-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 3, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. 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, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS 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 Decedent's exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of
Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further
seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from
the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
kidney cancer as a result of exposure to 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:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Taylor Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Taylor, 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; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:24-cv-05518-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 2, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. 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, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS 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 Decedent's exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of
Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further
seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from
the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
testicular cancer as a result of exposure to 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:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Williams Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Williams, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION;
ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION;
CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.;
DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE
PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY
PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE
PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN &
COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY
SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.;
PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES,
INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED;
W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Case
No. 2:24-cv-05564-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 4, 2024), is brought for
damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to
develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged
herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further
seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from
the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with thyroid cancer
as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
A1 DEL MONTE INC: Ordonez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A1 Del Monte Inc. The
case is styled as Elsa Rodriguez Ordonez, an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. A1 Del Monte Inc. doing
business as Del Monte Assisted Living & Memory Care Center, Case
No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0012748 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty.,
Oct. 3, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
A1 Del Monte Inc. doing business as Del Monte Assisted Living &
Memory Care Center -- https://delmonteassistedliving.com/ -- was
created to help seniors with disabilities, health-related services,
and/or low incomes access affordable housing in an Assisted Living
environment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
1460 Westwood Blvd., Ste. 300
Los Angeles, CA 90024-4937
Phone: 310-438-5555
Fax: 310-300-1705
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
AARON CROWN INC: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Hedges, for herself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, v. AARON CROWN INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-07559
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 4, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website,
https://elvtr.com, including all portions thereof or accessed
thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is
not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures
so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.
By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
AARON CROWN INC., operates the ELVTR online place of education, as
well as the ELVTR interactive Website and advertises, markets, and
operates in the State of New York and throughout the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
dana@gottlieb.legal
michael@gottlieb.legal
ABG-ROCKPORT LLC: Sumlin Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Sumlin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ABG-Rockport, LLC,, Case No. 1:24-cv-07564 (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 6, 2024), is brought against Defendant for their failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to services Soho Gem
provides to their non-disabled customers through
https://www.rockport.com (hereinafter "Rockport.com" or "the
website"). Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its
website, and therefore denial of its services offered, and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the
"ADA").
Because Defendant's website, Sohogem.com, is not equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA.
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Soho
Gem's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
Rockport.com is a commercial website that offers products and
services for online sale.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher H. Cohen, Esq.
ASHER COHEN PLLC
2377 56th Dr,
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Phone: (718) 914-9694
Email: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com
ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Smith Sues Over Police Extortion Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------
ACLU of New Mexico reports that the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) of New Mexico, Smith & Marjanovic Law, LLC, and The Soto Law
Office, LLC filed a lawsuit last night against the City of
Albuquerque, the Albuquerque Police Department, Chief of Police
Harold Medina, and several other individuals, on behalf of Carlos
Smith, who was victimized by the APD DWI Unit's extortion scheme.
The lawsuit, filed in the Second Judicial District Court, claims
that APD officers, including Joshua Montaño, exploited DWI arrests
to solicit bribes. The suit seeks monetary damages for the
plaintiff, Smith, who was falsely arrested and pressured to pay
thousands of dollars to have the charges dropped.
"This lawsuit isn't just about getting justice for me -- it's about
stopping this abuse so no one else has to suffer the way I did,"
said Smith. "I lost my business, my home, and my dignity because of
APD corruption. It even caused a deep rift in my family that we may
never heal from."
The complaint details a scheme involving APD officers, attorney
Thomas Clear, and paralegal Ricardo Mendez, who allegedly worked
together to extort money from DWI arrestees in exchange for making
their charges disappear.
"This is nothing short of an extortion racket operating under the
badge," said Taylor Smith, an attorney with Smith & Marjanovic Law,
LLC. "Our clients were forced into impossible situations -- either
pay a bribe or face devastating legal and financial consequences."
Maria Martinez Sanchez, legal director of the ACLU of New Mexico,
added, "The people of Albuquerque deserve a police force that
serves the public with integrity. We hope this lawsuit brings
justice to those the APD has victimized and leads to real reforms
to dismantle the systemic corruption within the department."
The ACLU is calling for a thorough investigation into the APD's
practices and comprehensive reforms to prevent future abuses. [GN]
ALL ELITE WRESTLING: Foote Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kevin Foote (aka Kevin Kelly), Brandon Tate,
Brent Tate, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ALL ELITE WRESTLING, LLC; IAN RICCABONI; and TONY KHAN,
Case No. 240900115 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 4, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-05351.
The Plaintiffs’ Complaint in the State Court Action asserts
claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”), and
Pennsylvania common law.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Daniel F. Thornton, Esq.
Caralyn M. Reese, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
Three Parkway
1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1350
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: 267-319-7802
Email: daniel.thornton@jacksonlewis.com
caralyn.reese@jacksonlewis.com
- and -
B. Tyler White, Esq.
James D. McGuire, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
501 Riverside Avenue, Suite 902
Jacksonville, FL 32202
Phone: 904-638-2655
Email: tyler.white@jacksonlewis.com
james.mcguire@jacksonlewis.com
ALLEVIATE TAX LLC: Barack Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alleviate Tax LLC.
The case is styled as Michael Barack, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated classes v. Alleviate Tax LLC, Case No.
4:24-cv-00947-P (N.D. Tex., Oct. 4, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Alleviate Tax LLC -- https://alleviatetax.com/ -- is a company
which helps reach a tax relief agreement with the IRS.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R MILTENBERGER PLLC
1360 N White Chapel, Suite 200
Southlake, TX 76092
Phone: (817) 416-5060
Fax: (817) 416-5062
Email: chris@crmlawpractice.com
ALTMAN SPECIALTY: Zwernemann Files Suit in S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Altman Specialty
Plants, LLC. The case is styled as Amy Zwernemann, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Altman Specialty
Plants, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01760-BEN-BLM (S.D. Cal., Oct. 3,
2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract.
Altman Specialty Plants, LLC -- https://altmanplants.com/ -- grows
unique drought tolerant plants, succulents, and perennials.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 339-7300
Fax: (612) 336-2940
Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
- and -
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (858) 209-6941
Fax: (865) 522-0049
Email: jnelson@milberg.com
ANDERSON COUNTY SCHOOL: Owens Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Tracy Owens in her individual capacity and as
guardian for C.L., a minor under the age of fourteen, and others
similarly situated v. Anderson County School District Five, Marcus
Fulton Simmons, Emily Wullstein, and Lisa Lipscomb, was removed
from the Clerk of Court for Richland County, to the United States
District Court for the District of South Carolina on Oct. 4, 2024,
and assigned Case No. 8:24-cv-05526-DCC.
The Plaintiff filed this the Amended Complaint in the Court of
Common Pleas of Anderson County on or about September 9, 2024. The
Defendants were served on or about September 10, 2024. The
Plaintiffs' allegations purport to state claims for alleged
violations of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Eugene H. Matthews, Esq.
Chandra Stallworth, Esq.
RICHARDSON PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, P.A.
Post Office Drawer 7788
Columbia, SC 29202
Phone: (803) 771-4400
Fax: (803) 779-0016
Email: gmatthews@RichardsonPlowden.com
cstallworth@RichardsonPlowden.com
ANZ GROUP: Settles Two Securities Class Action Suits for $68M
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kirti Tak, writing for Tip Ranks, reports that ASX-listed ANZ Group
Holding Limited AU:ANZ +0.31% has agreed to pay $68 million (AU$99
million) to settle two class action lawsuits. These lawsuits, filed
in 2020, have been settled out of court by ANZ. The bank emphasized
that the settlements do not constitute an admission of liability
and are subject to court approval. ANZ shares fell 1.5% as of
writing.
The first class action settled by ANZ is the Esanda case, for which
the company will pay AU$85 million.
It was filed on behalf of individuals who took car loans under
ANZ's credit license between 2011 and March 2016. It was alleged
that ANZ paid flex commissions to accredited car dealers during
that period. However, these commissions were prohibited by
Australia's securities regulator in 2018.
Another class action involved the investment of superannuation
funds with ANZ during the time when the bank owned the OnePath
Custodians and OnePath Life units. The class action claimed that
the trustee of the superannuation funds did not fulfil its
responsibilities toward the members.
Specifically, the trustee charged high fees and handled cash
investments badly. Instead of looking for better interest rates,
the trustee kept these funds in accounts with its parent bank, ANZ.
The bank will pay AU$14 million to settle this superannuation class
action.
What Is the Prediction for ANZ Shares?
According to TipRanks' analyst consensus, ANZ stock has received a
Hold rating based on three Buy, three Hold, and three Sell
recommendations. The ANZ share price forecast is AU$28.57, which is
3.43% below the current trading price. [GN]
ARDEN CLAIMS: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Gomez Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
YARIDIA GOMEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ARDEN CLAIMS SERVICE, LLC, Case No. 617424/2024 (N.Y.
Sup., Oct. 2, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly
secure and safeguard sensitive information of settlement class
members.
According to the complaint, the PII compromised in the Data Breach
included the Plaintiff's and Class Members' full names and Social
Security numbers ("personally identifiable information" or "PII").
On Aug. 14, 2024, the Defendant began sending the Plaintiff and
other Data Breach victims an untitled letter (the "Notice
Letter").
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and approximately
138,000 Class Members, suffered concrete injuries in fact including
invasion of privacy, theft of their PII, lost or diminished value
of PII, lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting
to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach,
experiencing an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails,
statutory damages, nominal damages, and the continued and certainly
increased risk to their PII, the suit asserts.
Through this Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms
on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals whose
PII was accessed during the Data Breach.
The Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing interest in
ensuring that their information is and remains safe, and they
should be entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief.
Plaintiff Gomez is a resident and citizen of Brooklyn, New York.
Arden provides administrative services for class action
settlements, including by distributing notice and payment to
settlement class members.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd S. Garber, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP,
FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
One North Broadway, Suite 900
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 298-3283
E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
ATKORE INC: Bill Wagner & Son Alleges Price Fixing of PVC Pipes
---------------------------------------------------------------
BILL WAGNER & SON, INC., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATKORE INC., CANTEX INC., DIAMOND
PLASTICS CORPORATION, IPEX USA LLC, PIPELIFE JET STREAM, INC., J-M
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. D/B/A JM EAGLE, NATIONAL PIPE &
PLASTICS, INC., OTTER TAIL CORPORATION, NORTHERN PIPE PRODUCTS,
INC., OIL PRICE INFORMATION SERVICE, LLC, PRIME CONDUIT, INC.,
VINYLTECH CORPORATION, SANDERSON PIPE CORPORATION, WESTLAKE
CORPORATION, AND WESTLAKE PIPE & FITTINGS CORPORATION (F/K/A NAPCO
PIPE & FITTINGS) D/B/A NORTH AMERICA PVC PIPE CORPORATION,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-08991 (N.D. Ill., September 26, 2024)
arises from Defendants' alleged price-fixing scheme that has
resulted in massively inflated PVC pipe prices and profit margins.
Plaintiff Bill Wagner & Son, Inc. brings this civil antitrust
action and seeks damages and injunctive relief arising out of the
PVC pipe manufacturers are also referred to as converters.
Allegedly, the Defendants has been engaged in the collusive and
concerted restraint of trade in PVC pipes from at least April 1,
2021, to the present.
Headquartered Harvey, IL, Atkore Inc. is a Delaware corporation
that manufactures and sells PVC pipes. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
David P. Germaine, Esq.
John P. Bjork, Esq.
SPERLING & SLATER, LLC
55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 641-3200
E-mail: jvanek@sperling-law.com
dgermaine@sperling-law.com
jbjork@sperling-law.com
- and -
Phillip F. Cramer, Esq.
SPERLING & SLATER, LLC
1221 Broadway, Suite 2140
Nashville, TN 37212
Telephone: (312) 641-3200
Facsimile: (312) 641-6492
E-mail: pcramer@sperling-law.com
- and -
James Almon, Esq.
SPERLING & SLATER, LLC
2707 Killarney Way, Suite 202
Tallahassee, FL 32309
Telephone: (850) 354-5300
Facsimile: (312) 641-6492
E-mail: jalmon@sperling-law.com
- and -
Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
Matthew P. McCahill, Esq.
Elana Katcher, Esq.
Brandon Fox, Esq.
Carihanna Morrison, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER, LLP
800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 687-1980
E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
mmccahill@kaplanfox.com
ekatcher@kaplanfox.com
Bfox@kaplanfox.com
cmorrison@kaplanfox.com
- and -
Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
Julia Varano, Esq.
GRABAR LAW OFFICE
One Liberty Place
1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 507-6085
E-mail: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com
jvarano@grabarlaw.com
- and -
Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
Joseph Roda, Esq.
Michael Ford, Esq.
NASTLAW LLC
1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 923-9300
E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com
jnroda@nastlaw.com
mford@nastlaw.com
AVIS RENT: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Wise Class Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID WISE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-09587
(D.N.J., Oct. 2, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard individuals' highly valuable,
protected, personally identifiable information including,
customers' full names, driver's license information, credit card
numbers and expiration dates, dates of birth, and phone numbers, as
well as for Avis's failure to comply with industry standards to
protect information systems that contain customer PII.
On Sept. 5, 2024, Avis reported to the Offices of the Attorney
Generals of Maine and California that it had been affected by a
data breach. In its report to Maine, Avis indicated that the breach
was related to "insider wrongdoing," though this statement is not
further explained. As a result of the Data Breach, the PII of
approximately 300,000 individuals -- including the Plaintiff and
Class Members -- was exfiltrated and is now in the hands of
cybercriminals, the suit claims.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly
increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft,
and other harms caused by Avis's failure to safeguard their PII --
risks which may last for the rest of their lives. Consequently,
Plaintiff and Class Members must devote substantially more time,
money, and energy to protect themselves, to the extent possible,
from these crimes, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff brings claims for negligence, negligence per se, and
declaratory judgment, seeking damages and injunctive relief,
including the adoption of reasonably sufficient data security
practices to safeguard the PII in Avis's possession in order to
prevent incidents like the Data Breach from reoccurring in the
future.
Mr. Wise is an adult who is a resident and citizen of the State of
Alabama.
Avis is a car rental service company that currently operates
approximately 5,500 locations in more than 165 countries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI
BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
- and -
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Patrick D. Donathen, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
patrick@lcllp.com
BATH & BODY: Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------
Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Bath & Body Works, Inc., Case No.
0:24-cv-03820 (D. Minn., Oct. 4, 2024), is brought arising because
the Defendant's Website (www.bathandbodyworks.com) is not fully and
equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision
in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the
effective communication and auxiliary aids and services
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and
the Minnesota Human Rights Act ("MHRA").
As a consequence of Plaintiffs experience visiting Defendant's
Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation
performed on their behalf, Plaintiffs found Defendant's Website has
a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like
Plaintiffs full and equal access to important Website content –
content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users.
Still, Plaintiffs would like to, intend to, and will attempt to
access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or
shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant
offers. Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and
operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully
accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with
vision-related disabilities.
The Plaintiffs and the putative class have been, and in the absence
of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and
discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online
Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with
screen reader technology, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class are blind and
low-vision individuals and are reliant upon screen reader
technology to navigate the Internet.
The Defendant offers bath supplies and accessories for sale
including, but not limited to, fragrances, skin care, candles,
soaps, sanitizers, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 South 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (763) 515-6110
Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
BIO-LAB INC: Faces Tzikas Suit Over Chemical Fire & Toxic Plume
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID TZIKAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BIO-LAB INC. and KIK CUSTOM PRODUCTS, INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-04471-SEG (N.D. Ga., Oct. 2, 2024) is a class action
complaint seeking redress for residents located in and around the
vicinity of the Sept. 29, 2024 arising from Bio-Lab Chemical
Facility fire in Conyers, Georgia.
According to the complaint, the resulting plume of toxic chemical
gas resulted in the proposed Class members' property being exposed
to massive amounts of chlorine gas and other toxic chemicals
including bromine vapor, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen cyanide,
hydrogen bromide and phosgene gas. The chemical-fueled inferno and
resulting toxic chemical plume necessitated a mandatory evacuation
of surrounding residents, and emergency orders to "shelter in
place," "remain indoors," and caused the shut-down of local
businesses, says the suit.
As a result of Defendants' negligent, careless, reckless, and/or
intentional conduct in connection with the Sept. 29, 2024 chemical
fire and resulting toxic chemical plume, the Plaintiff has suffered
damages, including an increased risk of disease from exposure to
and inhalation of toxic chemicals, contamination of his property by
egregiously high and plainly dangerous levels of toxic chemicals
dispersed by Defendants into the air and water, and the loss of use
and enjoyment of his property and resulting inconvenience,
disruption and emotional distress, the suit asserts.
Plaintiff David Tzikas was an adult citizen of the State of
Georgia, and the owner-occupier of real property located at 2560
King George Court NE, Conyers, Georgia 30012, within seven miles of
the Bio-Lab Conyers Facility.
Bio-Lab is engaged in the business of manufacturing, storing,
and/or selling swimming pool and spa water care chemicals under
product names that include BioGuard, SpaGuard, Natural Chemistry,
SeaKlear, AquaPill, Coral Seas, ProGuard, and Pro Series.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
HOLZER & HOLZER LLC
211 Perimeter Center Parkway, Suite 1010
Atlanta, GA 30346
Telephone: (770) 392-0090
Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com
mdees@holzerlaw.com
- and -
Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
Patrick I. Andrews, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
BERNSTEIN, LLP
222 2nd Avenue South, Suite 1640
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: (615) 313-9000
Facsimile: (615) 313-9965
E-mail: mchalos@lchb.com
pandrews@lchb.com
- and -
M. Elizabeth Graham, Esq.
Adam J. Gomez, Esq.
Tudor I. Farcas, Esq.
Adam Stoltz, Esq.
Caley DeGroote, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.
123 S. Justison Street, 6th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 622-7099
Facsimile: (302) 622-7100
E-mail: egraham@gelaw.com
agomez@gelaw.com
tfarcas@gelaw.com
astoltz@gelaw.com
cdegroote@gelaw.com
BIOLAB INC: Conyers Sues Over Substantial Lost Income
-----------------------------------------------------
TT of Conyers, Inc. d/b/a Conyers Nissan, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. BIOLAB INC., and KIK
CUSTOM PRODUCTS INC. d/b/a KIK CONSUMER PRODUCTS, Case No.
1:24-cv-04509-SEG (N.D. Ga., Oct. 4, 2024), is brought against the
Defendants as a result of a subsequent chemical smoke plume which
cost the Plaintiff a substantial lost income.
Due to the fire and subsequent chemical smoke plume, and consistent
with shelter in place orders issued by the Rockdale County
authorities, Conyers Nissan was forced to close its sales and
service departments on Sunday, September 29, 2024, Monday,
September 30, 2024, and Tuesday, October 1, 2024. As such, Conyers
Nissan lost income from its sales and service departments.
Due to the fire and subsequent chemical smoke plume, and consistent
with the shelter in place order issued on October 1, 2024 advising
residents to shelter in place starting at 7 p.m. through Friday,
October 4, 2024, Conyers Nissan's business continues to be
impacted.
As a result of the fire and subsequent chemical smoke plume, and
consistent with the shelter in place order issued due to the toxic
smoke plume originating from Defendants' Conyers Facility, Conyers
Nissan has suffered substantial lost income, sales and profits,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff TT of Conyers, Inc. owns and operates Conyers Nissan,
a car dealership.
BioLab is engaged in the business of manufacturing and/or supplying
swimming pool and spa water care chemicals under product names that
include BioGuard, SpaGaurd, Natural Chemistry, SeaKlear, AquaPill,
Coral Seas, ProGuard, and Pro Series.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher L. Coffin, Esq.
COFFIN LAW, LLC
1311 Ave. Ponce de Leon, Suite 504
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00907
Phone: (787) 961-9988
Email: ccoffin@coffinlawllc.com
- and -
M. Brandon Smith, Esq.
CHILDERS, SCHLUETER & SMITH, LLC
1932 N. Druid Hills Road, Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30319
Phone: (404) 419-9500
Email: bsmith@cssfirm.com
- and -
M. Palmer Lambert, Esq.
Tracy L. Turner, Esq.
Remy A. Higgins, Esq.
PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLC
3525 Energy Centre
1100 Poydras Street
New Orleans, LA 70163
Phone: (504) 355-0086
Email: plambert@pbclawfirm.com
tturner@pbclawfirm.com
rhiggins@pbclawfirm.com
BREAKWATER TREATMENT: Robles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Primitivo Robles, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BREAKWATER TREATMENT & WELLNESS, CORP., Case No.
1:24-cv-07502 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 3, 2024), is brought against
Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate the Defendant's Website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website,
http://www.breakwateratc.com/and therefore its denial of the goods
and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's
Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired
consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA.
Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content while
using the computer.
BREAKWATER TREATMENT & WELLNESS, CORP. is a New Jersey corporation
with its principal place of business located in Cranbury, New
Jersey and owns and maintains their concomitant Website,
www.breakwateratc.com.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (212) 227-5700
Fax: (212) 656-1889
Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
BROOKLYN BEDDING: Faces Sheil Class Suit Over Fake Discounts
------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN SHEIL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BROOKLYN BEDDING LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-08475 (C.D.
Cal., Oct. 2, 2024) alleges that the Defendant has violated, and
continues to violate, Section 17500 of the Business and Professions
Code by disseminating untrue and misleading advertisements to
Plaintiff and subclass members.
On its website, the Defendant lists purported regular prices and
advertises purported limited-time discounts from those regular
prices. However, the prices advertised by the Defendant are not
Defendant's regular prices. In fact, those prices are never
Defendant's regular prices, because there is always a
heavily-advertised promotion ongoing entitling consumers to a
discount. Moreover, for the same reasons, those prices were not the
former prices of the Products, the Plaintiff avers.
Accordingly, the Defendant's statements about the former prices of
its Products, and its statements about its discounts from those
former prices, were untrue and misleading. In addition, Defendant's
statements that its discounts are limited time and end at a
purported date are false and misleading too.
Far from being time-limited, however, Defendant's discounts are
always available. As a result, everything about Defendant's price
and purported discount advertising is false. The purported
discounts the Defendant advertises are not the true discount the
customer is receiving, and are often not a discount at all. Nor are
the purported discounts time sensitive or ending on the purported
date—quite the opposite, they are always available, the lawsuit
claims.
The Plaintiff and the subclass were allegedly injured as a direct
and proximate result of the Defendant's conduct because (a) they
would not have purchased Helix Products if they had known the
truth, and/or (b) they overpaid for the Products because the Helix
Products were sold at a price premium due to the
misrepresentation.
On Feb. 22, 2023, Mr. Sheil purchased a Helix Midnight Luxe
Mattress and a Free Dream Pillow Set from Defendant's website. He
made this purchase while living in Long Beach, California.
Brooklyn Bedding manufactures, distributes, markets, and sells
mattresses and bedding products online through the Helix brand and
website, www.helixsleep.com.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christin Cho, Esq.
Simon Franzini, Esq.
Grace Bennett, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: christin@dovel.com
simon@dovel.com
grace@dovel.com
COGNYTE SOFTWARE: Wins Dismissal of Securities Fraud Class Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Skadden secured the dismissal of a putative securities fraud class
action on behalf of Israel-based Cognyte Software Ltd. The
plaintiff alleged Cognyte and its senior executives misled the
public about its customers and its compliance with local laws and
its code of ethics.
On September 30, 2024, Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that none of the alleged
misstatements were actionable, Cognyte's CEO did not act with
scienter and the plaintiff failed to adequately allege that any
purported losses were caused by the alleged misstatements. Scott
Musoff led the Skadden team. [GN]
DEERE CREDIT: $1.5MM TCPA Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Troutman of Troutman Amin, LLP, writing for The National
Law Review, reports that a court granted preliminary approval to a
$1.5MM settlement in a TCPA class action against Deere Credit
Services brought by the Wolf and Mr. Number One.
The settlement releases the claims of approximately 3,000 people
who received allegedly wrong number prerecorded debt collection
calls from John Deere's credit arm. The class is defined as:
"All persons throughout the United States (1) to whom Deere Credit
Services, Inc. placed a call, (2) directed to a number assigned to
a cellular telephone service, but not assigned to a Deere Credit
Services, Inc. customer or accountholder, (3) in connection with
which Deere Credit Services, Inc. used an artificial or prerecorded
voice, (4) from February 2, 2020 through June 25, 2024."
The settlement amounts to about $500.00 per class member–almost
the full amount of a likely judgment in the case. And that's not
terribly surprising. Defending prerecorded wrong number TCPA class
actions is among the toughest of feats–especially when Greenwald
is involved.
This settlement is yet ANOTHER clear example of why using the FCC's
Reassigned Numbers Database is so dang important. Deere could have
saved itself a lot of GREEN by scrubbing the database as the
R.E.A.C.H. v.2.0 standards require!
The case is MELVIN CORNELIUS v. DEERE CREDIT SERVICES, INC., Case
No.: 4:24-cv-25-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga. Sept. 25, 2024). [GN]
ENVIVA INC: Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filings Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Enviva Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 3, 2024, that a federal district court in the
District of Maryland granted the company's motion to dismiss a
putative securities class action lawsuit against Enviva, board
memebr John Keppler and Shai Even (former Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer) on July 3, 2024. The plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice on July 25, 2024.
Said suit was filed on November 3, 2022.
On April 3, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed its amended complaint
adding Jason E. Paral, Michael A. Johnson, Jennifer Jenkins, Don
Calloway, and a number of underwriters of the company's stock
offering made pursuant to its registration statement and prospectus
dated January 19, 2022 as named defendants. The lawsuit asserts
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 thereunder as well as Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act based on allegations that the company made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the its business, operations, and
compliance policies. The lawsuit alleges that the company's
statements were misleading as to the environmental sustainability
of the company's wood pellet production and procurement and the
impact such statements would have on its financials and growth
potential. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, equitable relief,
interest and costs, and attorneys' fees.
The parties completed briefing on Enviva's motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on August 1, 2023 and it is now before the court
for consideration.
Enviva Inc. supplies utility-grade wood pellets primarily to major
power generators under long-term, take-or-pay off-take contracts
procuring wood fiber and process it into utility-grade wood
pellets.
EVOLVE BANK & TRUST: Meadows Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Duncan Meadows, Anton Shevchenko, Susan
Colby, Jodi McLaughlin, Allen Payne, Anthony Webster, Lisa Adewole,
Joseph Biron, Alec David Kovalczik, Ian Katsnelson, Jessica
Marcantel, Bharath Rayam, Randell Huff, Patrice Perrier, Norilyn
Prystalski, Racqual Hohler, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Evolve Bank & Trust, was transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on Oct.
4, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-md-03127-SHL-cgc to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Evolve Bank & Trust is a best-in-class technology-focused financial
services organization and Banking-as-a-Service ("BaaS")
provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq.
MILBERG ATTORNEYS AT LAW
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Phone: (865) 247-0080
Fax: (865) 522-0049
Email: ahoneycutt@milberg.com
- and -
M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
ARNOLD LAW FIRM
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Phone: (916) 777-7777
Email: aberry@justice4you.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Robert Grayson Wells, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue
Freedom Building, Ste. 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 254-8801
Fax: (615) 250-3937
Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
gwells@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, PA
200 S.W. 1st Avenue, Suite 1200
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 525-4100
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Daniel W. Van Horn, Esq.
Andrew B. Schrack, Esq.
BUTLER SNOW LLP
Crescent Center
6075 Poplar Avenue, 5th Floor
Memphis, TN 38119
Phone: (901) 680-7331
Fax: (901) 680-7201
Email: danny.vanhorn@butlersnow.com
andrew.schrack@butlersnow.com
- and -
Amisha R. Patel, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
2100 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20037
Phone: (202) 339-8457
Email: apatel@orrick.com
FALL LINE CAPITAL: Serven Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fall Line Capital,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Lawrence Serven, Susan Serven,
and others similarly situated v. Fall Line Capital, LLC, Fall Line
Endurance Fund GP, LLC, Fall Line Endurance Fund, LP, Ganesh
Kishore, Matthew Walker, Andrey Zarur, Clay Mitchell, Eric O'Brien,
Case No. 2024-1020 (Del. Chancery Ct., Oct. 3, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties."
Fall Line Capital -- https://www.fall-line-capital.com/ -- seeks
investment in broadacre farmland and agricultural
technologies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen E Jenkins, Esq.
Phone: (302) 654-1888
Fax: (302) 654-2067
- and -
Tiffany Geyer Lydon, Esq.
ASHBY & GEDDES
PO Box 1150
Wilmington, DE 19899
Phone: (302) 654-1888
Email: tlydon@ashbygeddes.com
GATEWAY CHURCH: Leach Files Suit in E.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gateway Church, et
al. The case is styled as Katherine Leach, Garry K. Leach, Mark
Browder, Terri Browder, on behalf of themselves and those Similarly
situated v. Gateway Church, Robert Morris, Thomas M. Lane, Kevin L.
Grove, Steve Dulin, Case No. 4:24-cv-00885-ALM (E.D. Tex., Oct. 4,
2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Gateway Church -- https://gatewaypeople.com/ -- is a
non-denominational, evangelical Christian multi-site megachurch
based in Southlake, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lance L. Livingston, Esq.
Timothy Micah Dortch, Esq.
DORTCH LINDSTROM LIVINGSTON LAW GROUP
2613 Dallas Parkway, Ste 220
Plano, TX 75093
Phone: (214) 393-1212
Fax: (888) 653-3299
Email: lance@dll-law.com
micah@dll-law.com
- and -
Lu Pham, Esq.
DOWELL PHAM HARRISON, LLP
Tindall Sqaure Building No. 2
505 Pecan Street, Suite 200
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Phone: (817) 632-6300
Fax: (817) 632-6313
Email: lpham@dphllp.com
GETAROUND INC: Anderson Sues Over Unlawful Collections of Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cory Anderson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Getaround, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-09524 (N.D. Ill.,
Oct. 4, 2024), is brought against 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").
As part of signing up, and/or gaining access to his Getaround
account, Plaintiff was prompted to allow Getaround to collect his
facial geometry, i.e., his biometric information in order to verify
his identity and ensure that he can meet the standards required by
Getaround in order to have access to the application.
Getaround had no written policy, made available to the public,
establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently
destroying biometric information when the initial purpose for
collecting or obtaining such biometric information has been
satisfied or within 3 years of the individual's last interaction
with Getaround, whichever occurs first.
Ostensibly, the purpose of Getaround's collection of Plaintiff's
facial geometry was to verify Plaintiff's identity prior to
allowing Plaintiff to obtain an account and rent vehicles on the
Getaround app and/ or website. As such, Plaintiff's facial geometry
should have been permanently destroyed by Getaround following the
opening of his Getaround account.
However, Getaround failed to permanently destroy Plaintiff's facial
geometry following the opening of Plaintiff's account as detailed
herein. As such, Getaround's retention of Plaintiff's biometric
information was unlawful and in violation of the BIPA, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff opened an account on Getaround.
Getaround is an online website and application that markets car
rentals for both personal and professional use.[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, OH 44022
Phone: (216) 816-8696
Email: james@simonsayspay.com
GRAMERCY SURGERY: Horvath Sues Over Failure to Secure Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Horvath, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. GRAMERCY SURGERY CENTER, INC., Case No. 159212/2024
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., Oct. 4, 2024), is brought against
Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
sensitive information of its patients.
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. GSC collected and maintained certain personally
identifiable information and protected health information of
Plaintiff and the putative Class Members, who are (or were)
patients at Defendant.
The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included
Plaintiff's and Class Members' full names, Social Security numbers,
driver's license numbers, and dates of birth ("personally
identifiable information" or "PII") and medical and health
insurance information, which is protected health information
("PHI", and collectively with PII, "Private Information") as
defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
of 1996 ("HIPAA"). The Private Information compromised in the Data
Breach was exfiltrated by cyber criminals and remains in the hands
of those cyber-criminals who target Private Information for its
value to identity thieves.
The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members
by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or
negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized
intrusions; failing to take standard and reasonably available steps
to prevent the Data Breach; and failing to provide Plaintiff and
Class Members prompt and accurate notice of the Data Breach. The
Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because
of Defendant's negligent conduct because the Private Information
that Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and
acquired by data thieves, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is current and former patients at Defendant.
The Defendant is a healthcare provider and "one of the leading
multispecialty centers in Manhattan and Queens."[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Vicki Maniatis, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
405 East 50th Street
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (516) 491-4665
Email: vmaniatis@milberg.com
- and -
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 440
Washington, D.C. 20015-2052
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Facsimile: (202) 686-2877
Email: dlietz@milberg.com
HANNAFORD BROS: Vye Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------
TASHA VYE, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. HANNAFORD BROS. CO., LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-00339-NT (D. Me., Oct. 2, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek,
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
The Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of herself and other
current and former salary-paid department manager-titled positions
below the level of Store Manager and Assistant Store Manager
(excluding the "Evening Operations Manager' position) in
Defendant's stores, including Bakery (or Bakery Sales) Managers,
Deli (or Deli Sales) Managers, Deli/Bakery (or Deli/Seafood, or
Deli/Seafood Sales, or Deli/Bakery Sales) Managers, Produce (or
Produce Sales) Managers, Meat Market (or Meat Market Sales)
Managers, Meat/Seafood (or Meat Market/Seafood, or Meat
Market/Seafood Sales) Managers, and current and former salary-paid
Assistant-titled or Trainee-titled employees working those same
departments, all below the level of Store Manager and Assistant
Store Manager.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Rule 23 Class Members and all other
DMs and ADMs who worked those positions in other states during the
applicable period relevant to those other state laws, are entitled
to: (i) unpaid overtime wages for hours worked above 40 hours in a
workweek, as required by law, and (ii) liquidated damages,
penalties, interest, reimbursement of attorney's fees and costs,
and all other available relief under the applicable statutes
pursuant to the Maine Employment Practices Act, the Maine Minimum
Wage and Overtime Law, Maine's Timely and Full Payment of Wages
Law, Maine's Rest Break Law, and their supporting regulations,
and/or similar laws in effect in other states as applicable.
Ms. Vye was employed by Hannaford as a Bakery Manager from April
2021 to September 2022, in the Lewiston, Maine store location,
after working two other positions in two other Maine store
locations at which she observed that the DM positions were
substantially similar regardless of store location.
Hannaford is an American supermarket chain based in Scarborough,
Maine.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard L. O'Meara, Esq.
MURRAY PLUMB & MURRAY
75 Pearl Street
Portland, Maine 04104
Telephone: (207) 773-5651
E-mail: romeara@mpmlaw.com
- and -
C. Andrew Head, Esq.
Bethany A. Hilbert
HEAD LAW FIRM, LLC
4422 N. Ravenswood Ave.
Chicago, IL 60640
Telephone: (404) 924-4151
Facsimile: (404) 796-7338
E-mail: ahead@headlawfirm.com,
bhilbert@headlawfirm.com
- and -
Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
Christopher Timmel, Esq.
Jessica Rado, Esq.
KLAFTER LESSER LLP
Two International Drive, Suite 350
Rye Brook, NY 10573
Telephone: (914) 934-9200
Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
E-mail: seth@klafterlesser.com
christopher.timmel@klafterlesser.com
jessica.rado@klafterlesser.com
HERTZ LOCAL: Warren Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Alexandra Warren, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v.
HERTZ LOCAL EDITION CORP., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Case No. 24STCV19778 was removed from the Superior Court
of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
Oct. 3, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-08516.
The Complaint seeks recovery of monetary damages, civil penalties
under the California Labor Code, and other relief against HLE in
connection with the following purported causes of action: failure
to provide meal periods in violation of Labor Code; failure to
provide rest periods in violation of Labor Code; failure to pay all
wages in violation of Labor Code; knowing and intentional failure
to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions; failure
to timely pay wages due at termination; failure to timely pay
employees in violation of Labor Code; failure to reimburse for
business expenses in violation of Labor Code; failure to pay for
all hours worked, including overtime hours worked in violation of
Labor Code; violation of Business and Professions Code; and civil
penalties pursuant the California Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") for violations of Labor Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Laura R. Petroff, Esq.
Tristan R. Kirk, Esq.
Peyton Sherwood, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
Phone: (213) 615-1700
Facsimile: (213) 615-1750
Email: lpetroff@winston.com
tkirk@winston.com
psherwood@winston.com
ILLINOIS FARMERS: Implications in Consumer Fraud Suit Discussed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Burdalski of Marshall Dennehey in an article with JDSupra
reports that a class action suit is brewing in Minnesota which has
the potential for major implications in the way major case
investigations are litigated and negotiated. In Taqueria El Primo
LLC et al. v. Illinois Farmers Ins. Co. et al., Civil No. 19-3071,
the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota has
certified a class action against Illinois Farms Insurance. The
plaintiffs allege that so called "no-bill" or billing moratorium
agreements between Farmers and certain medical providers are in
violation of the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the
Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act and the terms of the policy of
insurance. The plaintiffs further allege that the billing
limitations impacted have the potential to affect the ability of
insureds to use PIP benefits under their policies to seek treatment
with health care providers of their choice.
Following SIU investigations revealing what Farmers believed to be
fraudulent billing practices on the part of certain health care
providers treating its insureds, Farmers entered into confidential
settlement agreements with those health care providers in the state
of Minnesota in which the providers agreed, in exchange for a
settlement of Farmers' claims, to not bill Farmers for treatment to
its insureds. There were various such agreements with differing
terms and conditions. The agreements, again with some exceptions,
were also confidential per the terms and the settlements. Often,
the confidentiality of the agreements was requested by the health
care providers.
The plaintiffs filed suit, alleging those non-disclosed agreements
constituted unfair and illegal practices on the part of Farmers,
resulting in the class members not receiving the value guaranteed
by the policies of insurance purchased as they would not be able to
use their No-Fault Benefits with any health care provider covered
by such agreements. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and
injunctive relief voiding any such existing agreements.
Farmers contends that the agreements were at all times legally
permissible and has denied any and all violations of Minnesota law.
Farmers argued that there was no proof at all from any class
representative that medical treatment was sought and denied as a
result of any no-bill agreement and that such agreements touched so
small a percentage of available providers in the State there was no
likelihood of any actual damage to any class member.
The court ultimately approved the class action for monetary and
injunctive relief on the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act (MCFA) claim
only. Regarding the breach of contract claim, the court agreed
there had been no actual breach applicable to the class since there
would need to be individualized evidence of a claim denied based on
the at-issue agreements for the members of the Class. The Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim was similarly dismissed as
there could be no theory of damages applicable to the class as a
whole.
Regarding the MCFA claim, the court allowed the same to go forward.
The MCFA prohibits the "act, use or employment by any person of any
fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, misleading
statement or deceptive practice, with the intent that others rely
thereon in connection with the sale of any merchandise, whether or
not any person has in fact been misled, deceived, or damaged
thereby . . . " Minn. Stat. Sec. 325F.69, subd. 1. In short, the
court found that the MCFA claim could proceed since it is not
necessary to show any individual consumer's reliance on the
purported wrongful conduct. All that is required is a causal nexus
between the conduct and the damages of the plaintiffs established
through direct or circumstantial evidence. The court found the case
raises several common questions applicable to all class members:
-- Whether the billing limitations violate the No-Fault Act;
-- Whether the billing limitations violated the policies;
-- Whether Farmers would have been able to sell the policies with
the limitations at all;
-- Whether Farmers would have been able to sell the policies only
if it disclosed the limitations' and
-- Whether under Minnesota law it is inherently material and
harmful to all purchasers as a matter of law, irrespective of
individual consumer differences, if a company was only able to sell
a product by fraudulently omitting a fact that if disclosed the
company would have been barred from selling.
The court likewise found that resolution of those questions posed
several common questions of law which predominated over any
differences between the class members. Finally, the court found
that, if the plaintiffs' theories were correct, damages could be
measured on a class-wide basis, thus meeting the final elements
necessary for class certification.
The court did not engage in any discussion of the merits of the
claims, but the very fact that the classes were certified and the
legality of the no-bill agreements will now be litigated is a
substantial development for the insurance community and SIU
specifically. The failure to disclose the no-bill agreements to
current and prospective insureds seems to have been the sticking
point with the court. However, as previously noted, that
confidentiality was bargained for by, in most cases, the health
providers and their attorneys.
No-bill agreements have been an important tool utilized by insures
and SIU to effectively prevent further fraudulent billing by bad
actor health care providers taking advantage of No-Fault benefits
across the country. Such agreements arguably work to the benefit of
insureds by preventing improper treatment and billing and keeping
fraudulent actors at bay, resulting in reduced premiums. However,
this current legal landscape puts those agreements directly at risk
and should be followed closely.[GN]
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Saputo Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Carl Saputo, Jr., Valerie Torres, Joycette
Goodwin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Johnson & Johnson, Case No. 3:24-cv-01117 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey on Oct. 4, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-09622-MAS-RLS to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Johnson & Johnson -- https://www.jnj.com/ -- is an American
multinational pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical
technologies corporation headquartered in New Brunswick, New
Jersey, and publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954-525-4100
Email: cardoso@kolawyers.com
JUSTFAB LLC: Rogers Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Justfab, LLC. The
case is styled as Alisha Rogers, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Justfab, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-02751-STV (D. Colo., Oct. 4, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Justfab, LLC -- https://www.justfab.com/ -- is an online fashion
membership offers a wide selection of women's footwear, handbags,
and clothing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com
KNAUF INSULATION: Guerra Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Victor Anthony Guerra, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. KNAUF INSULATION, INC.;
and DOE 1 through10, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV01163 was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Shasta, to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California on Oct. 4, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-at-01260.
The Plaintiff alleges that Knauf failed to pay all wages owed upon
separation of employment to employees who worked for Knauf and who
left their employment from September 4, 2020 to the present. The
Plaintiff seeks unpaid wages for himself and each member of the
potential class employed by Knauf since September 4, 2020. The
Plaintiff alleges Knauf failed to pay Guerra and purported class
members all overtime wages owed in part because Knauf allegedly
failed to properly institute an alternative workweek schedule. The
Plaintiff seeks an award to himself and the other class members of
one hour of pay at each employee's regular rate of compensation for
each workday that a meal period was not provided. The Plaintiff
seeks to recover penalties for rest period violations pursuant to a
theory of liability nearly identical to their meal break
claims..[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Scott J. Witlin, Esq.
Michael P. Witczak, Esq.
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 284-3880
Facsimile: (310) 284-3894
Email: scott.witlin@btlaw.com
michael.witczak@btlaw.com
LA PLAYA: Buzzard Sues Over Unlawful Taking of Security Deposits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corwin Buzzard, Individually, and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. LA PLAYA PROPERTIES GROUP, INC. d/b/a QUANBLUE PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-23823-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 3,
2024), is brought arising from Quanblue's unlawful taking of
Security Deposits from its residential tenants.
Specifically, Quanblue violates its own lease and the Florida
Residential Landlord Tenant Act ("FRLTA"), by prematurely taking
tenant security deposits; and failing to provide tenants the
statutorily required Notice of Intention to Impose a Claim on
Security Deposit ("Security Deposit Notice").
After a tenant moves out, the FRLTA requires Quanblue to either
return the security deposit in full to the tenant within 15 days of
moveout, or it can send a certified mail notice of its intent to
impose a claim against a tenant's security deposit that includes
the statutory language required by the FRLTA within 30 days of move
out ("Security Deposit Notice")
However, when Quanblue seeks to impose a claim upon a tenant's
security deposit, Quanblue fails to send a Security Deposit Notice
that complies with the FRLTA. Furthermore, Quanblue is responsible
for collecting and refunding tenant security deposit across all
properties it manages in Florida, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was a "tenant."
Quanblue provides management, maintenance, leasing, security
deposit administration, rent collection, tax payments, mortgage
payments and billing services for the residential rental units that
it manages across Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Newsome, Esq.
Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
Pamela G. Levinson, Esq.
Christopher J. Brochu, Esq.
VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
400 N Ashley Drive,
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (352) 753-8600
Facsimile: (352) 504-3301
Email: jnewsome@vandwlaw.com
jvarnell@vandwlaw.com
bwarwick@vandwlaw.com
plevinson@vandwlaw.com
cbrochu@vandwlaw.com
ckoerner@vandwlaw.com
MARRIOTT HOTEL: Eugenio Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Rodel Eugenio, an individual, on behalf himself
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. MARRIOTT HOTEL
SERVICES, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. CGC-24-616274 was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California in and for the County of San
Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on Oct. 3, 2024, and assigned Case No.
3:24-cv-06935-PHK.
The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts nine causes of action: unfair
business practices, in violation of California Business and
Professions Code; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay
overtime wages; failure to provide required meal periods; failure
to provide required rest periods; failure to provide accurate and
itemized wage statements; failure to reimburse necessary business
expenses; failure to pay sick pay wages; and violation of
constitutional right of privacy.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Greg S. Labate, Esq.
Eric T. Angel, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
A Limited Liability Partnership
Including Professional Corporations
650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993
Phone: 714.513.5100
Facsimile: 714.513.5130
Email: glabate@sheppardmullin.com
eangel@sheppardmullin.com
MCCLAIN'S LONGHORN RV: Ackeren Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McClain's Longhorn
RV, Inc. The case is styled as Brenda Van Ackeren, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. McClain's Longhorn RV,
Inc., Truist Bank, Case No. 24-9489-442 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Denton
Cty., Oct. 3, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Debt/Contract."
McClain's RV -- https://www.mcclainsrv.com/ -- offers top
manufacturers! Full line Winnebago motorhomes & towables, KZ
towables Grand Design and Forest River Sun Seeker motorhomes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Grayson L Linyard, Esq.
HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
1445 Ross Ave., Ste 3700
Dallas, TX
Phone: 214-979-3000
META PLATFORMS: Novelist to Pursue Copyright Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Farrell, writing for Fudzilla, reports that novelist
Christopher Farnsworth wants a class action copyright lawsuit
against Meta Platforms for stealing his books and those of other
writers to train its Llama artificial intelligence large language
model.
Farnsworth claims that Meta fed Llama, which powers its AI
chatbots, thousands of pirated books to teach it how to respond to
human prompts.
Ta-Nehisi Coates, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, and
comedian Sarah Silverman have brought similar class action claims
against Meta in the same court over its alleged use of their books
in AI training.
Farnsworth's case, handled by Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
follows a judge's criticism of the lead attorney and the inclusion
of famous lawyer David Boies.
Copyright owners, including writers and artists, have sued tech
giants for using their work to train AI systems without
permission.
The companies claim their AI training is protected by fair use,
arguing the lawsuits threaten the growing AI industry.
Farnsworth, from Los Angeles, alleges Meta used pirated books,
including his, to train Llama. He seeks damages and an injunction.
[GN]
METAGENOMI INC: Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Gross Law Firm issues a notice to shareholders of Metagenomi,
Inc. (NASDAQ: MGX) that shareholders who purchased shares of MGX
during the class period listed are encouraged to contact the firm
regarding possible lead plaintiff appointment. Appointment as lead
plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery.
CLASS PERIOD: This lawsuit is on behalf of all 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.
ALLEGATIONS: According to the complaint, Metagenomi introduced
itself to investors during its initial public offering as a
"genetic medicines company" having a long-standing business
relationship with Moderna, one of the leading Covid-19 vaccine
companies. Integral to Metagenomi's collaboration with Moderna was
the claim that the two companies had entered into a Strategic
Collaboration and License Agreement on October 29, 2021, which
included multiple four-year research programs and a subsequent
licensed product-by-licensed product agreement. Metagenomi
completed its initial public offering on February 13, 2024, selling
6.25 million shares at $15 per share. However, less than three
months later, on May 1, 2024, Metagenomi announced that it and
Moderna had "mutually agreed to terminate their collaboration"
agreement. An analyst reported on the announcement, noting that the
news was surprising, as was its timing. The analyst also noted that
the partnership Metagenomi had with Moderna was a critical part of
the core thesis and that losing this partnership during this early
stage in development raised more questions than answers. In
response to the news, Metagenomi's stock price declined from $7.04
per share on May 1, 2024 to $6.17 per share on May 2, 2024.
DEADLINE: November 25, 2024 Shareholders should not delay in
registering for this class action. Register your information here:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/metagenomi-loss-submission-form/?id=106370&from=3
NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who
purchased shares of MGX during the timeframe listed above, you will
be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you with
status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The deadline
to seek to be a lead plaintiff is November 25, 2024. There is no
cost or obligation to you to participate in this case.
WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is a nationally recognized
class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of
all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and
illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to
ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices
and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery
on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or
misleading statements or the omission of material information by a
company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (646) 453-8903 [GN]
MICHIGAN: Lebanese Americans Sue to Secure Assistance
-----------------------------------------------------
Faraz Javed and Jon Austin, writing for WXYZ Detroit, report that
Lebanese Americans across the country, including in Michigan, are
worried for the safety of their families stuck in war-torn areas of
Lebanon.
With no proper evacuation plan in place, people here in Michigan
are hopeful that a class action lawsuit against the State
Department will help reunite families.
"I think this table really reflects all my identities. This is my
picture when I graduated from U of M, this is when I interned in
D.C., and this is my parents when I finished school in south
Lebanon," said Micho Assi, a Dearborn resident.
"You are a proud American, you are a proud Michigander, but you
also hold your Lebanese heritage near and dear, why is that?" asked
Faraz Javed, 7 News Detroit reporter.
"Why not?! This is where I went to school, this is where I grew up,
and this is where my parents are," said Micho.
It's been months since Micho has seen her mom and dad. And now,
with the Israel-Hamas war escalating into Lebanon, calling them is
the only option.
"Where is Dad?" Micho asks her mom over a call.
"He has gone to get bread because, during the day, it's dangerous,"
says Micho's mom.
Micho says strategically planning for ways to get groceries while
avoiding Israeli air strikes is sadly now the norm for many in
Lebanon.
"They left on September 30, they had to escape Beirut, because they
were asked by Israelis to leave just like everyone in south
Lebanon. But right now, Beirut is not safe," said Micho.
Micho's parents are green card holders, and so far, all her
attempts to get them back have failed.
"The Lebanese in Lebanon are counting on Lebanese Americans that
they believe we will be able to do something," said Micho.
On Thursday, October 3, the Arab American Civil Rights League in
Michigan filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of U.S. citizens
and green card holders currently trapped in Lebanon. ACRL's Nabhi
Ayad says so far, the five plaintiffs named in the complaint have
been unable to secure assistance from the State Department. [GN]
MICRO ELECTRONICS: Arnold Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Micro Electronics,
Inc. The case is styled as Tyree Arnold, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Micro Electronics, Inc. doing
business as: Micro Center, Case No. 1:24-cv-23841-RNS (S.D. Cal.,
Oct. 4, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Micro Electronics, Inc. is an American privately held company
headquartered in Hilliard, Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Eric Berman, Esq.
1650 SE 17th Street 100
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Phone: (865) 603-7365
Email: cberman@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: gberg@shamisgentile.com
ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com
MICROSOFT CORP: Sihler Compels Production of Class Documents
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANET SIHLER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MICROSOFT
CORPORATION, Case No. 2:24-cv-01593 (W.D. Wash., Oct. 2, 2024), the
Plaintiff files a motion compel compliance with subpoena for
production of documents by non-party Microsoft Corporation.
The underlying action in which this subpoena duces tecum was issued
is captioned as:
"Sihler et al. v. Global e-Trading, LLC et al., Case no.
8:23-CV-1450-VMC-UAM, (M.D. Fla.)."
Non-movant Microsoft is not a party to the underlying action.
On June 21, 2024, the Plaintiffs in the underlying action
("Petitioners") issued a subpoena to Microsoft (the "Subpoena").
The Subpoena requested Skype chats between a person named David
Flynn and several other specifically identified accounts and
individuals.
Along with the Subpoena, the Petitioners served a signed
declaration from Mr. Flynn consenting to the disclosure of his
content data with specific accounts and individuals. On July 12,
2024, Microsoft served Petitioners' counsel with responses and
objections.
Petitioners conferred with Microsoft by telephone or
videoconference on Aug. 20, 2024, and Aug. 27, 2024, and by email
on Aug. 29, 2024. On Sept. 4, 2024, Microsoft represented that it
would not produce documents in response to the Subpoena.
The Subpoena is tailored and is not unduly burdensome; it seeks
documents that are relevant to the underlying action and that
Petitioners cannot obtain through other methods. Accordingly,
Microsoft should be compelled to produce the requested documents.
The underlying action arises out of a scheme to defraud consumers
in connection with the sale of sham weight-loss pills branded
"Ultra-Fast Keto Boost" or "Instant Keto Boost" (the "Keto
Products").
The merchants who peddled the worthless Keto Products (the "Keto
Associates") advertised that celebrities had endorsed the Keto
Products and claimed to offer promotions and discounts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Caitlin Skurky, Esq.
KNEUPPER & COVEY PC
Washington Bar No. 60246
600 1st Ave., Suite 102, PMB 2072
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 759-7520
E-mail: caitlin@kneuppercovey.com
MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Wolf Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Kelsey Wolf, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Mid-America Apartment Communities,
Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-02586 was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on Oct. 4, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01196 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust.
Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. -- https://www.maac.com/ --
is a publicly traded real estate investment trust based in Memphis,
Tennessee that invests in apartments in the Southeastern United
States and the Southwestern United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alan G. Crone, Esq.
THE CRONE LAW FIRM, PLC
88 Union Avenue, 14th Floor
Memphis, TN 38103
Phone: (901) 737-7740
Fax: (901) 474-7926
Email: acrone@cronelawfirmplc.com
- and -
Thomas J.H. Brill, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS H. BRILL
8012 State Line Road, Suite 102
Leawood, KS 66208
Phone: (913) 677-2004
Email: brillkc@gmail.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John R. Branson, Esq.
BAKER DONELSON (MEMPHIS)
165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
Memphis, TN 38103
Phone: (901) 680-7200
Email: jbranson@bakerdonelson.com
NAPLETON ENTERPRISES: Sued for Illegally Obtaining Credit Report
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that an
Illinois consumer claims in a proposed class action lawsuit that
automotive retailer Napleton Enterprises, LLC and two subsidiaries
unlawfully obtained his credit report without his permission or a
valid reason.
The 13-page privacy lawsuit alleges that the company and
co-defendants Ed Napleton Automotive Group and Napleton's Arlington
Heights Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram have run afoul of the federal Fair
Credit Reporting Act by procuring consumer reports under the
pretense that a customer has applied for a loan or credit to
finance the purchase of a vehicle.
The class action suit was filed by a man who says he visited
Napleton's Arlington Heights Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram in Arlington
Heights, Illinois, earlier this year to consider buying a vehicle.
While at the dealership, the plaintiff explicitly refused any
financing options offered by the representative and at no time
filled out or submitted a credit application, the case shares.
Nevertheless, the consumer claims he learned days later that the
defendants had procured his credit reports without authorization.
Because the plaintiff had neither applied for credit nor given his
consent for the dealership to access his consumer report, the
defendants had no legitimate business need for the information, the
complaint contends. As such, the companies' conduct has violated
the FCRA, which strictly prohibits entities from obtaining an
individual's credit report without a permissible purpose, the
filing charges.
The plaintiff's experience is hardly unique, the suit asserts,
alleging that consumer reviews posted online routinely reference
the defendants' long-standing practice of obtaining credit reports
without authorization.
The Napleton Enterprises lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the
United States or its territories about whom the defendants or any
subsidiaries obtained a consumer report within the past five years
and from whom the companies' records contain no written
authorization or credit application dated within three calendar
days of the date on which the report was procured. [GN]
NEW METRO: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Wheatley Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
HANNIBAL WHEATLEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEW METRO ENTERPRISE INC. d/b/a WEED MART BY
NEW METRO, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07296 (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 Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people.
The Plaintiff was injured when attempting to access Defendant's
website around September 14, 2024, from his home in Bronx County,
in an effort to search for and purchase Defendant's products and
services, including their premium edible, "Ayrloom | Gummies |
Orchard Sunrise | 10mg per serv | 100 mg total | Hybrid | 2:1
THC:CBG," but encountered various access barriers, which denied him
full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and
services. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims for violations
of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human
Rights Law, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York
Civil Rights Law.
Headquartered in Oakland Gardens, NY, New Metro Enterprise Inc.
owns and operates a cannabis dispensary and the website,
www.newmetro.club, which offers marijuana and related products.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
NORTON SCOTT: Bogard Sues Over Improper Disclosure PII & PHI
------------------------------------------------------------
Betty Bogard, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. NORTON SCOTT HOSPITAL LLC d/b/a NORTON SCOTT, Case No.
4:24-cv-00135-TWP-KMB (S.D. Ind., Oct. 3, 2024), is brought to
address Defendant's improper practice of disclosing the
confidential Personally Identifying Information ("PII") and/or
Protected Health Information ("PHI") (collectively referred to as
"Private Information") of Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members
to third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta
("Facebook" or "Meta"), and potentially others ("the Disclosure")
via tracking technologies used on its website.
Despite its unique position as a massive and trusted healthcare
provider, Norton Scott knowingly configured and implemented into
its website, https://www.scottmemorial.com/ (the "Website")
code-based tracking devices known as "trackers" or "tracking
technologies," which collected and transmitted Plaintiff and Class
Members' Private Information to Facebook, Google, and other third
parties, without Plaintiff and Class Members' knowledge or
authorization.
The Defendant encourages patients to use its Website, along with
its various web-based tools and services (collectively, the "Online
Platforms"), to search for physicians, locate healthcare
facilities, learn about specific health conditions and treatment
options, pay bills, sign up for classes and events, and more.
Plaintiff and the Class Members visited Defendant's Online
Platforms in relation to their past, present, and future health,
healthcare and/or payment for health care.
When Plaintiff and Class Members used Defendant's Website and
Online Platforms, they thought they were communicating exclusively
with their trusted healthcare provider. Unbeknownst to them,
Defendant embedded pixels from Facebook, Google, DoubleClick,
Simpli.fi, AppNexus, Microsoft Clarity, and others into its Website
and Online Platforms, surreptitiously forcing Plaintiff and Class
Members to transmit intimate details about their medical treatment
to third parties without their consent.
Despite willfully and intentionally incorporating the Meta Pixel,
potentially CAPI, and other third-party trackers into its Website
and servers, Norton Scott did not disclose to Plaintiff or Class
Members that it was sharing their sensitive and confidential
communications and Private Information with third parties including
Facebook, Google, DoubleClick, Simpli.fi, AppNexus, and Microsoft
Clarity.
The Defendant further made express and implied promises to protect
Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information and maintain the
privacy and confidentiality of communications that patients
exchanged with Defendant. Defendant owed common law, statutory, and
regulatory duties to keep Plaintiff's and Class Members'
communications and Private Information safe, secure, and
confidential, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a patient of Norton Scott, f/k/a Scott Memorial
Hospital and a victim of Defendant's unauthorized Disclosure of
Private Information.
Norton Scott, located in Scottsburg Indiana, is a 25-bed, critical
access hospital that has served as a beacon of good health for 60
years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Amina A. Thomas, Esq.
Mallory K. Schiller, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: (317) 636-6481
Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
athomas@cohenandmalad.com
mschiller@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, Tennessee 37203
Phone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina Borelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORELLI PLLC
908 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago IL 60611
Phone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
Email: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
NVIDIA CORP: DOJ, SEC Back Investor Class Suit in Supreme Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jess Coglan, writing for Coin Telegraph, reports that the United
States Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange
Commission told the Supreme Court that an Nvidia investor
class-action lawsuit alleging the tech company misrepresented its
sales to crypto miners should be greenlit.
Nvidia and the investor group have been in a legal battle since
2018, which has now reached the top US court.
In an Oct. 2 amicus brief, US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar
and SEC senior lawyer Theodore Weiman argued that the suit had
"sufficient details" to survive a district court dismissal, adding
that the Supreme Court should greenlight its revival by an appeals
court.
The two agencies said they have a "strong interest" in the case
because it concerns laws designed to limit frivolous
securities-related lawsuits.
"Meritorious private actions are an essential supplement to
criminal prosecutions and civil enforcement actions" by the DOJ and
SEC, the brief added.
The investor group tried to sue Nvidia in 2018, alleging it hid
over $1 billion in GPU sales made to crypto miners. It claimed the
chipmaker's CEO, Jensen Huang, downplayed Nvidia's sales to the
industry.
The group alleged Nvidia's sales were propped up by miners, which
they argue was apparent when the firm's sales collapsed alongside
the crypto market in 2018.
The case was dismissed, but the group appealed the decision, which
led to the Ninth Circuit appeals court reviving it last August.
Nvidia then petitioned the Supreme Court to reverse it.
Nvidia claimed the suit relied on an expert opinion that fabricated
information about its business and income, but the DOJ and SEC have
rebutted, saying it "is not what occurred here."
The agencies also acknowledged the investors' rebuttal of Nvidia's
claims, which was said to have evidence relating to accounts from
ex-Nvidia executives and a Bank of Canada report claiming the firm
understated its crypto revenue by $1.35 billion.
Nvidia declined to comment on the DOJ and SEC brief.
In a separate amicus brief filed the same day, 12 former SEC
officials backed the investors, saying "private enforcement of the
federal securities laws is vital to the integrity of US capital
markets."
They attacked Nvidia's arguments, which they claimed would create
rules "requiring plaintiffs to possess internal company documents
and databases before discovery and to preclude the use of experts
at the pleading stage."
They added: "Neither is supported by the law or good policy."
Six additional amicus briefs supporting the investor group were
filed on Oct. 2. They were from quantitative experts, legal
professors, institutional investors, the American Association for
Justice and the Anti-Fraud Coalition. [GN]
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Layoffs
---------------------------------------------------------
Dominic Patten, writing for Deadline, reports that the soon to be
Skydance-controlled Paramount Global thought they were trimming
costs with the latest round of layoffs unveiled in September, but
the still Shari Redstome ruled company may find itself in a new
legal leg-hold trap as a consequence of the cuts.
To be specific, a potentially class action lawsuit consequence for
allegedly not giving Empire State mandated notice to the over 300
employees pink slipped on September 24. This new round of cuts last
week came in what has been called "Phase 2" of Paramount's ongoing
efforts to get rid of 15% of its domestic workforce.
Cuts that could prove costly.
"On or about September 24, defendants Paramount Global CBS
Interactive Inc. terminated the employment of Julian Hagins more
than 300 other employees who worked at and/or reported to their
headquarters in close geographic proximity to headquarters," says
the action filed on October 3 in federal court in New York by now
former Paramount Pictures Podcast Post Production Coordinator
Hagins. "Defendants provided written notification of the
termination, which was effective on or about September 30."
New York State's Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
demands companies give staffers 90-days' notice in the case of a
large layoff. If the company, in this case Paramount Global does
not give employees the three months heads up, then "the employer
shall provide that employee with 60 calendar days of wages and
benefits."
Which, seeking class certification, is what Hagins is looking for
-- for himself and others. "A class action is further superior to
other available methods for adjudication of this controversy in
that joinder of all members is impractical," the suit says.
"Furthermore, the amounts at stake for many of the Class Members,
while substantial, are not great enough to enable them to maintain
separate suits against Defendants."
Now, with that, If the action were to receive class action
certification, and hundreds of ex-employees were to sign on, you
can be damn sure this will escalate beyond the cost of the 60 days
of pay and benefits.
"These claims are not grounded in any fact," a Paramount Global
spokesperson told Deadline. "Paramount employees entitled to
Federal or State WARN notice receive it."
Moving towards David Ellison and his father Larry's official $8
billion takeover of the fabled studio and its other businesses,
this suit could delay the necessary regulatory approvals in what
has already been a convoluted and expensive process.
Right now, co-CEOs George Cheeks, Chris McCarthy and Brian Robbins
have indicated that the Paramount cutbacks are 90% complete. Which
means, this isn't over, and there is likely more grizzle for the
courts now Hagins has filed his suit. [GN]
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Faces Jien Suit in Maryland Court
--------------------------------------------------
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 between August 30, 2019 and
October 16, 2019, a series of purported class action lawsuits were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
against its subsidiary, Pilgrim's Pride Corporation (PPC) and a
number of other chicken producers, as well as Webber, Meng, Sahl &
Company and Agri Stats, styled as "Jien, et al. v. Perdue Farms,
Inc., et al.," No. 19-cv-02521. On June 14, 2021, PPC entered into
an agreement to settle all claims made by the Poultry Workers Class
for US$29.0 million, and paid the plaintiffs this amount during the
year 2021, though the agreement is still subject to final approval
by the Maryland Court.
On February 16, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
which extended the relevant period, added defendants, and included
additional workers in the class.
The plaintiffs are a putative class of poultry processing plant
production and maintenance workers and allege that the defendants
conspired to fix and depress the compensation paid to poultry
workers in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Defendants moved
to dismiss on December 18, 2020, which the court denied on March
10, 2021.
JBS is a Brazilian meat-processing company in Sao Paolo. JBS S.A.
beneficially owns approximately 83% of PPC outstanding common
stock.
POSITIVE BEHAVIOR: Staten Files FLSA Suit in D. Hawaii
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Positive Behavior
Supports Corporation. The case is styled as Salu Staten, on behalf
of herself, and others similarly situated v. Positive Behavior
Supports Corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-00435-MWJS-KJM (D. Haw.,
Oct. 4, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Positive Behavior Supports Corporation -- https://www.teampbs.com/
-- serves children and adults with behavioral challenges.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Anna Zelman, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.C.
500 Ala Moana Boulevard, Suite 454B, Suite 7-400
Honolulu, HI 96813
Phone: (808) 466-6224
Email: rzelman@forthepeople.com
PROPARK LLC: Fails to Safeguard Employees' Info, Sowe Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
MATARR SOWE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PROPARK, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01580 (D. Conn., Oct. 2,
2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information that is collected
and maintained as part of its employment relationship with the
Plaintiff and Class Members.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are 20,425 current and former
employees of Propark. The sensitive information includes
Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, dates of birth, Social
Security numbers, and other information shared with the Defendant
in connection with the Plaintiff's and Class Members' employment,
including dependent information (collectively, "PII"), the lawsuit
says.
On Sept. 3, 2024, Propark began notifying Class Members and state
Attorneys General about a data breach that occurred between Jan.
15, 2024, and Jan. 18, 2024.
As a result of this delayed response, the Plaintiff and Class
Members had no idea their PII had been compromised, and that they
were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and
various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. The
risk will remain for their respective lifetime, the lawsuit
asserts.
The Plaintiff further believes that his PII, and that of proposed
Class Members, was subsequently sold on the dark web following the
Data Breach, as that is the typical path for cybercriminals who
exfiltrate sensitive data. Moreover, following the Data Breach, the
Plaintiff experienced fraudulent misuse of his PII that would
support this well-founded belief.
Plaintiff Matarr Sowe is a natural person, resident, and citizen of
the State of Ohio.
Propark is a mobility services and parking management company that
operates throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Oren Faircloth, Esq.
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (646) 357-1732
E-mail: ofaircloth@sirillp.com
tbean@sirillp.com
- and -
M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
Andrew Snyder, 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
ghartounian@justice4you.com
asnyder@justice4you.com
RANGE RESOURCES: Fed. Court Certifies Landowners Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
On October 3, 2024 Marcellus Drilling News brings you news about a
lawsuit filed just over three years ago, in September 2021, by four
landowners in southwestern Pennsylvania who leased their land to
Range Resources for drilling.
Range did drill and, claims the landowners, deducted expenses from
royalty checks for both methane and NGL production that were not
allowed. The case is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of PA and continues to advance. On September 30, a
judge certified the case as a class action with the potential to
affect 204 landowners with leases containing specific language.
[GN]
RENT THE RUNWAY: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------
AO Shearman in an article with Mondaq reports that on September 25,
2024, Judge Orelia E. Merchant of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York granted in part and denied in
part a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against
an online clothing rental company (the "Company") and the Company's
underwriters and certain officers, directors and other related
individuals. Rajat Sharma v. Rent the Runway, Inc., et al.
(E.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2024). The Plaintiffs asserted claims on behalf
of a putative class of investors who allegedly purchased shares in
the Company's IPO, alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and Items 105 and 303 promulgated
thereunder.
According to plaintiffs, the Company's offering documents in
connection with its 2021 IPO were negligently prepared and
allegedly contained a total of 25 misrepresentations or omissions
of material information related to (1) the demand for the Company's
services, (2) the Company's shipping costs, and (3) customer and
employee theft. In an attempt to bolster these allegations, the
consolidated amended complaint incorporated statements from six
purported confidential witnesses ("CWs") who are allegedly former
employees of the Company. These CWs allegedly recalled that senior
personnel involved in preparing the offering statements understood
that the Company was not meeting its enrollment subscriber
projections at the time of the IPO; that the Company frequently
changed shipping carriers due to cost and reliability issues; and
that senior personnel involved in preparing the offering statements
understood that customer and employee thefts were a "huge issue"
for the Company. Defendants moved to dismiss, and the Court granted
the motion with respect to the statements concerning demand, but
denied the motion with respect to most of the allegations
concerning shipping costs and theft.
As an initial matter, the Court held that Rule 9(b)'s heightened
pleading standard did not apply. Defendants argued that the claims
under Sections 11 and 12 sounded in fraud because they were
littered with fraud "buzzwords." The Court found that the gravamen
of the complaint sounded in negligence, not fraud, because the
complaint expressly disclaimed "that any of the Defendants
committed intentional or reckless misconduct." Moreover, the Court
found that the complaint tracked the elements of Section 11, and "a
plaintiff cannot be held to allege fraud by simply tracking those
elements."
Next, the Court held that the offering statements did not
materially misstate consumer demand by referring to "increased
demand" and "strong momentum." The Court credited one of the
alleged CW statements regarding the Company leadership having an
understanding of customer attrition, but concluded that these
alleged statements did not demonstrate that leadership was aware of
an alleged downward trend in subscribers that was inconsistent with
the offering materials. For example, one CW allegedly stated that
"at some point 'leading up to the IPO' 100 subscribers a day were
canceling or 'churning,' their subscription." But, as plaintiffs
conceded, the revenue and subscriber numbers included in the
offering materials accurately demonstrated an upward trend. The
Court thus found that the alleged CW statement was insufficiently
precise as to timing. Similarly, the Court found that alleged CW
statements regarding alleged missed subscriber projections were not
inconsistent with the disclosed upward trends, and instead showed
that the Company was not getting as many subscriptions as it
wanted. The Court further found that the offering materials
adequately disclosed risk factors related to subscription demand
such that the Company was under no obligation to disclose specific
details, such as the missed internal projections. Finally, the
Court found that the Company's references to strong momentum were
akin to corporate puffery or optimism that could not have misled
any reasonable investor. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the
claims predicated on the alleged misstatements concerning demand
for the Company's services.
As for the allegations concerning shipping costs and theft,
however, the Court found that plaintiffs adequately stated a
claim.
With respect to shipping costs, plaintiffs alleged based on
purported CW statements that the Company leadership was aware that
its shipping company had doubled the Company's shipping rates
causing it to change to a lower-cost shipping company in the months
before the IPO, and that the Company made statements in an earnings
call the quarter after the IPO suggesting it had anticipated
increased shipping costs at the time of the IPO. The Court found
that allegedly failing to disclose this rate increase and the
switch of shipping companies was plausibly an omission of material
information in violation of Section 11 and denied the motion to
dismiss with respect to these allegations.
With respect to the issue of theft, plaintiffs alleged claims on
the basis of Section 12, Item 303, and Item 105, alleging that the
offering materials described theft as a hypothetical future risk,
despite this risk having already materialized. The Court rejected
defendants' argument that failure to disclose losses due to theft
could not be material where the losses amounted to less than 3% of
annual revenue. The Court explained that the Second Circuit has
"consistently rejected a formulaic approach to assessing
materiality," and found that because the Company's entire business
model depends on customers returning the clothing they rent,
customers' failure to return the clothing could plausibly be
material to a reasonable investor. Thus, the Court held that
plaintiffs adequately alleged a Section 12 violation. The Court
further found these alleged omissions actionable on the basis of
Item 303, because the CWs allegedly demonstrated that the Company
failed to disclose a trend that was "both [1] presently known to
management and [2] reasonably likely to have material effects on
the registrant's financial condition or results of operations." The
Court, however, held that plaintiffs did not adequately allege a
claim on the basis of Item 105, because the Company disclosed that
it "may incur significant losses from fraud" and "in the past
incurred" losses from failure to return rentals.
Having held that plaintiffs adequately alleged violations of
Section 11, the Court further held that plaintiffs sufficiently
alleged liability under Sections 12(a)(2) and 15. The Court found
that control person liability is available under Section 15 with
respect to the individual defendants, because they allegedly signed
the offering statements.
As for Section 12(a)(2), with respect to each of the individual
defendants, the Court explained that "because the Individual
Defendants' conduct involved more than just signing a registration
statement -- it also included affirmative conduct, including the
allegations that the Individual Defendants chose to participate in
delivering IPO roadshow presentations," those individuals could be
held liable as statutory sellers. As to the underwriters, the Court
held that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged a Section 12(a)(2) claim
because the underwriters allegedly participated in roadshows and
purportedly drafted and disseminated the offering materials. As to
the Company, the Court accepted plaintiffs' argument at the
pleading stage that, based on SEC Rule 159A, the Company's role as
issuer in the IPO was sufficient to qualify as a statutory seller
under Section 12(a)(2) -- however, courts are not settled on
whether companies qualify as statutory sellers under Section
12(a)(2) based on that SEC rule. [GN]
SANGAMO THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Suit in Delaware Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sangamo Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K for October 4,
2024, that on June 3, 2024, the law firms of Pomerantz LLP and
Fields Kupka & Shukurov LLP filed a stockholder class action
complaint against the company and the company's board of directors
in the Delaware Court of Chancery on behalf of one purported
stockholder of the company.
Among other matters, the complaint alleged that because the Proxy
Statement had specified that a majority-of-votes-cast voting
standard was required for the approval of the Common Stock Increase
Amendment, rather than a majority-of-outstanding-shares voting
standard, the Common Stock Increase Amendment and any issuances of
Common Stock pursuant thereto were and are not validly authorized,
despite the fact that both a majority of the votes cast at the 2024
Annual Meeting and a majority of the outstanding shares of Common
Stock as of the record date for the 2024 Annual Meeting voted in
favor of the Common Stock Increase Amendment.
Sangamo Therapeutics is a biotechnology company based in Richmond,
CA.
SEARCH SOLUTION GROUP: Wilkins Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Andrew Wilkins, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Search Solution Group, Inc., Case No.
24JE-CC00796 was removed from the Jefferson County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on Oct. 4,
2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-01325 to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Search Solution Group -- https://www.searchsolutiongroup.com/ --
has a strong reputation as the North American leader for
headhunting and executive search services in the IT field.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Zachary Stephen Merkle, Esq.
SANDBERG PHOENIX PC - St. Louis
701 Market Street, Suite 600
St. Louis, MO 63101
Phone: (314) 231-3332
Email: zmerkle@sandbergphoenix.com
SHISEIDO AMERICAS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Bishop Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
CEDRIC BISHOP, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. SHISEIDO AMERICAS CORPORATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-07487
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 2, 2024) contends that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://drunkelephant.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 Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
Sept. 25, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a Lala Retro (TM) Whipped
Cream 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 suit
says.
The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and
humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on
the Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue
to contribute to the Plaintiff's sense of isolation and
segregation. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
Mr. Bishop is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
Shiseido offers skincare, haircare & bodycare products.[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
SMARTSHEET INC: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Einstein Parent
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating:
-- Smartsheet Inc. (NYSE: SMAR ), relating to its proposed merger
with Einstein Parent, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement,
Smartsheet shareholders will be entitled to receive $56.50 in cash
per share they own. Click link for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/smartsheet-inc/.
-- TowneBank (Nasdaq: TOWN ), relating to its proposed merger
with Village Bank. Under the terms of the agreement, TowneBank
shares will automatically be converted into the right to receive
$80.25 in cash. Click link for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/townebank/.
-- Breeze Holdings Acquisition Corp. (OTC: BRZH ), relating to
its proposed merger with YD Biopharma Limited. Under the terms of
the agreement, all Breeze Holdings ordinary shares will be
converted into the right to receive one ordinary share of the
surviving company. Click link for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/breeze-holdings-acquisition-corp-2/.
NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
TARGET CORPORATION: Valdovinos Sues Over Misleading Labeling
------------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Valdovinos, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION, Case No. 2:24-cv-08572
(C.D. Cal., Oct. 4, 2024), is brought against the Defendant's Good
& Gather brand avocado oil which contained false and misleading
labeling.
The Defendant's Good & Gather brand avocado oil prominently states
that it contains "100% pure avocado oil," and has a picture of an
avocado. The ingredient list also lists only "avocado oil." But the
truth is, it is not 100% pure avocado oil. Instead, testing has
shown that the oil is adulterated and impure.
When the Plaintiff purchased the product, the product webpage and
package prominently stated "100% Pure Avocado Oil." She read and
relied on this statement, and believed she was purchasing pure
avocado oil. But a recent study shows that this is not true;
Defendant's avocado oil is adulterated and impure. The Plaintiff
was harmed, and brings this lawsuit on behalf of herself and a
class of consumers that purchased Defendant's avocado oil, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased a bottle of Good & Gather Refined Avocado
Oil from Target's website, www.target.com, while living in Sylmar,
California on August 14, 2024.
Target Corporation makes, markets and sells Good & Gather brand
avocado oil.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christin Cho, Esq.
Richard Lyon, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, California 90401
Phone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
Email: christin@dovel.com
rick@dovel.com
TENARIS BAY CITY: Painter Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Stephen Painter, and other similarly situated v.
TENARIS BAY CITY, INC., Case No. 11268-2024 was removed from the
Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County, to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 3,
2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01395.
The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts a cause of action under
Pennsylvania's Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA") based on Defendant
Tenaris's alleged failure to compensate him and other members of
the putative class for all time performing certain tasks prior to
and after their scheduled shifts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Email: asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
- and -
Timothy Conboy, Esq.
CONBOY LAW, LLC
733 Washington Road, Suite 201
Pittsburgh, PA 15228
Email: tim@conboylaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Marla N. Presley, Esq.
Katelyn M. O'Connor, Esq.
Francesca Iovino, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
1001 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1000
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 232-0404
Fax: (412) 232-3441
Email: Marla.Presley@jacksonlewis.com
Katie.O'Connor@jacksonlewis.com
Cella.Iovino@jacksonlewis.com
TOG HOTEL: Fails to Pay Front Desk Clerks' Minimum Wages, Cruz Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHELLY CRUZ, an individual Plaintiff in her representative capacity
of behalf of the State of California as fellow Aggrieved Employees
v. TOG HOTEL PROPERTIES, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV25541 (Cal. Super., Oct. 2,
2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to pay minimum and overtime
wages, in violation of California's employment and wage and hour
laws.
The suit says that the Defendants regularly required the Plaintiff
and other, similarly situated past and present employees to work
off-the-clock for no additional compensation. The Defendants
routinely failed and refused to provide the Plaintiff with meal and
rest periods during Plaintiff's work shifts, and failed and refused
to compensate the Plaintiff when the Plaintiff worked during meal
and rest periods, had meal and rest periods interrupted, or was
required to take late meal or rest periods as required by Labor
Code section 226.7 and the other applicable laws and regulations,
the suit alleges.
Accordingly, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and other,
similarly situated past and present employees meal and rest break
premiums for missed, interrupted and delayed breaks. Further, the
Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and other, similarly
situated past employees all accrued vacation time, at their final
rate of pay, at the time of their termination, added the suit.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from April 2023
through April 2024 as a Front Desk Clerk.
Tog Hotel Properties is a chain of hotels that operate in Arizona,
California and Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jay S. Rothman, Esq.
Christopher B. Conkle, Esq.
JAY S. ROTHMAN & ASSOCIATES
21900 Burbank Boulevard, Suite 210
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (818) 986-7870
Facsimile: (818) 990-3019
E-mail: cconkle@jayrothmanlaw.com
TOPCO ASSOCIATES: Bellomo Sues Over False and Misleading Omissions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Bellomo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TOPCO ASSOCIATES LLC, Case No. 617577/2024 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Oct. 4, 2024), is brought against the Defendant's false and
misleading representations and omissions with regard to their
frozen chocolate creme pie under the Crav'n Flavor brand
("Product").
The Defendant manufactures, labels, markets, packages, designs,
distributes, and/or sells, frozen chocolate creme pie, described as
"Made With Real Chocolate," having "No Artificial Colors, Flavors,
or Preservatives," and "No High Fructose Corn Syrup," above a
picture of a slice of the pie, consisting of several layers of
crème, under the Crav'n Flavor brand.
Despite the promise of "No Artificial Preservatives," the
ingredient list, in the fine print, on the back of the package,
reveals no fewer than three synthetic, or artificial ingredients,
including "Polysorbate 60...Sodium Citrate...and Xanthan Gum,"
which serve preservative functions.
As a result of the false and misleading representations and
omissions, including the packaging itself, the Product is sold at a
premium price, approximately $7.99 for 25.5 ounces (723 grams),
higher than similar products, represented in a non-misleading way,
and higher than it would be sold for absent the misleading
representations and omissions, when these factors are taken
together, and/or utilized for the purpose of conjoint analysis,
choice analysis, choice-based ranking, hedonic pricing, and/or
other similar methods, to evaluate a product's attributes and/or
features, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the Product between August 2021 and August
2024.
The Defendant is the largest American retail food GPO group
purchasing Organization.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Phone: (516) 268-7080
Fax (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
TOPO DESIGNS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Suarez Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALVIN SUAREZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Topo Designs, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-07465 (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 2, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website,
https://www.topodesigns.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Topo Designs provides to their non-disabled customers
through its website, the suit contends.
On Aug. 26, 2024, the Plaintiff was searching online for a set of
bags for his outdoor activities. He visited Defendant's website
because it offered numerous options that met his needs. He intended
to purchase several items, including Mountain Accessory Bag. but
was unable to do so independently due to the many access barriers
on the website, such as ambiguous interactive elements, inadequate
focus order, and inaccessible contact telephone numbers for
reaching customer support, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Topo Designs' 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. Suarez is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
Topo Designs offers bags, packs, briefcases, laptop bags, shirts,
T-shirts, pants, shorts, outerwear and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
UNITED PARCEL: Brinkman Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Landon Brinkman, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., a
foreign public utility corporation doing business as UPS; and DOES
1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 24-2-19878-4 SEA
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for
King County, to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington on Oct. 4, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-01600.
The Plaintiff asserts one claim against UPS under the Equal Pay and
Opportunities Act ("EPOA") for a purported violation of Wash. Rev.
Code. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that "he and more than 40
Class members applied for job openings with Defendant for positions
located in Washington where the postings did not disclose the wage
scale or salary range being offered." The Plaintiff alleges that
"some, if not all, of UPS's job postings" lack pay
information.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy W. Emery, Esq.
Patrick B. Reddy, Esq.
Paul Cipriani, Esq.
EMERY | REDDY, PLLC
600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: 206.442.9106
Fax: 206.441.9711
Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com
reddyp@emeryreddy.com
paul@emeryreddy.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Javier F. Garcia, Esq.
Emily A. Bushaw, Esq.
Kyle D. Nelson, Esq.
Shannon McDermott, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: +1.206.359.8000
Facsimile: +1.206.359.9000
Email: JGarcia@perkinscoie.com
EBushaw@perkinscoie.com
KyleNelson@perkinscoie.com
SMcDermott@perkinscoie.com
UNIVERSITY OF MAINE: Students to Receive Tuition Fee Refunds
------------------------------------------------------------
WGAN reports that more than 16,000 University of Maine students are
getting partial refunds of tuition and fees as part of a $2.15
million settlement of a lawsuit over online learning during the
pandemic.
The Portland Press Herald reports students enrolled in the
university system in the spring 2020 are eligible for various
payments, depending on the campus they attended and the amount of
tuition or fees they paid.
The class-action lawsuit claimed the school breached its contract
with students when classes they had paid for were moved online
because of the pandemic.
The university is not admitting to fault, saying the move to online
classes was necessary in order to comply with government orders.
[GN]
VISA INC: Faces Merchant Class Suit Amid DOJ Antitrust Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
PYMNTS reports that Visa is facing a class action lawsuit from
merchants connected to its debit network. The suit accused Visa of
anticompetitive behavior related to its debit card network, and was
filed in federal court, Oct. 1. It comes a little more than a week
after the company was hit by an antitrust suit by the U.S.
Department of Justice.
"Visa dominates the debit network market, and it has engaged in
unlawful conduct that has artificially raised the price of those
fees beyond what they would be in a more competitive market," read
the proposed class action suit, filed by advertising and marketing
company All Wrapped Up Signs and Graphix. "Visa has monopolized the
debit network on which debit card transactions run. It has entered
into agreements to punish businesses that seek to use alternative
networks or methods to process debit transactions."
The suit added that Visa has entered into contracts "to pay off
potential competitors" so that they do not develop products or
networks that would upset "Visa's debit network dominance."
PYMNTS has contacted Visa for comment but has not yet received a
reply.
The DOJ suit filed last week accuses Visa of hindering competition
in the debit card market and suppressing alternatives, alleging
that the company used exclusionary contracts and anticompetitive
practices to maintain its market share dominance, leading to higher
fees for merchants and consumers.
A statement from Visa General Counsel Julie Rottenberg provided to
PYMNTS called the lawsuit "meritless."
"Anyone who has bought something online, or checked out at a store,
knows there is an ever-expanding universe of companies offering new
ways to pay for goods and services," Rottenberg said. "Today's
lawsuit ignores the reality that Visa is just one of many
competitors in a debit space that is growing, with entrants who are
thriving."
Writing about the DOJ action earlier this week, PYMNTS CEO Karen
Webster argued that the DOJ's claims ignored "the well-documented
explosion of payments innovation" seen in the U.S. over the last
decade and a half.
"It's as if the world has been suddenly taken over by a bunch of
Rip Van Winkles who've been asleep for the last fifteen years —
and think we're still mainly paying with dollars and coins,"
Webster wrote. "Overlooking the fact that the Durbin Amendment,
passed in July of 2010, fixed debit interchange fees and required
debit card issuers to offer a choice of two unaffiliated processing
networks for merchants to route debit transactions." [GN]
WELLS FARGO: Bacon Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
-----------------------------------------------------
Tamra Bacon, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated vs. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. 3:24-cv-06974 (N.D.
Cal., Oct. 4, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure
to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members'
personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's
information network, including, without limitation, full names,
address, phone number, email address, dates of birth, driver's
license number, bank account number(s), credit/debit card number,
brokerage account number(s), and/or loan/line of credit number(s)
and Social Security numbers (these types of information, inter
alia, being thereafter referred to, collectively, as "personally
identifiable information" or "PII").
The Defendant acquired, collected, and stored the Plaintiff's and
Class Members' PII. Therefore, at all relevant times, Defendant
knew or should have known that the Plaintiff and Class Members
would use Defendant's services to store and/or share sensitive
data, including highly confidential PII. By obtaining, collecting,
using, and deriving a benefit from the Plaintiff's and Class
Members' PII, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those
individuals. These duties arise from state and federal statutes and
regulations, and common law principles.
The Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class
Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently
failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure that the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was safeguarded,
failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure
of data and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate
protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the encryption of
data, even for internal use. As a result, the Plaintiff's and Class
Members' PII was compromised and, as admitted to by Defendants, in
some cases used for fraudulent purposes. the Plaintiff and Class
Members have a continuing interest in ensuring that their
information is and remains safe and are entitled to injunctive and
other equitable relief, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a customer of Defendant since 2017.
The Defendant is a nationally chartered banking corporation doing
business with principal headquarters located in San Francisco,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Srourian, Esq.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
468 N. Camden Dr., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Phone: (213) 474-3800
Fax: (213) 471-4160
Email: daniel@slfla.com
WHALECO INC: Brown Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------
Jarell Brown and Ricardo Burton, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WHALECO INC. d/b/a TEMU, Case No.
1:24-cv-12537 (D. Mass., Oct. 3, 2024), is brought for legal and
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendant in transmitting unsolicited SMS text message
advertisements to their cellular telephones and the cellular
telephones of numerous other consumers across the country whose
numbers appear on the National Do Not Call Registry ("DNC List" or
"Do Not Call List"), in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA").
The Plaintiffs and each member of the Class received, within any
12-month period, more than one text message that promoted the sale
of Defendant's goods or services at a time more than 30 days after
Plaintiffs' and each Class member had registered their respective
phone numbers with the national Do-Not-Call Registry. Each such
text message constituted a telephone solicitation call within the
meaning of the TCPA and its implementing regulations. Neither
Plaintiffs nor any other Class member provided Defendant prior
express written consent to receive such text messages, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs received text messages from the Defendant.
Whaleco Inc. dba Temu is an online marketplace that connects
consumers with sellers, manufacturers, and brands globally.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William F. Sinnott, Esq.
HINCKLEY, ALLEN & SNYDER LLP
28 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: (617) 345-9000
Fax: (617) 345-9020
wsinnott@hinckleyallen.com
- and -
Arun G. Ravindran, Esq.
Elliot O. Jackson, Esq.
HEDIN LLP
1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 610
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 357-2107
Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
Email: aravindran@hedinllp.com
ejackson@hedinllp.com
- and -
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Phone: 248.841.2200
Email: epm@millerlawpc.com
XANDR INC: Allen Files Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Xandr, Inc. The case
is styled as Adrienne Allen, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Xandr, Inc., Case No. 5:24-cv-02111 (C.D.
Cal., Oct. 3, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor
Vehicle.
Xandr, Inc. -- https://www.xandr.com/ -- is the advertising and
analytics subsidiary of Microsoft, which operates an online
platform, Community, for buying and selling consumer-centric
digital advertising.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
280 South Beverly Drive, Penthouse
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (858) 209-6941
Email: jnelson@milberg.com
[*] Courts Scrutinize High Attorneys' Fees in Class Settlements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Preetha Suresh Rini of Robinson Bradshaw, writing for JDSupra,
reports that When a class action lawsuit ends, class counsel
typically seek a fee award. Under Rule 23(h), the district court
must make findings of facts and conclusions of law to support an
award of "reasonable attorney's fees and nontaxable costs" to the
class counsel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h). In calculating these fees,
courts generally use one of two different methods: (1) the
"lodestar" method; or (2) the "percentage of fund" method.
1. Lodestar Method. Under the "lodestar" method, the district
court identifies a lodestar figure by multiplying the number of
hours expended by class counsel by a reasonable hourly rate. The
court may then adjust the lodestar figure using a "multiplier"
derived from various factors, such as the benefit achieved for the
class and the complexity of the case. Because class counsel can
suggest a greater multiplier, they often choose this method to
achieve a higher award.
2. Percentage of Fund Method. Under the "percentage of fund"
method, the court awards the fee as a percentage of the common
fund. Typically, class counsel will seek between 20% and 45% of the
amount set aside for the class.
While Rule 23(h) seems to require application of only one method,
in recent years, circuit courts have rejected proposed attorneys'
fees calculations in cases where the award did not effectively meet
both the lodestar method and the percentage of fund method.
The percentage of fund method should be checked against the
lodestar method. Where the district court evaluates the award as a
percentage of fund to the class, circuit courts have held that a
lodestar crosscheck should be used as well.
For instance, the Eighth Circuit rejected an award to class counsel
based on a percentage of fund method in In re T-Mobile Customer
Data Sec. Breach Litig., 111 F.4th 849 (8th Cir. 2024). In this
data breach class action lawsuit, the defendant agreed to pay $350
million to a settlement fund, and class counsel asked the court for
22.5% of that recovery (or $78.75 million) in attorneys' fees. Id.
at 856. The Eighth Circuit held that because a crosscheck against
the lodestar method demonstrated that counsel's award was 9.6 times
its hourly rate -- which the court held to be unreasonable. Id. at
861. In so holding, the court observed, "If we permitted the fee
award here to stand, it would mean that counsel could make $7,000
to $9,500 an hour, which we think no reasonable class member would
willingly pay to an attorney to help resolve this claim . . . ."
The lodestar method should be checked against the percentage of
fund method. Where a court adopts the lodestar method, circuit
courts have vacated the award where it was not also evaluated as a
percentage of the amount actually paid to the class members.
In Lowery v. Rhapsody Int'l, Inc., 75 F.4th 985 (9th Cir. 2023),
the class was paid almost $53,000, even though the class fund had a
hypothetical settlement cap of $20 million. Using the lodestar
method, counsel requested a 2.87 multiplier of its hourly rate and
sought an award of $2.1 million. Although the district court
lowered the amount awarded to class counsel, it ultimately awarded
class counsel $1.7 million -- which was more than 30 times the
amount awarded to the class. The Ninth Circuit vacated the award.
In doing so, it encouraged the district court to cross-check its
lodestar calculation against the percentage of fund method, to
"assure that the counsel's fee does not dwarf class recovery." The
court stated, "It does not matter that class action attorneys may
have devoted hundreds or even thousands of hours to a case. The key
factor in assessing the reasonableness of attorneys' fees is the
benefit to the class members."
In Fessler v. Porcelana Corona De Mexico, S.A. DE C.V., 23 F.4th
408 (5th Cir. 2022), the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's
fee award to class counsel of $4.3 million because it was more than
eight times the $575,000 that would be paid to the class. The Fifth
Circuit held that the fee award should approximate what a client
would be expected to pay in a comparable case.
If both methods are applied, the court will scrutinize the
underlying calculations. Finally, even where the district court
apparently checked both methods, circuit courts have vacated awards
if the court used the wrong numbers in the calculation.
In In re Wawa, Inc. Data Sec. Litig., 85 F.4th 712 (3d Cir. 2023),
the Third Circuit vacated a $3.2 million fee award where the common
fund amount was $12.2 million, but the expected payout to the class
was only $2.9 million. The court instructed the district court to
consider, on remand, the ratio of class counsel fees to class
recovery in calculating a new fee award. The Third Circuit
specifically advised that trial judges would be well-advised to use
the actual distribution to class members as a "sensible starting
line to begin the fee award analysis." at 725.
Similarly, in Moses v. New York Times Co., 79 F.4th 235 (2d Cir.
2023), the Second Circuit vacated an award of $1.25 million to
class counsel where the amount provided to the class was $395,000
for 876,000 potential class members. The court observed that the
district court's determination that the fee award was 22.5% of the
face value of the settlement was not a "fair evaluation" of the
settlement because many class members were unlikely to redeem their
portion of the settlement. The district court purported to have
"cross-checked" the award against the lodestar method, but the
Second Circuit held that this check was not persuasive because, in
applying the percentage of fund method, the court used the nominal
value of coupon codes as opposed to their redemption value.
For defendants seeking to challenge a hefty class award, it seems
that there is ample room for scrutiny of an attorney's fee award
where the award may be unreasonable under either the lodestar or
percentage of fund methods. [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Upends $260MM Verdict Against J&J Talc Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Dunleavy, writing for fiercepharma.com, reports that three
months after a jury awarded $260 million to an Oregon woman who
claimed her use of Johnson's Baby Powder caused her to develop
mesothelioma, a state judge has overturned the verdict and granted
the company a new trial.
During a lengthy hearing, Judge Katharine von ter Stegge sided with
J&J on its appeal. She did not issue a written order but indicated
that one was in the works. J&J and the law firm representing the
claimant, Dallas-based Dean Omar Branham Shirley (DOBS), confirmed
the success of the appeal.
In a statement, J&J's litigation chief Erik Haas praised the
decision, calling the original verdict "indefensible" and the
"result of numerous egregious errors committed by the plaintiff's
lawyers."
"Only through such prejudicial conduct have these lawyers secured
their recent aberrant adverse jury verdicts, which have no basis in
the law or science. The research, clinical evidence, and over 40
years of studies by independent medical experts around the world
continue to support the safety of talc," Hass added.
J&J is battling claims against its talc products on two fronts. It
has offered a reported $7.6 billion to resolve approximately 62,000
lawsuits from ovarian cancer plaintiffs as part of a Texas two-step
bankruptcy effort.
As for claims made by mesothelioma victims, the company has
resolved roughly 95% but others remain active and problematic. An
example came last month when a jury awarded $63.3 million in
compensatory and punitive damages to a South Carolina man.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Presperse Files Ch. 11 to Resolve Tort Liabilities
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Presperse Corporation has sought bankruptcy protection with a
pre-negotiated Chapter 11 Plan that funds a trust with $50 million
to resolve its mass tort liabilities.
Judge Michael B. Kaplan in Trenton, New Jersey, held a hearing to
consider approval of the Disclosure Statement explaining the Plan
and to begin soliciting votes to accept the Plan.
The Debtor has negotiated the terms of the Plan together with
Presperse's parent, non-debtor Sumitomo Corporation of Americas and
the other plan proponents, that is, the pre-petition Talc
Claimants' Committee, and the prepetition Future Claimants'
Representative.
CFO Mehul Shah explained in court filings that the primary purpose
of the Chapter 11 case is to address and comprehensively resolve
alleged talc and asbestos-related liabilities asserted against
Presperse based on allegations that Presperse supplied talc
products allegedly containing asbestos and which products allegedly
caused harm to the talc plaintiffs. Although Presperse disputes
all talc-related and asbestos-related liability, the mushrooming
volume of talc litigation claims, associated ad hoc settlements,
and ever-growing litigation costs are not sustainable and has
caused significant financial distress to Presperse, a small company
with limited and finite assets.
Therefore, Presperse believes the Chapter 11 filing and the
creation of a trust under Sections 105 and 524(g) of the
Bankruptcy
Code for the benefit of holders of Talc Personal Injury Claims is
the most efficient and expeditious way for Presperse to reorganize
and continue as an ongoing business while providing for fair and
equitable treatment of holders of current and future Talc Personal
Injury Claims.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Talc Suit Law Firms Clash Over $6.5BB Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emily R. Siegel of Bloomberg Law reports that Johnson & Johnson
talc suit law firms clash over $6.5 billion settlement.
Three law firms leading the massive suit against Johnson & Johnson
over cancer-causing talc products are now fighting each other in
court.
Alabama's Beasley Allen sued Smith Law Firm and Porter Malouf,
alleging that the two firms owe it more than $1 million in
litigation expenses related to the J&J case. Beasley Allen also
says Smith Law and its founder Robert Allen Smith pushed clients to
vote in favor of a controversial settlement deal in the case
because of pressure to pay off a large debt -- perhaps as high as
$240 million -- to its outside litigation funder.
"The financial problems of Defendants Smith and Smith Law have now
grown to the point that they are actively undercutting Beasley
Allen in settlement negotiations with Johnson & Johnson in an
effort to get a settlement that would alleviate their financial
problems, but which would not in Beasley Allen's opinion be in the
best interest of the joint venture clients," Beasley Allen said in
the complaint, filed in a federal court in Alabama.
Porter Malouf did not immediately respond to comment requests.
J&J is trying for a third time to resolve talc litigation, offering
a $6.5 billion settlement covering ovarian cancer claims. The
company funneled that liability to a subsidiary, which filed for
bankruptcy.
The deal must be approved by 75% of the talc claimants in order to
be finalized. Beasley Allen opposes the third plan because it
"failed to provide fair, timely, and certain compensation to
clients of the joint venture."
*********
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 ***