/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241015.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, October 15, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 207
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Larson Sues Over Exposure to Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Lemke Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Long Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina
3M COMPANY: Perez Sues Over Exposure to Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Smalls Sues Over Exposure to Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Torsiello Sues Over Exposure to Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Wilder Sues Over Exposure to Chemicals & Foams
ADAPTHEALTH LLC: Seeks to Strike Myrick's Bid for Class Cert.
ADVANCE AUTO PARTS: Carr Suit Transferred to D. Montana
ADVANCE AUTO PARTS: Chaidez Suit Transferred to D. Montana
ADVANCE AUTO PARTS: Clark Suit Transferred to D. Montana
ADVANCE AUTO PARTS: Dragone Suit Transferred to D. Montana
ADVANCE AUTO PARTS: Levy Suit Transferred to D. Montana
AGHSBH MARKETING: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Vega Claims
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Englehardt Sues Over Unsolicited Text Message
ALEX'S GENTLEMEN’S: Vega Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
AMAZING THAI: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Vega Suit Says
AMAZON INC: Bids to Dismiss Prime Video Ad Tier Class Action Suit
AMAZON INC: Faces Suit Over Non-Compete Deal, Pay Transparency
AMMO INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Nov. 29
AMPLITUDE INC: Willey Files Suit in S.D. New York
APPLE INC: Whiteside Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
AT&T MOBILITY: Young Suit Transferred to D. Montana
AVIS RENT A CAR: Beauchane Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
BANK OF AMERICA: Baltimore Suit Seeks to File Exhibits Under Seal
BANK OF AMERICA: FDCI Seeks to File Exhibits Under Seal
BANK OF THE WEST: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert. Bid
BIO-LAB INC: Exposes Residents to Hazardous Chemical, Longmore Says
BIO-LAB INC: Faces Herd Suit Over Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals
BIO-LAB INC: Faces Smith Suit Over Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals
BIO-LAB INC: Watson and Carson Sue Over Health Hazards
BIOLAB INC: Dotson Sues Over Chemical Plant Fire and Explosion
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Skinner Sues Over Vehicles' Concealed Defect
BOEING COMPANY: Illinois Court Narrows Claims in Class Action
BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY: Named in "Price-Fixing Conspiracy" Class Suit
BUDKOIN LLC: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Robles Suit Alleges
CANADA: Hearing in Indigenous Children Discrimination Suit Starts
CAPTAIN GEORGE'S: Braxton Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Minimum Wages
CBIZ BENEFITS: Fasano Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
CBIZ BENEFITS: Zimmerman Sues Over Data Security Failures
CENTURY FIRE PROTECTION: Pierre Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Lemke Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
CHAR-BROIL LLC: Winokur and Winokur Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL: Chambers Sues Over Data Breach
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG: Clonch Sues Over Failure to Secure PHI & PII
COOPERGENOMICS INC: Weinberg Files False Ad Suit Over PGT-A Testing
CRICKET WIRELESS: Morgan Suit Transferred to D. Montana
CROSS RIVER: Wax Files Securities Class Suit in N.J.
DAVID R. MANDEL: Cleveland Bakers et al. Sue Over Price Conspiracy
DEXCOM INC: Carnes Sues Over False and Misleading Statements
DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Abraham Files TCPA Suit in D. Minnesota
DIVIDEND FINANCE: Torrado Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
DORAL SHOPS: Brito Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Commercial Property
DUANE MORRIS LLP: Garland Suit Transferred to S.D. California
ELI LILLY: Sistema Integrado Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY: Guillory Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
EVOLVE BANK & TRUST: Buchanan Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee
EVOLVE BANK & TRUST: Franz Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee
EVOLVE BANK & TRUST: Quiates Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee
EVOLVE BANK & TRUST: Stiritz Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee
EXCELSIOR COMMUNITIES: Agee Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
EXIT 31 EXOTIC: Robles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
FARMERS INSURANCE: Starling Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
FAST EASY OFFER: Coffey Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
FIFTH THIRD BANK: Kenny Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
FIFTH THIRD BANK: Yarnall Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
FIORELLO PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
FLUMGIO TECHNOLOGY: Conceals Vapes' PFAS Content, Donalya Alleges
GENERAL MOTORS: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Ortiz Suit Due Nov. 24
GMDSS LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Wheatley Says
GO STORE: Wright Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
GREENHAUS BOUTIQUE: Robles Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers
HAPPY HIPPO: Faces Class Action Over Kratom Harmful Side Effects
HAPPY HIPPO: Faces Suit Over Kratom Products' Addictive Effects
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Sumlin Sues Over Website's Access Barriers
HG PUTNAM: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Robles Suit Alleges
HYRECAR LLC: Anderson Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
ILEARNINGENGINES INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
ILEARNINGENGINES INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Suit
IRIS ENERGY: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities Violations
IRONNET INC: Settles Securities Fraud Class Action Suit for $6.6MM
JP MORGAN: Wins Dismissal of Securities Class Action Suit
LA RUTA: Torres Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
LEPOZZI INC: Faces Raheel Suit Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE: Faces Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit
MDL 2873: Valente Files Suit Over Toxic Chemical Exposure
MDL 2873: Wilson Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure
MDL 3060: Revlon Must Defend Against Hair Relaxer Litigation
MERCK & CO: Faces Class Action Over Overcharged Mumps Vaccine
MERRILL LYNCH: Asks Court to Dismiss ERISA Class Action Suit
META PLATFORMS: District Court Dismisses Putative Class Action
NEW VISION: Hernandez Seeks Proper Wages for Home Health Aides
NEW YORK CITY: Allen Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 2nd Cir.
NEXTERA ENERGY: Court Dismisses Putative Securities Class Action
PEOPLECONNECT INC: Appeals Denied Bid to Dismiss Boshears Suit
PEPSICO INC: Imposes Illegal Tobacco Surcharges, Noel Suit Claims
PIZZAS DEL SUR: Salazar Seeks Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers
REPRODUCTIVE GENETIC: Donamaria Sues Over PGT-A Testing's False Ads
REVENTICS LLC: Courts Grants Bid to Dismiss Data Breach Class Suit
RURAL MEDIA: Discloses Personal Info to Meta, Wissel Alleges
SAN JOSE RESTAURANT: Faces Vasquez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
SAVO GROUP: Robles Suit Seeks Website's Equal Access to Blind Users
SKYLAND GRAIN: Lopez Files Suit in D. Kansas
SUNLIGHT FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Class Action in D.N.J.
TD ASSET: Reaches $70.25MM Deal on Broker Commissions Class Suit
TEMU INC: Faces Another Class Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
TICKETMASTER LLC: Burns Suit Transferred to D. Montana
TIKTOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Risk on Minor Mental Health
TILES & DECOR: Calle Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
TOYOTA MOTORS: Settles Canadian Cablegate Class Suit for $40MM
U.S. CRIME: Worthington Sues Over Unpaid OT, False Tax Form Info
UBISOFT INC: Players Sue Over User Information Sharing With Meta
ULTA BEAUTY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Suit Says
UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Illegal Passport Processing Fees
WARNER MUSIC: Website Not Blind-Accessible, Williams Says
WEST GABLES: Pardo Sues Over Property's ADA Breaches
WOLVERINE WORLD: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Sumlin Claims
[*] New Rules Reshape Homebuying Process After Class Settlement
*********
3M COMPANY: Larson Sues Over Exposure to Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------
Larry Larson, 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-05507-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 Cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frederick T. Kuykendall, III, Esq.
THE KUYKENDALL GROUP, LLC
23710 US Hwy A-1
Fairhope, AL 36532
Phone: (205) 252-6127
Facsimile: (205) 449-1132
Email: ftk@thekuykendallgroup.com
3M COMPANY: Lemke Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Lemke, 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-04804-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 4, 2024), is brought for
damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. 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 bladder cancer
as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Constantine Venizelos, Esq.
CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP
737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440
Cleveland, OH 44115
Phone: 216-815-9000
Facsimile: 216-274-9365
3M COMPANY: Long Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Keith Long, Megan Long, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. 3M Company, EI Du Pont De Nemours and
Company, The Chemours Company, The Chemours Company FC LLC, Case
No. 2:24-cv-00040 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of South Carolina on Oct. 7, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-05576-RMG to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for
Personal Injury.
3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational
conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety,
healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alison L. Bangert, Esq.
Brian J. Madden, Esq.
WAGSTAFF AND CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Phone: (816) 701-1100
Email: abangert@wcllp.com
bmadden@wcllp.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Lauren R. Goldman, Esq.
GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP (NY)
200 Park Avenue, 47th Floor
New York, NY 10166
Phone: (212) 351-4000
Email: lgoldman@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Edward Ferguson, Esq.
GIBSON DUNN LLP - DC
1700 M Street NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (847) 687-9147
Email: eferguson@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Andrew D. Carpenter, Esq.
Brent Dwerlkotte, Esq.
Christopher M. Sorenson, Esq.
SHOOK HARDY AND BACON LLP (MO)
2555 Grand Boulevard
Kansas City, MO 64108
Phone: (816) 474-6550
Fax: (816) 421-5547
Email: acarpenter@shb.com
dbdwerlkotte@shb.com
csorenson@shb.com
3M COMPANY: Perez Sues Over Exposure to Chemicals & Foams
---------------------------------------------------------
Charles Perez, 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-05502-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
Ulcerative Colitis, 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: Smalls Sues Over Exposure to Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lorenzo Smalls, 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-05496-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 Cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frederick T. Kuykendall, III, Esq.
THE KUYKENDALL GROUP, LLC
23710 US Hwy A-1
Fairhope, AL 36532
Phone: (205) 252-6127
Facsimile: (205) 449-1132
Email: ftk@thekuykendallgroup.com
3M COMPANY: Torsiello Sues Over Exposure to Chemicals & Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Torsiello, 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-05494-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: Wilder Sues Over Exposure to Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Wilder, 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-05506-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
Ulcerative Colitis 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
ADAPTHEALTH LLC: Seeks to Strike Myrick's Bid for Class Cert.
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DILLON MYRICK, v.
ADAPTHEALTH LLC; HOME MEDICAL EXPRESS, INC., Case No.
6:22-cv-00484-JDK (E.D. Tex.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order striking Plaintiff Dillon Myrick's motion for class
certification and dismissing the class allegations from Plaintiff's
complaint.
Alternatively, if the Court considers Plaintiff's motion for class
certification, then Defendants request leave to respond
substantively to the Plaintiff's motion.
The Defendants contend that the Plaintiff’s motion will require
briefing by the parties and an evidentiary hearing. If
certification were to be granted, Plaintiff would have to seek
approval of the Court for a notice program, complete notice, and
allow a reasonable time for class members to opt out of the class.
These tasks cannot be accomplished before the current trial date,
which is set for January 2025.
And as the Court noted its order denying Plaintiff’s motion to
extend the September 16 deadline, the Court already has continued
trial by seven months and amended the scheduling order four times.
[DE 55 at 1-2]. This is not a case of Plaintiff having too little
time to move for class certification. The parties had fourteen
months to complete discovery, and Plaintiff fully engaged in
discovery on the merits of the action.
At any time in those fourteen months, the Plaintiff could have
conducted class discovery and moved for class certification.
Because Plaintiff failed to do so, the Court should strike
Plaintiff's motion and dismiss the class allegations.
AdaptHealth operates as a full-service home medical equipment
company.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 4, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w7iP38 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Joseph C. Wylie II, Esq.
Nicole C. Mueller, Esq.
Clayton L. Falls, Esq.
K&L GATES LLP
70 W. Madison St., Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 372-1121
Facsimile: (312) 827-8000
E-mail: joseph.wylie@klgates.com
nicole.mueller@klgates.com
clayton.falls@klgates.com
ADVANCE AUTO PARTS: Carr Suit Transferred to D. Montana
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Gary Carr, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc., Case No.
5:24-cv-00445 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Montana on Oct. 9, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00140-BMM to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Advance Auto Parts -- https://corp.advanceautoparts.com/ -- is a
source for quality auto parts, advice and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan Paul Thompson, Esq.
CHICAGO CONSUMER LAW CENTER, P.C.
650 Warrenville Road, Suite 100
Lisle, IL 60532
Phone: (312) 858-3239
The Defendants are represented by:
Kelly Margolis Dagger, Esq.
Thomas Hamilton Segars, Esq.
ELLIS & WINTERS, LLP
P.O. Box 33550
Raleigh, NC 27636
Phone: (919) 573-1292
Fax: (919) 865-7010
Email: kelly.dagger@elliswinters.com
tom.segars@elliswinters.com
- and -
Kailin Liu, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
111 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 4700
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 704-7700
ADVANCE AUTO PARTS: Chaidez Suit Transferred to D. Montana
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Emmanuel Chaidez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc., Case
No. 5:24-cv-00354 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of North Carolina, to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Montana on Oct. 9, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00132-BMM to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Breach
of Fiduciary Duty.
Advance Auto Parts -- https://corp.advanceautoparts.com/ -- is a
source for quality auto parts, advice and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Phone: (919) 600-5000
Fax: (919) 600-5035
Email: sharris@milberg.com
ADVANCE AUTO PARTS: Clark Suit Transferred to D. Montana
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jillian Clark, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc., Case No.
5:24-cv-00429 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Montana on Oct. 9, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00139-BMM to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor
Vehicle.
Advance Auto Parts -- https://corp.advanceautoparts.com/ -- is a
source for quality auto parts, advice and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Phone: (919) 600-5000
Fax: (919) 600-5035
Email: sharris@milberg.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kelly Margolis Dagger, Esq.
Thomas Hamilton Segars, Esq.
ELLIS & WINTERS, LLP
P.O. Box 33550
Raleigh, NC 27636
Phone: (919) 573-1292
Fax: (919) 865-7010
Email: kelly.dagger@elliswinters.com
tom.segars@elliswinters.com
ADVANCE AUTO PARTS: Dragone Suit Transferred to D. Montana
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Dylan Joseph Dragone, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Advance Auto Parts,
Inc., Case No. 5:24-cv-00357 was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Montana on Oct. 9, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00134-BMM to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Breach
of Fiduciary Duty.
Advance Auto Parts -- https://corp.advanceautoparts.com/ -- is a
source for quality auto parts, advice and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Phone: (919) 600-5000
Fax: (919) 600-5035
Email: sharris@milberg.com
ADVANCE AUTO PARTS: Levy Suit Transferred to D. Montana
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Adam Levy, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc., Case No.
5:24-cv-00404 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Montana on Oct. 9, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00137-BMM to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Fiduciary
Duty.
Advance Auto Parts -- https://corp.advanceautoparts.com/ -- is a
source for quality auto parts, advice and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Hallett Maginnis, Esq.
Karl Stephen Gwaltney, Esq.
MAGINNIS HOWARD
7706 Six Forks Rd., Ste 101
Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: (919) 526-0450
Fax: (919) 882-8763
Email: emaginnis@maginnislaw.com
kgwaltney@maginnishoward.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kelly Margolis Dagger, Esq.
Thomas Hamilton Segars, Esq.
ELLIS & WINTERS, LLP
P.O. Box 33550
Raleigh, NC 27636
Phone: (919) 573-1292
Fax: (919) 865-7010
Email: kelly.dagger@elliswinters.com
tom.segars@elliswinters.com
AGHSBH MARKETING: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Vega Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
NORBERTO VEGA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AGHSBH MARKETING & DISTRIBUTION, LP,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-09553 (D.N.J., September 27, 2024)
accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities
Act arising from its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website, www.arooga.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.
Plaintiff Vega alleges that the Defendant failed to build its
website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs.
As a result, Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly
interact with Defendant's website and was thus denied the benefit
of obtaining location and menu information in order to visit the
restaurant.
Headquartered in Harrisburg, PA, AGHSBH Marketing owns and operates
the Arooga's Grille House & Sports Bar. Its website, serves as the
restaurant's online platform. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Englehardt Sues Over Unsolicited Text Message
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Liran Englehardt, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC., Case No.
2:24-cv-08693-JAK-SSC (C.D. Cal., Oct. 9, 2024), is brought
pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") as a
result of the Defendant's unsolicited text messaging.
To promote its goods services, and/or properties, Defendant engages
in unsolicited text messaging to consumers that have registered
their telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry and
continues to text message consumers after they have opted out of
Defendant's solicitations. Defendant also engages in telemarketing
without the required policies and procedures, and training of its
personnel engaged in telemarketing
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into
the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to
Plaintiff and the Class members. Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person.
The Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
located in Boise, Idaho.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (754) 444-7539
Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com
jibrael@jibraellaw.com
ALEX'S GENTLEMEN’S: Vega Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
NORBERTO VEGA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALEX'S GENTLEMEN'S QUARTERS III, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-09557 (D.N.J., October 1, 2024) arises
from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website, www.fashionbygq.com, to be fully accessible to
and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.
Due to Defendant's failure to build the website in a manner that is
compatible with screen access programs, Plaintiff was unable to
understand and properly interact with the website, and was thus
denied the benefit of purchasing the shirt, he wished to acquire
from the website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims for
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Headquartered in Newark, NJ, Alex's Gentlemen's Quarters III, Inc.
owns and operates the website which sells men's clothing. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
AMAZING THAI: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Vega Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NORBERTO VEGA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZING THAI, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-09559 (D.N.J., October 1, 2024) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Due to Defendant's failure to build its website,
www.amazingthainj.com, in a manner that is compatible with screen
access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and
properly interact with the website and was thus denied the benefit
of obtaining location and menu information in order to visit the
restaurant.
Amazing Thai, Inc. owns and operates the website which serves as an
online platform of its Thai restaurant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
AMAZON INC: Bids to Dismiss Prime Video Ad Tier Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Winston Cho, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that
Amazon is pushing back against a lawsuit accusing it of misleading
Prime subscribers by charging them an additional fee to stream
movies and TV shows without ads.
In a bid to dismiss the proposed class action, the company argues
that it previously disclosed that the bundle of Prime benefits is
subject to change. It says that it "never guaranteed that any
particular" perk of the package would "remain available
indefinitely."
"Amazon never promised -- to Prime members or anyone else -- that
Prime Video would be always, or entirely, ad-free," the October 4
filing states.
Prime is alleged by the Federal Trade Commission to be a vital
component to Amazon's retail dominance because it keeps users
locked into the company's marketplace by offering them perks,
including access to Prime Video. The streaming service doesn't have
to be a lucrative arm of its business; it just needs to be a part
of a profitable ecosystem of services.
Last year, Amazon pivoted to making its ad tier the default for its
over 100 million subscribers, which instantly turned the service
into a streaming-ad juggernaut and the largest ad-supported
subscription streamer. Users must pay an additional $2.99 per month
to watch without ads.
The move sparked a lawsuit from users who had signed up for annual
subscriptions. They claimed breach of contract and violations of
state consumer protection laws over the alleged "bait and switch."
In a motion to dismiss the case, Amazon points to its terms, which
state that it "may choose in its sole discretion to add or remove
Prime membership benefits." It cites an order in another case from
a federal judge, who in July tossed a similar class action accusing
the ecommerce giant of misleading consumers about the benefits of
Prime by making them pay an allegedly hidden $9.95 delivery fee for
some purchases from Whole Foods. Those subscribers claimed to have
relied on advertisements for "free" and "rapid" delivery.
Even if it touted Prime Video as ad-free, the company is "free to
change or eliminate that feature, at its discretion, at any time,"
it says. "To hold otherwise would deprive Amazon of the benefit of
its bargain."
The lawsuit also pointed to language in the Amazon Prime Video
terms that "any increase in subscription fees will not apply" until
the plan is renewed. In response, the company says that the
provision only applies to subscribers of Prime Video as a
stand-alone service, which is separate from Prime.
The proposed class action seeks at least $5 million and a court
order barring the Amazon MGM Studios owner from engaging in further
deceptive conduct on behalf of users who subscribed to Prime prior
to Dec. 28, 2023. It brings claims for breach of contract, false
advertising and unfair competition, among other alleged violations
of consumer protection laws in California and Washington.
Amazon Prime has drawn scrutiny from lawmakers. Last year, the FTC
sued the tech giant for allegedly duping consumers into signing up
for its Prime service and then impeding them from canceling their
subscriptions. The suit argued Amazon employs a "manipulative" and
"coercive" interface to trick users into enrolling in automatically
renewing subscriptions. It also alleged that many subscribers
intended to sign up solely for Prime Video, which is a lower-cost
option.
Additionally, Amazon was sued in 2020 for unfair competition and
false advertising over the company reserving the right to end
consumers' access to content purchased through Prime Video. A
federal judge in 2022 dismissed the proposed class action, siding
with Amazon on arguments that its terms of use tell users that
movies and TV shows they purchased may become unavailable due to
provider licensing restrictions. [GN]
AMAZON INC: Faces Suit Over Non-Compete Deal, Pay Transparency
--------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Soper of GeekWire reports that two new class action lawsuits
take aim at Amazon's hiring practices, alleging that the tech giant
violated Washington state laws governing pay transparency and
non-compete agreements.
Plaintiffs represented by Seattle-based law firm Emery Reddy filed
the suits last week in King County Superior Court in Seattle.
"We comply with all applicable laws in the localities where we
operate," Amazon said in a statement to GeekWire. "We've just
received these complaints and are reviewing them."
One of the lawsuits claims that Amazon required plaintiffs to agree
to clauses restricting post-Amazon work opportunities, despite
earning less than the salary threshold required to enforce such
agreements, which went into effect in 2020.
The annual salary threshold for Washington state's non-compete law
started at $100,000 in 2020. It adjusts for inflation each year and
in 2024 rose to $120,599.99.
"Noncompetition covenants persist even after becoming illegal in
2020 — they've just gone underground," said Timothy Emery, an
attorney with Emery Reddy. "As alleged, employers like Amazon
cleverly disguise illegal non-competes as 'nonsolicitation'
clauses. Unfortunately for the lowest-paid workers, little has
changed since the law was passed in 2020."
Non-compete agreements are a lightning rod in the tech industry,
with proponents claiming they protect trade secrets and critics
arguing they stifle innovation.
The Federal Trade Commission earlier this year issued a rule to ban
non-compete agreements but a federal judge in Texas last month
blocked the ban from taking effect.
Salary transparency
The other complaint focuses on a Washington state law called the
Washington Equal Pay and Opportunities Act (EPOA), which went into
effect in January 2023. The law mandates that employers with 15 or
more employees include wage scale or salary range in job postings.
The complaint alleges that Amazon did not include wage scale or
salary ranges in postings for positions based in Washington state.
The plaintiffs argue that they lost valuable time applying for
positions without knowing the pay rate and were unable to
effectively negotiate pay and compare the compensation with other
opportunities.
The complaint includes a job posting from Amazon that lists a
salary range: "The base pay for this position ranges from
$66,800/year in our lowest geographic market up to $142,800/year in
our highest geographic market."
Reddy said the wide range "does little to inform workers what pay
to expect."
The complaint cites research indicating a persistent wage gap in
Washington, particularly affecting women.
"In short, this wage range does nothing to advance wage
transparency, and little to overcome wage inequity, which relies on
transparency," Reddy said. [GN]
AMMO INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Nov. 29
------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP reminds investors that a shareholder filed a class
action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired AMMO Incorporated (NASDAQ: POWW) securities
between August 19, 2020 and September 24, 2024. AMMO designs,
produces, and markets ammunition and ammunition component products
for public consumers, manufacturers, and law enforcement and
military agencies.
For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas,
Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003.
The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that AMMO
Incorporated (POWW) Failed to Disclose Inadequate Controls Over
Financial Reporting
According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
failed to disclose: (1) that the Company lacked adequate internal
controls over financial reporting; (2) that there was a substantial
likelihood the Company failed to accurately disclose all executive
officers, members of management, and potential related party
transactions in fiscal years 2020 through 2023; (3) that there was
a substantial likelihood the Company failed to properly
characterize certain fees paid for investor relations and legal
services as reductions of proceeds from capital raises rather than
period expenses in fiscal years 2021 and 2022; (4) there was a
substantial likelihood the Company failed to appropriately value
unrestricted stock awards to officers, directors, employees, and
others in fiscal years 2020 through 2022; and (5) that, as a result
of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against AMMO Incorporated. Shareholders who want to serve as lead
plaintiff for the class must submit their application to the court
by November 29, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be
eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can
remain an absent class member. For more information, click here.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.
To be notified if a class action against AMMO Incorporated settles
or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in
wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact:
Aaron Dumas, Jr., Esq.
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]
AMPLITUDE INC: Willey Files Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amplitude Inc. The
case is styled as Sean Willey, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Amplitude Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-07577
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 7, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Amplitude, Inc. -- https://amplitude.com/ -- is an American
publicly trading company that develops digital analytics
software.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Caroline Cella Donovan, Esq.
Max Stuart Roberts, Esq.
Victoria Zhou, Esq.
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Sixth Avenue, Floor 32
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 437-6409
Email: cdonovan@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
vzhou@bursor.com
ykopel@bursor.com
APPLE INC: Whiteside Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kyle T. Whiteside, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No.
3:24-cv-02699 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey on Oct. 8, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-09658-JXN-LDW to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust.
Apple Inc. -- https://www.apple.com/ -- is an American
multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Esq.
KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
1420 Kettner Boulevard, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (858) 834-2044
Fax: (858) 255-7772
Email: bgralewski@kmllp.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Cynthia Richman, Esq.
1700 M STREET, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-4504
Phone: (202) 955-8234
Email: crichman@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Daniel Glen Swanson, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 229-7430
Fax: (213) 229-6430
Email: dswanson@gibsondunn.com
AT&T MOBILITY: Young Suit Transferred to D. Montana
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Lori Young, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, AT&T Inc., Case
No. 1:24-cv-03185 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Montana on Oct. 8, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00129-BMM to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Fiduciary Duty.
AT&T Mobility, LLC -- https://www.att.com/ -- also known as AT&T
Wireless and marketed as simply AT&T, is an American
telecommunications company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent Michael Kaufman
POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC
One Glenlake Parkway NE, Suite 650
Atlanta, GA 30328
Phone: (843) 222-2222
Email: teamkaufman@poulinwilley.com
- and -
Paul Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN, WILLEY, ANASTOPOULO, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (843) 834-4712
Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Lisa Nicole Collins, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP-ATL
1170 Peachtree Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (404) 256-8231
Fax: (404) 459-5734
Email: lncollins@bakerlaw.com
AVIS RENT A CAR: Beauchane Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Beauchane, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM, LLC, d/b/a AVIS CAR
RENTAL, Case No. 2:24-cv-09683 (D.N.J., Oct. 9, 2024), is brought
as a result of the Defendant's failure to safeguard its customers'
highly sensitive personally identifying information ("PII").
Avis lost control of more than 299,000 of its customers' highly
sensitive PII to hackers in a cybersecurity breach on or about
August 3, 2024 ("Data Breach"). Despite requiring its customers to
provide sensitive PII, including, without limitation, personal
information such as names, mailing addresses, email addresses,
phone numbers, dates of birth, credit card numbers with expiration
dates and driver's license numbers, Avis entirely failed to
implement reasonable security measures to safeguard customer PII.
Avis knew, or should have known, that it is responsible for
safeguarding its customers' highly sensitive PII. However, on
information and belief, it failed to implement internal policies
that would reasonably protect customer data, leaving customers' PII
an unguarded target for theft and misuse.
Despite the lifelong harm that the Data Breach poses to its
customers, Avis offered only a credit monitoring service (for
twelve months), which does not adequately address the harm its
customers have and will continue to suffer. The Defendant's conduct
harmed its customers, not only in failing to protect their PII but
also in deliberately withholding the nature of the Data Breach,
meaning the victims were unaware of the precise contours of the
risk Avis exposed them to., says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an Avis customer whose PII was accessed and stolen
in the Data Breach.
Avis is a well-known New Jersey-based auto rental company that, as
explained supra, operates auto rental locations around the
world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry Bendesky, Esq.
SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, & BENDESKY, P.C.
8000 Sagemore Drive, Suite 8303
Marlton, NJ 08053
Phone: (856) 751-0868
Email: phoward@smbb.com
- and -
Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI andWALL, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 300
Nashville, Tennessee 37203
Phone: (615) 800-6225
Email: joey@hsglawgroup.com
- and -
Peter J. Jannace, Esq.
HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI andWALL, PLLC
515 Park Avenue
Louisville, Kentucky 40208
Phone: (502) 636-4333
Email: peter@hsglawgroup.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Baltimore Suit Seeks to File Exhibits Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mayor and City Council of
Baltimore, v. Bank of America Corporation et al. (re LIBOR-Based
Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation), Case No.
1:14-cv-01757-NRB (S.D.N.Y.), the OTC Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting request permission to file under seal:
(1) the memorandum of law, declaration, and exhibits submitted
in
support of OTC Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as
to
Defendants Credit Suisse AG, The Royal Bank of Scotland
Group
plc, Royal Bank of Scotland plc, and UBS AG; and
(2) the memorandum of law, declaration, and exhibits submitted
in
support of Plaintiffs' motion to exclude certain opinions of
Dr. Dennis Carlton.
These filings include materials that have been designated as
Confidential or Highly Confidential pursuant to the Amended
Stipulation and Protective Order dated May 12, 2016.
Consistent with Your Honor's Sept. 27, 2024, Order, by Oct. 18,
2024, OTC Plaintiffs will file a public set of all materials
submitted in connection with these motions.
OTC Plaintiffs are delivering courtesy copies of the sealed filings
to Chambers in accordance with Section 2.H.2 of Your Honor's
Individual Practices and are also serving the sealed filings on
liaison counsel for Defendants via email.
Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and
financial services holding company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 4, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jBtOPg at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William Christopher Carmody, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
One Manhattan West
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 336-8330
Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
E-mail: BCarmody@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
James R. Martin, Esq.
ZELLE LLP
45 BroadwaySuite 920
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (646) 876-4400
BANK OF AMERICA: FDCI Seeks to File Exhibits Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation et al., v. Bank of America Corporation et al. (re
LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation) Case No.
1:14-cv-01757-NRB (S.D.N.Y.), the OTC Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting request permission to file under seal:
(1) the memorandum of law, declaration, and exhibits submitted
in
support of OTC Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as
to
Defendants Credit Suisse AG, The Royal Bank of Scotland
Group
plc, Royal Bank of Scotland plc, and UBS AG; and
(2) the memorandum of law, declaration, and exhibits submitted
in
support of Plaintiffs' motion to exclude certain opinions of
Dr. Dennis Carlton.
These filings include materials that have been designated as
Confidential or Highly Confidential pursuant to the Amended
Stipulation and Protective Order dated May 12, 2016.
Consistent with Your Honor's Sept. 27, 2024, Order, by Oct. 18,
2024, OTC Plaintiffs will file a public set of all materials
submitted in connection with these motions.
OTC Plaintiffs are delivering courtesy copies of the sealed filings
to Chambers in accordance with Section 2.H.2 of Your Honor's
Individual Practices and are also serving the sealed filings on
liaison counsel for Defendants via email.
Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and
financial services holding company.
A copy of the the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 4, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gRazL8
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William Christopher Carmody, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
One Manhattan West
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 336-8330
Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
E-mail: BCarmody@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
James R. Martin, Esq.
ZELLE LLP
45 BroadwaySuite 920
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (646) 876-4400
BANK OF THE WEST: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert. Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCISCO MANZO, an
individual, in his representative capacity on behalf of the State
of California and fellow Aggrieved Employees, v. BANK OF THE WEST,
a California state- chartered bank; BMO HARRIS BANK, N.A., a
national banking association; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 3:23-cv-05848-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court
to enter an order extending the deadlines on the Plaintiff's motion
for class certification and continuing the hearing date on the
motion by approximately 120 days to the following schedule:
Event Current Date New Date
Last day for Plaintiff to file Nov. 20, 2024 March 20,
2025
motion for class certification
Last day for Defendant to file Dec. 18, 2024 April 17,
2025
opposition to motion for class
certification
Last day for Plaintiff to file Jan. 2, 2025 May 2,
2025
reply in support of motion for
class certification
Hearing on motion for class Feb. 25, 2025 June 24,
2025
certification at 2:00 p.m. at 2:00
p.m.
The brief extension requested herein would have no impact on any
other dates set forth in the Court's Case Management and Scheduling
Order.
On Oct. 12, 2023, the Plaintiff filed and served a first amended
complaint in the State Court Action that asserted claims for
statutory damages on behalf of a putative class.
On Nov. 13, 2023, the Defendant removed the State Court Action to
this Court.
On April 30, 2024, this Court denied Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.
Bank of the West was an American financial institution
headquartered in San Francisco, California.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qsLTLI at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
Vahan Mikayelyan, Esq.
HAFFNER LAW PC
15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1520
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (213) 514-5681
Facsimile: (213) 514-5682
E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
at@haffnerlawyers.com
vh@haffnerlawyers.com
The Defendants is represented by:
Andrew R. Livingston, Esq.
Rachel Capler, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
The Orrick Building
405 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2669
Telephone: (415) 773 5700
Facsimile: (415) 773 5759
E-mail: alivingston@orrick.com
rcapler@orrick.com
BIO-LAB INC: Exposes Residents to Hazardous Chemical, Longmore Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ABIGAIL LONGMORE, MATTHEW JACKSON, and LUCAS KUFFREY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
BIO-LAB, INC. and KIK CONSUMER PRODUCTS, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-04494-SEG (N.D. Ga., October 4, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence and negligence per se, strict
liability, public nuisance, private nuisance, trespass, medical
monitoring, and gross negligence/willful and wanton conduct.
The case arises from a fire that erupted at a chemical plant in
Conyers, Georgia on September 29, 2024, which caused a chemical
reaction that produced hazardous gas and a large plume of smoke and
chemicals. The uncontrolled chemical reaction, fire, and damage to
the facility caused hazardous chemicals, including chlorine-based
pool chemicals, to stream into the air and throughout the
surrounding community. As a result of the Defendants' negligent,
careless, reckless and/or intentional conduct in connection with
the fire incident, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated residents
have suffered damages including, but not limited to, past, present
and future pain and suffering, an increased risk of future health
complications from exposure to and inhalation of toxic chemicals,
and contamination of their properties by egregiously high and
plainly dangerous levels of toxic chemicals and their byproducts
dispersed by the Defendants into the air, soil and water, says the
suit.
Bio-Lab, Inc. is the swimming pool and spa water care division of
KIK Consumer Products, Inc. based in Lawrenceville, Georgia.
KIK Consumer Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of detergent and
personal care products based in Canada. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brent Kaufman, Esq.
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
Email: Brent.Kaufman@poulinwilley.com
Paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
Roy@poulinwilley.com
cmad@poulinwilley.com
BIO-LAB INC: Faces Herd Suit Over Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TRACEY LATRICE HERD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIO-LAB, INC. and KIK CONSUMER
PRODUCTS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04507-SEG (N.D. Ga.,
October 4, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, willful and wanton conduct, strict liability, private
nuisance, public nuisance, and trespass.
The case arises from a fire that erupted at BioLab's chemical
manufacturing facility in Conyers, Georgia on September 29, 2024,
which caused a chemical reaction that produced hazardous gas and a
large plume of smoke and chemicals. The uncontrolled chemical
reaction, fire, and damage to the facility caused hazardous
chemicals, including chlorine-based pool chemicals, to stream into
the air and throughout the surrounding community. As a result of
the Defendants' negligent, careless, reckless and/or intentional
conduct in connection with the fire incident, the Plaintiff and
similarly situated residents have suffered damages including, but
not limited to, exposure to and inhalation of toxic chemicals, and
contamination of their property by high and dangerous levels of
toxic chemicals and their byproducts dispersed by the Defendants
into the air, soil and water, says the suit.
Bio-Lab, Inc. is the swimming pool and spa water care division of
KIK Consumer Products, Inc. based in Lawrenceville, Georgia.
KIK Consumer Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of detergent and
personal care products based in Canada. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elliot S. Bienenfeld, Esq.
Rhon E. Jones, Esq.
Matthew R. Griffith, Esq.
Gavin F. King, Esq.
Wesley D. Merillat, Esq.
Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C.
P.O. Box 4160
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
Email: Elliot.Bienenfeld@BeasleyAllen.com
Rhon.Jones@BeasleyAllen.com
Matt.Griffith@BeasleyAllen.com
Gavin.King@BeasleyAllen.com
Wesley.Merillat@BeasleyAllen.com
BIO-LAB INC: Faces Smith Suit Over Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE SMITH, KISHA REID, SHEILA GLENN, ROCK CITY CYCLES, INC.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. BIO-LAB, INC., KIK CONSUMER PRODUCTS, INC., and KIK
CUSTOM PRODUCTS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04492-SEG (N.D.
Ga., October 3, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, nuisance, strict liability, trespass, and punitive
damages.
The case arises from a fire that erupted on the roof of the Conyers
Plant on September 29, 2024, which caused a chemical reaction that
produced hazardous gas and a large plume of smoke and chemicals.
The uncontrolled chemical reaction, fire, and damage to the Plant
caused hazardous chemicals, including chlorine-based pool
chemicals, to stream into the air and throughout the surrounding
community. As a result of the Defendants' negligent, careless,
reckless and/or intentional conduct in connection with the fire
incident, the Plaintiffs have suffered damages including, but not
limited to, an increased risk of disease from exposure to and
inhalation of toxic chemicals, contamination of property by
dangerous levels of toxic chemicals dispersed by the Defendants and
the loss of use and enjoyment of property and resulting
inconvenience, disruption and emotional distress, says the suit.
Rock City Cycles, Inc. is a motorcycle dealer with its principal
place of business in Rockdale County, Georgia.
Bio-Lab, Inc. is the swimming pool and spa water care division of
KIK Consumer Products, Inc. based in Lawrenceville, Georgia.
KIK Consumer Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of detergent and
personal care products based in Canada.
KIK Custom Products, Inc. is a home cleaning products manufacturer
based in Canada. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Hakeem B. Brock, Esq.
Michael L. Powell, Esq.
BERT BROCK LAW, LLC
229 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2410
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (678) 658-8102
Facsimile: (678) 658-8145
Email: bbrock@bertbrocklawgroup.com
mpowell@bertbrocklawgroup.com
- and -
Jayne Conroy, Esq.
Justin Presnal, Esq.
Gary DiMuzio, Esq.
SIMMONS HANLY CONROY, LLP
112 Madison Ave., 7th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 257-8482
Email: jconroy@simmonsfirm.com
jpresnal@simmonsfirm.com
gdimuzio@simmonsfirm.com
- and -
Jo Anna Pollock, Esq.
SIMMONS HANLY CONROY, LLP
One Court Street
Alton, IL 62002
Telephone: (618) 259-2222
Email: jpollock@simmonsfirm.com
BIO-LAB INC: Watson and Carson Sue Over Health Hazards
------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA WATSON and QUIANA CARSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BIO-LAB INC.; KIK CONSUMER
PRODUCTS, INC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04518-SEG (N.D. Ga.,
October 4, 2024) arises from the Defendants' reckless and negligent
practices that resulted to the September 29, 2024 fire.
At roughly 5:00 a.m. on the morning of September 29, 2024, another
chemical reaction caused an explosion at the Conyers BioLab
facility. As a result of the explosion at the said facility,
Plaintiffs and other residents of the surrounding area were exposed
to these toxic chemicals, and continue to be exposed to these
chemicals. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now bring this action on
behalf of themselves and the putative class to hold Defendants
accountable for their persistent recklessness, and callous
disregard for the health and safety of the Rockdale Community and
its environment.
BioLab is a large-scale commercial manufacturer of water treatment
products. It has a manufacturing facility in Conyers, GA. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
N. Kirkland Pope, Esq.
Caroline G. McGlamry, Esq.
POPE, McGLAMRY, KILPATRICK, MORRISON & NORWOOD, P.C.
3391 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone: (404) 523-7706
Facsimile: (404) 524-1648
E-mail: efile@pmkm.com
- and -
James Bilsborrow, Esq.
WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC
700 Broadway
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 558-5500
E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com
BIOLAB INC: Dotson Sues Over Chemical Plant Fire and Explosion
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tiara Dotson, Shonda Fa Vors, and Ware Hauling, LLC, 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-04561-SEG (N.D. Ga., Oct. 8, 2024), is brought against the
Defendants for damages resulting from a fire and explosion at their
Conyers, Georgia, chemical plant on September 29, 2024.
On September 29, 2024 a fire broke out at the Conyers Plant (the
"Bio Fire"). Biolab did not have an adequate fire protection system
to quickly and effectively extinguish fires at their facility while
also avoiding causing dangerous chemical reactions with
water-reactive chemicals.
Biolab's failure to possess and utilize an effective fire
protection system exacerbated the harm caused by the fire at the
Conyers Plant and delayed emergency response to the fire. Upon
information and belief, the fire ignited when a sprinkler head mal-
functioned causing water to mix with a water-reactive chemical,
triggering explosive chemical reactions. Among the chemicals
released in the Bio Fire were chlorine, chloramine and chlorine
compounds, carbon monoxide, hydrogenchlonide, and phosgene.
These chemicals are toxic and can cause or exacerbate numerous
health conditions including, but not limited to: irritation of the
eyes and airways, coughing, shortness of breath, difficulty
breathing, chest tightness, a scratchy throat, irritated sinuses,
headaches, stinging eyes, or a runny nose.
The harm to Plaintiffs and the class members was and is the kind of
harm that would be reasonably anticipated based on the normal risks
created by manufacturing, processing, and storing hazardous
chemicals in close proximity to residential, commercial, and
agricultural areas, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were subject to the shelter-in-place order.
Bio-Lab, Inc. is a Delaware company engaged in the business of
manufacturing and/or supplying swimming pool and spa water care
chemicals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael B. Terry, Esq.
Jason J. Carter, Esq.
Jane D. "Danny" Vincent, Esq.
BONDURANT MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP
1201 W. Peachtree St., Suite 3900
Atlanta, GA 30309
Email: terry@bmelaw.com
carter@bmelaw.com
vincent@bmelaw.com
- and -
J. Benjamin Finley, Esq.
N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq.
THE FINLEY FIRM, PC
3355 Lenox Road, N.E., Suite 750
Atlanta, GA 30326
Phone: 404-320-9979
Fax: 404-320-9978
Email: bfinley@thefinleyfirm.com
njackson@thefinleyfirm.com
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Skinner Sues Over Vehicles' Concealed Defect
------------------------------------------------------------------
QUINYAN SKINNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:24-cv-09602 (D.N.J., October 3, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty, unjust enrichment, and strict
liability.
The case arises from the Defendant's manufacture, marketing,
advertising, selling, warranting, and servicing of BMW vehicles
from the years 2012 through 2018 with improperly sealed electrical
connector on the water pump. Had the Plaintiff, Class members, and
the consuming public known that the Class vehicles would have a
defective electrical connector on the water pump that created a
fire hazard that could engulf the Class vehicles in flames at any
time, they would not have purchased the Class vehicles or paid less
for them. As a result of the foregoing, the Plaintiff and the Class
suffered and continued to suffer financial damage and injury.
BMW of North America, LLC is an automobile manufacturer, with its
principal place of business in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip J. Furia, Esq.
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Telephone: (845) 483-7100
Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
Email: furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com
sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
- and -
Paul J. Doolittle Esq.
Seth Little Esq.
POULIN | WILEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
seth.little@poulinwilley.com
cmad@poulinwilley.com
BOEING COMPANY: Illinois Court Narrows Claims in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
JDSupra reports that on September 30, 2024, Judge Franklin U.
Valderrama of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois granted in part a motion to dismiss a putative
class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 against an airplane manufacturing company and certain of its
executives. Seeks v. The Boeing Company, No. 19‑2394, 2024 WL
4367846 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2024). Plaintiffs alleged that the
company had made misrepresentations in public statements regarding
the safety of its airplanes and in connection with two accidents
involving company airplanes. After prior claims were dismissed
without prejudice, plaintiffs added detail in support of their
claims. The Court held that plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged
falsity as to certain statements but not others and that scienter
was adequately alleged.
The Court held that certain challenged statements regarding safety,
such as "safety is a core value for us," were inactionable as
immaterial puffery. The Court also agreed with defendants that
certain statements about the airplane's software, such as that the
airplane was designed to "behave the same way in the hands of the
pilot," were not actionable because they were "too vague" in
referencing the company's "intentions" in designing the plane.
Similarly, the Court held that certain statements -- such as the
company expressing "confidence" in its airplane -- amounted to
"vague optimism" and were therefore not actionable. Because the
Court determined that plaintiffs failed to allege any actual
misrepresentation by the company's CFO, the company dismissed him
from the case.
The Court held that certain "more specific" safety statements,
however, such as "[t]he airplane is safe" and "[w]e know how to fly
it safely," were potentially actionable, even if they reflected
opinion, because they were made in the context of assuring
investors that the airplane was safe after a first accident, and a
reasonable investor could have inferred that the statements were
the result of the company's internal investigation.
As to scienter, the Court held that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged
that the company and its CEO either knowingly or recklessly made
statements regarding existing operating procedures when they
allegedly knew that the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") had
instructed the company to make "significant changes" to the
airplane's software for "safety purposes." The Court further
concluded that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged scienter as to a
number of individuals who prepared and approved the company's
statements regarding existing company procedures even though they
allegedly had knowledge that the company's internal investigation
had found problems with the airplane.
As to loss causation, the Court held that plaintiffs had
sufficiently alleged corrective disclosures following the first
accident, including a news article that allegedly revealed in part
"several fundamental flaws in the [airplane's] safety analysis and
design that materially exacerbated safety concerns with the plane."
The Court also held that plaintiffs sufficiently connected specific
safety statements made after the second accident with a corrective
disclosure in the form of public statements revealing that certain
company employees had known of safety issues prior to the two
accidents. The Court held the second accident could also plausibly
constitute a corrective disclosure at the pleading stage based on
plaintiffs' allegations that the accident "corrected prior safety
statements and existing procedure statements," but it noted that it
was "somewhat skeptical" that plaintiffs could ultimately prove
that the second accident qualified as a corrective disclosure. [GN]
BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY: Named in "Price-Fixing Conspiracy" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Neal Riley, writing for CBS News, reports that eight private
colleges in Massachusetts are among 40 top universities named in a
class action lawsuit over financial aid practices. The plaintiffs
allege that the schools engaged in a "price-fixing conspiracy" that
made tuition more expensive for students with divorced or separated
parents.
The lawsuit claims that the nonprofit College Board has since 2006
pushed schools to consider the income and assets of noncustodial
parents from a student's CSS Profile when determining a financial
aid award. That's resulted in students from those family
situations paying about $6,200 more for college on average, the
lawsuit says, compared to schools that use the free application for
federal student aid, known as FAFSA.
Colleges named in class action financial aid lawsuit are:
Brandeis University, Harvard University, MIT, Northeastern
University, Tufts University, WPI, Boston College and Boston
University are the Massachusetts schools named in the lawsuit.
Other big-name institutions being sued include Stanford University,
Yale University, Brown University, New York University, Dartmouth
College and Georgetown University.
One of the plaintiffs, Maxwell Hansen, is currently a student at
Boston University after transferring from American University. The
lawsuit says he is receiving $20,000 in student aid from B.U. but
is paying "artificially high prices . . . because of Defendants'
anticompetitive practices."
"The financial burden of college cannot be overstated in today's
world, and we believe our antitrust attorneys have uncovered a
major influence on the rising cost of higher education," lawsuit
filer Steve Berman said in a statement. "Those affected - mostly
college applicants from divorced homes - could never have foreseen
that this alleged scheme was in place, and students are left
receiving less financial aid than they would in a fair market."
The College Board said in a statement to WBZ-TV that it just
received notice of the lawsuit and is reviewing it, "but we are
confident that we will prevail in this action."
WBZ-TV has also reached out to Boston University for comment.[GN]
BUDKOIN LLC: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Robles Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PRIMITIVO ROBLES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BUDKOIN LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-07508 (S.D.N.Y., October 3, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, the New York
State Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights, and
declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.budkoin.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: broken links, empty aria elements absent accessible
names, links without accessible names, empty buttons, redundant
alternative text, and skipped heading levels, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Budkoin LLC is a company that sells online goods and services,
doing business in New York. [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
Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
CANADA: Hearing in Indigenous Children Discrimination Suit Starts
------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo!Finance reports that on Monday, October 7, 2024, the Supreme
Court of British Columbia began hearing submissions on an
application on behalf of British Columbia's Indigenous child
welfare survivors against Canada and the Province of British
Columbia for systematically discriminating against Indigenous
children in British Columbia.
Canada and British Columbia strongly oppose the claim by the
Indigenous child welfare survivors and ask the Court to strike it.
The number of Indigenous children in state care in the past three
decades eclipses the number of children in Indian residential
schools at their peak in Canada. The action alleges that the
discrimination in the child welfare system has occurred for decades
for First Nation children who reside off-reserve in British
Columbia and for Métis and Inuit children in British Columbia. The
plaintiffs allege that the governments' discrimination was
systemic, causing the gross overrepresentation of Indigenous
children in British Columbia's child welfare system. These
Indigenous children were severed from their families and
communities, causing widespread harm.
Canada has recently entered into an historic settlement of a
national class action, but that settlement only applies to
on-reserve First Nations children. Despite the fact that children
removed off-reserve are no less Indigenous, no less overrepresented
in the child welfare system, and no less harmed, they were not
included in the settlement.
The vast majority of Indigenous children removed and placed into
government care in this province are off-reserve Indigenous
children - an already vulnerable group - many of whom descend from
residential school survivors and Sixties Scoop survivors. This
action relies on both governments' constitutional, legal and human
rights obligations to Indigenous children living off-reserve.
One of the survivors of this system and a plaintiff in the action,
Laura Dobson, states:
"Being taken away from my family, then completely stripped of my
culture has caused us a lot of confusion. I was emotionally,
spiritually, and physically abused from a very young age while in
care. I would always try to display good behaviour, hoping that
somebody would actually want to keep me. But I got slapped and
shoved around a lot. As a child, I had no stability. I had no
connection to my family or my culture. I felt lost."[GN]
CAPTAIN GEORGE'S: Braxton Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jalisha Braxton, Keith Sample, Hannah Morgan, Zach Portillo, and
Robert Hamrick, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. CAPTAIN GEORGE'S OF SOUTH CAROLINA, L.P.; CAPTAIN
GEORGE'S OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INC.; LIDESLAMBOUS, INC.; PITSILAMBOUS,
INC.; PITSILIDES MANAGEMENT, LLC; GEORGE PITSILIDES; SHARON
PITSILIDES; and THOMAS LONG, Case No. 4:24-cv-00119 (E.D. Va., Oct.
9, 2024), is brought against Defendants as a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), the Virginia
Minimum Wage Act ("VMWA") the Virginia Wage Payment Act ("VWPA"),
and the Virginia Overtime Wage Act ("VOWA"), to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, minimum wages, and other damages.
The FLSA and VMWA provide that, at a minimum, workers must receive
compensation at the higher of the federal minimum wage or the
Virginia minimum wage. At all times relevant to this matter, the
Virginia minimum wage has been between $10.00 and $12.00 per hour.
Moreover, the FLSA and VOWA provide that workers must receive
compensation at a rate of one and one-half times their regular
hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a work week. At
all relevant times, and acting through their manager, Thomas Long,
Defendants knowingly and willfully violated the FLSA, VMWA, VWPA
and VOWA by failing to pay Plaintiffs, and those similarly
situated, at the appropriate minimum wage and overtime rates for
all hours worked.
The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs' all wages owed in
violation of the FLSA, VMWA, VWPA and VOWA. Plaintiffs seek
monetary damages, liquidated damages, treble damages, costs, and
reasonable attorneys' fees because Defendants knowingly and
willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs their minimum wages and overtime
wages owed, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were servers at Defendants' Seafood Restaurant in
Williamsburg, Virginia.
The Defendants own and operate a seafood buffet restaurant located
in Williamsburg, Virginia, known as Captain George's Seafood
Restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James H. Shoemaker, Jr., Esq.
Adam M. Hawks, Esq.
PATTEN, WORNOM, HATTEN & DIAMONSTEIN, L.C.
12350 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 300
Newport News, VA 23602
Phone: (757) 223-4580
Facsimile: (757) 249-1627
Email: jshoemaker@pwhd.com
ahawks@pwhd.com
CBIZ BENEFITS: Fasano Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
--------------------------------------------------------
Tina Fasano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CBIZ BENEFITS & INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-01750 (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 8, 2024), is brought against
Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the
personally identifiable information that it collected and
maintained as part of its regular business practices, including
Plaintiff's and Class Members' names and dates of birth, and Class
Members' Social Security numbers (collectively defined herein as
"PII").
By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the
PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and
equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that
information from unauthorized access and intrusion.
The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class
Members PII––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly
sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted PII was
compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and
omissions and its utter failure to protect its clients' employees'
sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class
Members' PII because of its value in exploiting and stealing the
identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and
continuing risk of identity theft and fraud to victims of the Data
Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes.
In breaching its duties to properly safeguard its clients'
employees' PII and give employees timely, adequate notice of the
Data Breach's occurrence, Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence
and/or recklessness and violates federal and state statutes.
The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members
by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to
implement and maintain adequate and reasonable measures to ensure
that the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was safeguarded,
failing to take available steps to prevent an 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, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees of
Defendant's clients.
The Defendant is a corporation, with "more than 120 offices and
6,500 team members," that provides "financial and benefits and
insurance services to organizations of all sizes, as well as
individual clients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DE MARCO, LLC
119 E. Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Phone: (513) 651-3700
Fax: (513) 665-0219
Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 332-4200
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
CBIZ BENEFITS: Zimmerman Sues Over Data Security Failures
---------------------------------------------------------
CHANELLE ZIMMERMAN, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CBIZ BENEFITS & INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01727 (N.D. Ohio, October 4, 2024)
arises from failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or
timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members'
sensitive personally identifiable information that it had acquired
and stored for its business purposes.
The Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted
cyberattack in June 2024 to compromise Defendant's network that
contained PII of Plaintiff and other individuals. Defendant,
however, did not begin sending notices of the data breach until
August 28, 2024. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action
against Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract,
unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief, seeking redress for
Defendant's unlawful conduct.
Headquartered in Cleveland, OH, CBIZ Benefits & Insurance Services,
Inc. provides professional advisory services in accounting, taxes,
insurance, and human resources. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
Todd Naylor, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A.
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (513) 345-8291
Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
tnaylor@gs-legal.com
CENTURY FIRE PROTECTION: Pierre Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Century Fire
Protection - Advanced, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Adler
Pierre, and other similarly-situated individuals v. Century Fire
Protection - Advanced, Inc., Eric Rode, Case No. CACE24014464 (Fla.
Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Oct. 8, 2024).
Century Fire Protection -- https://www.centuryfp.com/ -- provides
full service fire protection services from design and fabrication
to installation and maintenance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason S. Remer, Esq.
REMER, GEORGES-PIERRE & HOOGERWOERD PLLC
2745 Ponce De Leon Blvd.
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Phone: (305) 416-5000
Email: jremer@rgph.law
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Lemke Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Sara Lemke, Revival Therapy, P.C., EA Health
Holdings, Inc., EA Health, LLC, Leading Edge Mental Health, Inc.,
Compassionate Concierge Physicians LLC, Clinicians of Color LLC,
Center for Child Development Incorporated, Supportive Hands,
Healing Minds, LLC, M.A.D. Billing, Inc., Carriageway L.P.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Change Healthcare, Inc., UnitedHealth Group Inc., UnitedHealthcare
Inc., Optum Inc., Healthfirst, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00302 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
on Oct. 7, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-03813-DWF-DJF to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Change Healthcare -- https://www.changehealthcare.com/ -- is a
provider of revenue and payment cycle management that connects
payers, providers, and patients within the U.S. healthcare
system.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brent C. Snyder, Esq.
SNYDER & BRANDT, P.A.
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2550
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 787-3102
Fax: (612) 333-9116
Email: brent.snyder@snyderattorneys.com
- and -
Brian D. Flick, Esq.
Marc E. Dann, Esq.
Dannlaw
15000 Madison Avenue
Lakewood, OH 44107
Phone: (513) 645-3488
Fax: (216) 373-0536
Email: bflick@dannlaw.com
mdann@dannlaw.com
- and -
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 440-0020
Fax: (312) 440-4180
Email: tom@attorneyzim.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Alicia Paller, Esq.
Allison M. Ryan, Esq.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
555 Thirteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: (202) 637-6404
Email: alicia.paller@hoganlovells.com
allison.holt@hoganlovells.com
- and -
E. Todd Presnell, Esq.
MILLER & MARTIN
150 4th Ave N Ste 1200
Nashville, TN 37219
Phone: (615) 244-9270
Email: tpresnell@millermartin.com
- and -
Kimberly Michelle Ingram-Hogan, Esq.
BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP (NASHVILLE, TN OFFICE)
1221 Broadway, Suite 2400
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 252-3592
Email: kingram@bradley.com
CHAR-BROIL LLC: Winokur and Winokur Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SUZANNE WINOKUR and GIL WINOKUR, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
CHAR-BROIL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05774, has been
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
October 4, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:24-cv-09550 to the proceeding.
The case arises from Defendant's defective digital electric
smokers, asserting claims for breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, unjust enrichment, breach of express warranties,
and for violations of several state consumer fraud acts.
Char-Broil, LLC. manufactures charcoal, gas, and electric outdoor
grills, smokers, fryers and related accessories. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Lori B. Leskin, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
Telephone: (212) 836-8000
E-mail: lori.leskin@apks.com
- and -
E. Dean Harris Porter
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
Telephone: (212) 836-8044
E-mail: dean.porter@arnoldporter.com
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL: Chambers Sues Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
LAMEEKEA CHAMBERS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL
AUTHORITY, d/b/a ATRIUM HEALTH, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00887-FDW-DCK (W.D.N.C., September 2, 2024) arises out of
the recent data security incident and data breach that was
perpetrated against Defendant, which held in its possession certain
private information of Plaintiff and its other current and former
patients and/or employees.
According to the complaint, the data breach occurred on April
29-30, 2024 and compromised the private information of 32,187
individuals. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this class action
lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address
Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private
information that they collected and maintained, and for failing to
provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class
Members that their information was subjected to unauthorized access
by an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of
information was accessed.
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority is a healthcare system
with headquarters located at Carolinas Medical Center, 1000 Blythe
Blvd., Charlotte, NC. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarah A. Knox, Esq.
HUNTER & EVERAGE, PLLC
Post Office Box 25555
Charlotte, NC 28229
Telephone: (704) 377-9157
Facsimile: (704) 377-9160
E-mail: sak@hunter-everage.com
- and -
Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
EKSM, LLP
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (888) 350-3931
Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG: Clonch Sues Over Failure to Secure PHI & PII
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tammy Stanley Clonch, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY (d/b/a
ATRIUM HEALTH), Case No. 3:24-cv-00898-FDW-SCR (W.D.N.C., Oct. 9,
2024), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to properly
secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected
personal information stored within Defendant's information networks
and servers, including, without limitation, "protected health
information" ("PHI"), and "personally identifiable information"
("PII"), as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") (collectively, PHI and PII are
also referred to therein as "Private Information").
In the course of providing its services, Defendant acquired and
collected Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information.
Defendant knew at all times material that it was collecting, and
was responsible for the security of sensitive data, including
Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly confidential Private
Information. This Private Information remains in the possession of
Defendant, despite the fact that it was accessed by unauthorized
third persons, is currently being maintained without appropriate
and necessary safeguards, independent review, and oversight, and
therefore remains vulnerable to additional hackers and theft.
The Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms
they caused and will continue to cause Plaintiff and other
similarly situated persons by virtue of a preventable phishing
based cyberattack on Defendant's network that occurred on April
29-30, 2024 (the "Data Breach"). As a consequence, the Private
Information that Defendant was entrusted with and responsible for,
was accessed. This Private Information is significantly valuable to
data thieves.
The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and
protocols necessary to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members'
Private Information. The Data Breach occurred because Defendant
maintained Class Members' Private Information in a reckless manner,
and on its computer network in a condition that was vulnerable to
cyber-attack, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff received healthcare from Atrium Health for many
years.
The Defendant is a hospital network operating approximately forty
hospitals, forty-two emergency departments, fifty-eight urgent care
centers, and hundreds of medical care facilities in North Carolina,
South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel R. Rhine, Esq.
Ruth Sheehan, Esq.
RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C.
North Carolina State Bar No. 16028
1612 Military Cutoff, Suite 300
Wilmington, NC 28403
Phone: (910) 772-9960
Facsimile: (910) 772-9062
Email: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com
ras@rhinelawfirm.com
- and -
Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
600 Broadway # 900
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 230-0800
Email: sbasser@barrack.com
sward@barrack.com
- and -
Jordan R. Laporta, Esq.
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
3300 Two Commerce Square
2001 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 963-0600
Email: jlaporta@barrack.com
COOPERGENOMICS INC: Weinberg Files False Ad Suit Over PGT-A Testing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ERIN WEINBERG, E.V., JAIME MAGNETICO-WALSH, ERIN VEDRODE, SARAH
URBANSKI, ALLISON URBANSKI, RYAN McELROY, and CHARITY BILLINGS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. COOPERGENOMICS, INC., COOPERSURGICAL, INC., and THE
COOPER COMPANIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-09505 (D.N.J.,
Sept. 27, 2024) is a class action seeking to recover economic
losses suffered by the Plaintiffs and Class members as a result of
the false, deceptive, unfair, and misleading advertising and
promotion of Defendants' preimplantation genetic testing for
aneuploidy ("PGT-A" or "PGT-A testing").
The Plaintiffs file this lawsuit to remedy Defendants' unfair and
deceptive business practices arising from Defendants' marketing and
sale of PGT-A testing as a proven, accurate, and reliable method to
decrease the chance of miscarriage and increase the chance of
giving birth to a healthy baby when science has proven otherwise.
The Defendants' misleading statements and omissions are false and
misleading to any reasonable consumer because PGT-A testing is
unproven, inaccurate, and unreliable, say the Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs and Class members would not have purchased PGT-A
testing from Defendants had they known the truth, and seek all
available damages, equitable relief, and other Defendants.
The Cooper Companies, Inc. is a global medical device company that
operates through two business segments, CooperVision and
CooperSurgical.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Russell D. Paul, Esq.
Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
Dena Young, Esq.
Abigail J. Gertner, Esq.
Zoe Seaman-Grant, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
E-mail: rpaul@bm.net
scarson@bm.net
dyoung@bm.net
agertner@bm.net
zseamangrant@bm.net
- and -
Allison S. Freeman, Esq.
CONSTABLE LAW, P.A.
139 6th Avenue S
Safety Harbor, FL 34695
Telephone: (727) 797-0100
E-mail: allison@constable-law.com
- and -
Paula S. Bliss, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW COLLABORATIVE
210 Washington St.
No. Easton, MA 02356
Telephone: (508) 230-2700
E-mail: paula@justicelc.com
CRICKET WIRELESS: Morgan Suit Transferred to D. Montana
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Alexis Morgan, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Cricket Wireless, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-03253 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Montana on Oct. 9, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00130-BMM to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Fiduciary Duty.
Cricket Wireless LLC -- https://www.cricketwireless.com/ -- is an
American prepaid wireless service provider, wholly-owned by
AT&T.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
Thomas William Sizemore, Esq.
POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (803) 222-2222
Fax: (843) 494-5536
Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
teamsizemore@poulinwilley.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Lisa Nicole Collins, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP-ATL
1170 Peachtree Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (404) 256-8231
Fax: (404) 459-5734
Email: lncollins@bakerlaw.com
CROSS RIVER: Wax Files Securities Class Suit in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------
MITCHELL WAX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CROSS RIVER BANK, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-09510 (D.N.J., Sept. 27, 2024) is a securities fraud class
action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Sunlight and/or Spartan
between January 25, 2021 and October 31, 2023, inclusive, for
Defendant's alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
According to the complaint, CRB violated the law by engaging in a
plan or scheme that, to the extreme detriment of Sunlight
investors, enabled Sunlight to originate and conceal from its
investors a large pool of loans to unscrupulous solar panel
installers of dubious credit quality, and a massive amount of
funded but unsold mispriced solar loans that CRB warehoused "off
balance sheet" -- that is, loans for which Sunlight retained full
economic exposure until those loans were sold, but which were not
reflected on Sunlight's balance sheet.
Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and other Sunlight investors, CRB allowed
Sunlight to amend the Program Agreement (and other lending
agreements) between the parties in a way which dramatically
increased Sunlight's exposure to the mispriced, off-balance sheet
loans as interest rates rose during 2021 and 2022. CRB repeatedly
facilitated that rapid increase, allowing Sunlight to exceed the
lending limits in its lending agreements with CRB in order to
charge substantial fees to borrowers as a lender, in addition to
the fee Sunlight was obligated to pay to CRB based on loan volume.
CRB's scheme to allow Sunlight to exceed its lending limits just as
interest rates were rising was inherently fraudulent and designed
solely to enrich CRB, says the suit.
On October 31, 2023, investors fully learned of CRB's fraudulent
scheme, as on that date, Sunlight announced it had filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy with a pre-packaged plan whereby CRB would
provide exit financing in return for 12.5% of the New Equity in the
reorganized company. Under the plan, the interests of Plaintiff and
the other common stockholders of Sunlight were extinguished. On
this news, shares of Sunlight fell $0.13 per share, or 34%, from a
closing price of $0.38 per share on October 30, 2023 to a close of
$0.25 per share on October 31, 2023, the suit contends.
Cross River Bank is an American financial services organization
that provides technology infrastructure to fintech and technology
companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul J. Scarlato, Esq.
ROSCA SCARLATO LLC
161 Washington Street, Suite 1025
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (216) 946-7070
E-mail: pscarlato@rscounsel.law
- and -
Alan L. Rosca, Esq.
ROSCA SCARLATO LLC
2000 Auburn Dr. Suite 200
Beachwood, OH 44122
Telephone: (216) 946-7070
E-mail: arosca@rscounsel.law
- and -
Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
Andrew D. Abramowitz, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
E-mail: mdellangelo@bm.net
aabramowitz@bm.net
DAVID R. MANDEL: Cleveland Bakers et al. Sue Over Price Conspiracy
------------------------------------------------------------------
THE CLEVELAND BAKERS AND TEAMSTERS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND and OHIO
CONFERENCE OF TEAMSTERS & INDUSTRY HEALTH & WELFARE FUND,
Plaintiffs v. DAVID R. MANDEL, M.D.; DAVID R. MANDEL, M.D., INC.;
UNITED BIOSOURCE CORPORATION, now known as UNITED BIOSOURCE LLC, a
wholly owned subsidiary of UNITED BIOSOURCE HOLDINGS, INC.; and
EVERNORTH HEALTH, INC., f/k/a EXPRESS SCRIPTS HOLDING COMPANY,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05303-KBH (E.D. Pa., October 2, 2024)
alleges that the Defendants are engaged in unconscionable, unfair,
and deceptive commercial practices in promoting and selling Acthar
to patients through doctors at inflated prices by the unfair and
deceptive scheme involving kickbacks.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and their
beneficiaries to challenge the unjust, unfair and deceptive
marketing and sales scheme and conspiracy by the manufacturer of
the prescription drug, H.P.Acthar Gel and a conglomerate of Express
Scripts entities who created, orchestrated, organized and executed
the common plan and design to remove Acthar from retail
distribution, where it had been for decades, and to raise Acthar's
price over 100,000%. The Plaintiffs assert claims for, among other
things, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, conspiracy,
and for violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Protection Act.
Dr. David R. Mandel, Inc. is a medical practice group with offices
located in Chardon and Mayfield Heights in Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Donald E. Haviland, Jr., Esq.
William H. Platt II, Esq.
HAVILAND HUGHES
124 South Maple Avenue, Ste 220
Ambler, PA 19002
Telephone: (215) 609-4661
- and -
Dion G. Rassias, Esq.
Jill Johnston, Esq.
THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC
1125 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 592-1000
- and -
George H. Faulkner, Esq.
Jonah Grabelsky, Esq.
FAULKNER, HOFFMAN & PHILLIPS, LLC
20445 Emerald Parkway Dr., Ste 210
Cleveland, OH 44135
Telephone: (216) 781-3600
DEXCOM INC: Carnes Sues Over False and Misleading Statements
------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Carnes, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. DEXCOM INC., KEVIN R. SAYER, and JEREME M. SYLVAIN,
Case No. 3:24-cv-01809-RBM-DDL (S.D. Cal., Oct. 9, 2024), is
brought on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired DexCom securities between January 8, 2024 to July 25,
2024, inclusive (the "Class Period") and sold DexCom put option
contracts during the Class Period, seeking to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
(the "Class") as a result of materially false and misleading
statements.
The Defendants provided investors with material information
concerning DexCom's expected revenue for the fiscal year 2024.
Defendants' statements included, among other things, confidence in
the DexCom's ability to capitalize on its growth potential to reach
the projected record number of new patients and simultaneously
outpace the prior fiscal year's gross margins, while scaling
customer conversion to the new G7 platform.
The Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to
investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false
and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts
concerning the true state of DexCom's salesforce; notably, that it
was not truly equipped to execute on the Company's perceived growth
potential. Such statements absent these material facts caused
Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase DexCom's securities at
artificially inflated prices, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased DexCom securities during the Class Period.
DexCom is an international company that develops, manufactures,
and
distributes continuous glucose monitoring systems for diabetes
management.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam M. Apton, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
445 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 985-7290
Email: aapton@zlk.com
DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Abraham Files TCPA Suit in D. Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diversified
Adjustment Services, Inc. The case is styled as Michael Abraham,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Diversified Adjustment Services, Inc., Case No.
0:24-cv-03851-JWB-SGE (D. Minn., Oct. 8, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Diversified Adjustment Service --
https://diversifiedadjustment.com/ -- provides debt collection
services to companies for their consumers using our helping hand
methods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony P. Chester, Esq.
CHESTER LAW PLLC
8400 Normandale Lake Blvd., Suite 920
Bloomington, MN 55437
Phone: (612) 488-2110
Email: tony@chester.law
DIVIDEND FINANCE: Torrado Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Emily Torrado, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Dividend Finance, Inc., Dividend
Solar Finance, LLC, Fifth Third Bank, National Association doing
business as: Dividend Finance, Case No. 3:24-cv-00410 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
on Oct. 7, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-03833-KMM-DLM to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Truth in Lending.
Dividend Finance -- https://www.dividendfinance.com/ -- is a
Technology-enabled finance platform supporting the energy
transition with lending and other financial solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Carl Ourand, Esq.
Amy Lynn Judkins, Esq.
C. Richard Newsome, Esq.
Robert Frank Melton, II, Esq.
NEWSOME MELTON
201 S Orange Ave., Suite 1500
Orlando, FL 32801
Phone: (904) 353-6241
Email: ourand@newsomelaw.com
ajudkins@newsomelaw.com
newsome@newsomelaw.com
melton@newsomelaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Brandon Todd Holmes, Esq.
DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
201 N Franklin St Ste 3050
Tampa, FL 33602-5816
Phone: (813) 543-9848
Fax: (813) 543-9849
Email: brandon.holmes@dinsmore.com
- and -
Alan H. Abes, Esq.
Ross A. Wilson, Esq.
DINSMORE & SHOHL, LLP
255 East Fifth Street, Suite 1900
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Phone: (513) 977-8149
Email: alan.abes@dinsmore.com
ross.wilson@dinsmore.com
DORAL SHOPS: Brito Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Commercial Property
------------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS BRITO, Plaintiff v. DORAL SHOPS LLC; CARNE ASADA LLC d/b/a
OLLIE SPORTS BAR & GRILL; and MICHI’S LLC d/b/a HONEST ROOTS,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-23798-XXXX (S.D. Fla., October 2,
2024) is a class action seeking for injunctive relief, attorneys'
fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA).
The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at the Defendants' commercial property and
businesses located within the commercial property. These barriers
include curb ramps with excessive slopes and inaccessible routes
between sections of the facility. Defendants' restroom has
non-compliant hardware for disabled patrons.
Doral Shops LLC owns and operates a commercial property at 10425 NW
41st Street, Doral, FL. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beverly Virues, Esq.`
Armando Mejias, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 553-3464
E-mail: bvirues@lawgmp.com
amejias@lawgmp.com
jacosta@lawgmp.com
aquezada@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
bMiami, FL, 33155
Telephone: (305) 350-3103
E-mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com
ramon@rjdiegolaw.com
DUANE MORRIS LLP: Garland Suit Transferred to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Meagan Garland, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Duane Morris, LLP, Tax Accounting
Group, Respondents, Case No. 4:24-cv-04639-HSG was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on
Oct. 7, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01783-BEN-DEB to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights for Employment
Discrimination.
Duane Morris LLP -- https://www.duanemorris.com/ -- is a law firm
headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Petitioner is represented by:
Bibianne Uychinco Fell, Esq.
FELL LAW, PC
10531 4S Commons Drive, Suite 166-610
San Diego, CA 92127
Phone: (858) 201-3960
Fax: (858) 201-3966
Email: Bibi@Fellfirm.com
- and -
Benjamin Simon Schenk
Marlee Ann Horwitz
FELL LAW
591 Camino De La Reina #1020
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (858) 201-3960
Fax: (858) 201-3966
Email: marlee@fellfirm.com
The Respondents are represented by:
Gregory William Knopp, Esq.
Jennifer Joy McDermott, Esq.
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 557-2900
Email: jmcdermott@proskauer.com
- and -
Elise M. Bloom, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS SCHNITZLER AND KRUPMAN
59 Maiden Lane
New York, NY 10038-4502
Phone: (212) 545-4000
ELI LILLY: Sistema Integrado Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Sistema Integrado de Salud del Oeste LLC,
East Coast Medical Services Inc., Costa Este Medical Services LLC,
Costa Este Medical Services Corp., Family Medicine Group Inc.,
Internal Medicine Canovanas Group, Inc., individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Eli Lilly and Company,
Eli Lilly Export S.A., NOVO NORDISK INC., Sanofi-Aventic U.S. LLC,
Sanofi-Aventis Puerto Rico, Inc., Express Scripts Inc., CAREMARKPCS
HEALTH LLC, Caremark Puerto Rico, L.L.C., Case No. 3:24-cv-01315
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Puerto Rico, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey on Oct. 7, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-09641-BRM-RLS to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.
Eli Lilly and Company -- https://www.lilly.com/ -- is an American
pharmaceutical company headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Heriberto Lopez-Guzman, Esq.
H. LOPEZ LAW
Building 11, Street 1, Suite 105a
Guaynabo, PR 00968
Phone: (787) 422-0243
Email: hlopez@hlopezlaw.com
- and -
Jason W. Burge, Esq.
201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 4600
New Orleans, LA 70170
Phone: (504) 586-5241
Email: jburge@fishmanhaygood.com
- and -
Harold D. Vicente-Colon, Esq.
VICENTE & CUEBAS
P. O. BOX 11609
San Juan, PR 00910-1609
Phone: (787) 751-8000
Fax: (787) 756-5250
Email: hdvc@vclawpr.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Eduardo A. Zayas-Marxuach, Esq.
MCCONNELL VALDES, LLC
P.O. Box 364225
San Juan, PR 00936-4225
Phone: (787) 250-5813
Fax: (787) 250-5185
Email: ezm@mcvpr.com
EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY: Guillory Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Episcopal Community
Services Of San Francisco, et al. The case is styled as Kimberly
Guillory, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Episcopal Community Services Of San Francisco, Does 1
through 20, inclusive, Case No. CGC24618831 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., Oct. 9, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Episcopal Community Services -- https://ecs-sf.org/ -- provides
housing, comprehensive support services, and job readiness training
to people experiencing homelessness in the Bay Area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM
9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: 949-379-6250
Fax: (949) 379-6251
Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com
EVOLVE BANK & TRUST: Buchanan Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Kendra Buchanan, Samantha Walker, Britney
Sipa, Tamaika Osby, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated v. Evolve Bank & Trust, Case No. 4:24-cv-00586 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee on Oct. 7, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02743-SHL-cgc to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
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:
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC
12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045
Dallas, TX 75230
Phone: (972) 387-4040
Fax: (972) 387-4041
- and -
Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, III, Esq.
Randall Keith Pulliam, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
One Allied Drive, Suite 1400
Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: (501) 312-8500
Fax: (501) 312-8505
Email: hbates@cbplaw.com
rpulliam@cbplaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Amisha R. Patel, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
2100 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20037
Phone: (202) 339-8457
Email: apatel@orrick.com
- and -
Aravind Swaminathan, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
401 Union Street, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 839-4300
Email: aswaminathan@orrick.com
- and -
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
EVOLVE BANK & TRUST: Franz Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Joanna Franz, Mark Hingle, individually and
on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Evolve Bank & Trust,
Case No. 4:24-cv-00566 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Tennessee on Oct. 7, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02742-SHL-cgc to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Evolve Bank & Trust is a best-in-class technology-focused financial
services organization and Banking-as-a-Service ("BaaS")
provider.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 North Franklin Street, 6th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 221-6583
Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
- and -
Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, III, Esq.
Randall Keith Pulliam, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
One Allied Drive, Suite 1400
Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: (501) 312-8500
Fax: (501) 312-8505
Email: hbates@cbplaw.com
rpulliam@cbplaw.com
- and -
Ronald Podolny, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN (TAMPA OFFICE)
201 N Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 223-5505
Fax: (813) 223-5402
Email: ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Amisha R. Patel, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
2100 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20037
Phone: (202) 339-8457
Email: apatel@orrick.com
- and -
Aravind Swaminathan, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
401 Union Street, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 839-4300
Email: aswaminathan@orrick.com
- and -
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
EVOLVE BANK & TRUST: Quiates Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Natasha Quiates, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Evolve Bank & Trust, Case No.
3:24-cv-00114 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee on Oct. 7, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-03127-SHL-cgc to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Declaratory
Judgement.
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:
Daniel Srourian, Esq.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 474-3800
Fax: (213) 471-4160
Email: daniel@slfla.com
- and -
Philip Daniel Holland
Robert Clay Ellis, II, Esq.
Scott E. Poynter, Esq.
POYNTER LAW GROUP
4924 Kavanaugh Boulevard
Little Rock, AR 72207
Phone: (501) 353-1606
Email: daniel@poynterlawgroup.com
clay@poynterlawgroup.com
scott@poynterlawgroup.com
- and -
Scout Sanders Snowden, Esq.
Arkansas Supreme Court
625 Marshall Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: (501) 682-6858
Email: scout.snowden@arcourts.gov
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
EVOLVE BANK & TRUST: Stiritz Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Gabriel Stiritz, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Evolve Bank & Trust, Case No.
4:24-cv-00550 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee on Oct. 7, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02741-SHL-cgc to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Declaratory
Judgement.
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:
Alexander G. Kykta, Esq.
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
Leigh Skye Montgomery, Esq.
ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES PLLC
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-2325
Email: alex@ellzeylaw.com
jarrett@ellzeylaw.com
leigh@ellzeylaw.com
- and -
Martha Tucker Ayres, Esq.
TABLE LAW PLLC
10201 West Markham, Suite 311
Little Rock, AR 72205
Phone: (501) 491-0300
Email: martha@tablelaw.com
EXCELSIOR COMMUNITIES: Agee Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE AGEE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EXCELSIOR COMMUNITIES, LLC and BREWERS HILL
REALTY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02830-BAH (D. Md.,
October 1, 2024) is a class action arising from Defendants' alleged
unlawful debt collection efforts and deceptive trade practices.
In January 2022, Defendant Brewers Hill Realty purchased the
apartment building at 1211 S. Eaton Street was constructed in 2020.
The building was covered by a rental license that was effective
from August 4, 2022 through October 30, 2023. Starting November 1,
2023 and to date, the property has not been licensed as a rental
dwelling. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
Brewers Hill Realty and Excelsior Communities, LLC were engaged in
deceptive trade practices to induce Plaintiff to enter a lease when
the property was not properly licensed and to pay rent attributable
to unlicensed periods in response to debt collection efforts.
Plaintiff Agee asserts claims for violations of the Maryland
Consumer Debt Collection Act and the Maryland Consumer Protection
Act.
Excelsior Communities, LLC is a property management company based
in Rochester, NY. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Shuster, Esq.
Justin A. Redd, Esq.
Emily R. Greene, Esq.
KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A.
750 E. Pratt Street, Suite 1100
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone: (410) 752-6030
Facsimile: (410) 539-1269
E-mail: dshuster@kg-law.com
jredd@kg-law.com
egreene@kg-law.com
EXIT 31 EXOTIC: Robles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
Primitivo Robles, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. EXIT 31 EXOTIC LLC d/b/a UTICA CANNABIS CO., Case No.
1:24-cv-07616 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 8, 2024), is brought against
Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate the Defendant's Website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website,
www.uticacannabisco.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.
EXIT 31 EXOTIC LLC d/b/a UTICA CANNABIS CO. is a New York
limited liability company that owns and maintains a physical
dispensary.[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
FARMERS INSURANCE: Starling Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Starling, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
INC., and FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Case No. 2:24-cv-08644 (C.D.
Cal., Oct. 8, 2024), is brought protect the Plaintiff's privacy
rights; namely, the right to be left alone from unwanted
telemarketing phone calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA").
The Plaintiff brings this suit in an effort to stop telemarketers
like Farmers from calling her and putative class members' phones
despite the fact that Plaintiff and the putative class members
registered their phone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry
("DNC List").
Despite not applying for or requesting insurance from Defendants,
the Plaintiff began receiving solicitation text messages from
Defendants. The Plaintiff did not provide any form of consent to
Defendants or anyone acting on their behalf to contact her, and was
also not in the market for, or interested in, Defendants' insurance
products. Yet, on June 3, 2023, at approximately 11:06 a.m.,
Plaintiff received a solicitation text message on her cell phone
from Defendants.
The Defendants and/or those acting on their behalf knew, or should
have known, that Starling's and the putative Class members' phone
numbers were registered on the DNC List. The Defendants and/or
those acting on their behalf willfully violated the TCPA when
placing the text messages and calls to Starling's and the putative
Class members' phones, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff registered her phone number on the DNC List.
Farmers Insurance Exchange and Fire Insurance Exchange, are
separate inter-insurance exchanges existing under the laws of
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James C. Shah, Esq.
Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
19712 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 222
Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: (866) 540-5505
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
Email: jcshah@millershah.com
kctang@millershah.com
- and -
Christopher E. Roberts, Esq.
BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC
7777 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 1300
Clayton, MO 63105
Phone: (314) 863-5700
Email: CRoberts@butschroberts.com
- and -
Max S. Morgan, Esq.
THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC
1515 Market Street #1100
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: (267) 587-6240
Email: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com
FAST EASY OFFER: Coffey Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fast Easy Offer LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Vicki Coffey, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Fast Easy Offer LLC, GFSG LLC
doing business as: Keller Williams Realty Phoenix, Keller Williams
Realty Incorporated, Case No. 2:24-cv-02725-DMF (D. Ariz., Oct. 9,
2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Fast Easy Offer -- https://www.fasteasyoffer.com/ -- is based in
Phoenix and focuses on helping homeowners sell their homes quickly,
easily, and for a fair cash price.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander Kruzyk, Esq.
Bryan A. Giribaldo, Esq.
PARDELL KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO PLLC
7500 Rialto Blvd., Ste. 1-250
Austin, TX 78735
Phone: (737) 310-3210
Email: akruzyk@pkglegal.com
bgiribaldo@pkglegal.com
FIFTH THIRD BANK: Kenny Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Heather Kenny, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated individuals v. Fifth Third Bank, N.A.,
Unidentified Entities A through Z, Case No. 3:24-cv-00402 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota on Oct. 8, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-03835-KMM-DLM to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Truth in Lending.
Fifth Third Bank -- https://www.53.com/ -- offers top rated bank
services with great benefits, internet banking & mobile app so you
can bank with ease.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Short, Esq.
Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
Thomas Dean Domonoske, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1-A
Newport News, VA 23601
Phone: (757) 930-3660
Fax: (757) 930-3662
Email: adam@clalegal.com
lenbennett@clalegal.com
tom@clalegal.com
- and -
Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
Casey Shannon Nash, Esq.
James Patrick McNichol, Esq.
Matthew G Rosendahl, Esq.
Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
KELLY GUZZO PLC
3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone: (703) 424-7570
Fax: (703) 591-9285
Email: aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
casey@kellyguzzo.com
pat@kellyguzzo.com
matt@kellyguzzo.com
kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Nicholas Loftus, Esq.
Craig Singer, Esq.
Steven Pyser, Esq.
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
680 Maine Avenue SW
District of Columbia, DC 20024
Phone: (202) 434-5685
Email: nloftus@wc.com
csinger@wc.com
spyser@wc.com
FIFTH THIRD BANK: Yarnall Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Neda Yarnall, Cheryl Hibbard, Mark Hibbard,
Madelene Funk, Christopher Funk, Tatiana Mykyta Polanin, Hector
Chaverra, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Fifth Third Bank, N.A., Unidentified Entities A through
Z, Case No. 2:24-cv-07244 was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota on Oct. 7, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-03834-KMM-DLM to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Fraud.
Fifth Third Bank -- https://www.53.com/ -- offers top rated bank
services with great benefits, internet banking & mobile app so you
can bank with ease.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Diane E. Sammons
Bruce Heller Nagel
NAGEL RICE, LLP
103 Eisenhower Parkway
Roseland, NJ 07068
Phone: (973) 618-0400
Fax: (973) 618-9194
Email: dsammons@nagelrice.com
bnagel@nagelrice.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Philip S. Rosen, Esq.
ZEICHNER, ELLMAN & KRAUSE, LLP
33 Wood Avenue South
Iselin, NJ 08830
Phone: (973) 618-9100
Email: (973) 618-9100
FIORELLO PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
Primitivo Robles, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. FIORELLO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. d/b/a RISE, Case No.
1:24-cv-07613 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 8, 2024), is brought against
Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate the Defendant's Website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website,
www.risecannabis.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.
FIORELLO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. d/b/a RISE is a New York corporation
that owns and maintains numerous cannabis dispensaries.[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
FLUMGIO TECHNOLOGY: Conceals Vapes' PFAS Content, Donalya Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL DONALYA and JORDAN SANDERS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FLUMGIO TECHNOLOGY
INC., SMOKING VAPOR PLUS CA, LLC, VAPE JUICE DEPOT, VAPE ELEMENT,
LLC, VAPORDNA, HAPPY DISTRO, and HUFFERS & PUFFERS, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-06991 (N.D. Cal., October 4, 2024) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of the
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act and California's Unfair
Competition Law, fraudulent concealment or omission, and breach of
implied warranty of merchantability.
The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Flum Float
disposable vapes. The Defendants market the product with imagery
that misleads consumers into thinking the product does not pose
unreasonable health hazards to vape users. In reality, the product
contains shockingly high concentrations of per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances, commonly known as PFAS. The Defendants fail to disclose
the presence of PFAS in the product on their websites or social
media accounts, in their online and offline advertisements, or on
the product's packaging. As a result of the Defendants' material
misrepresentations and omissions, the Plaintiffs and Class members
are harmed, says the suit.
Flumgio Technology Inc. is a company that markets and sells vaping
supplies, with its principal place of business in California.
Smoking Vapor Plus CA LLC is a company that markets and sells
vaping supplies based in La Mesa, California.
Vape Juice Depot is a company that markets and sells vaping
supplies based in Glendale, California.
Vape Element, LLC is a company that markets and sells vaping
supplies based in South El Monte, California.
VaporDNA is a company that markets and sells vaping supplies based
in Anaheim, California.
Happy Distro is a company that markets and sells vaping supplies
based in Tucson, Arizona.
Smoking Huffers & Puffers, LLC is a company that markets and sells
vaping supplies based in Garden Grove, California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Joshua R. Wilner, Esq.
Luke Sironski-White, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
jwilner@bursor.com
lsironski@bursor.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Ortiz Suit Due Nov. 24
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIO BRIONES ORTIZ,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, and DOES 1 to 10, Case No. 4:23-cv-04303-YGR
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered a case
management and pretrial order as follows:
Deadline for ADR: Oct. 24,
2025
Deadline to File Motion for Class Certification: Nov. 24,
2025
Expert Reports and Disclosures: Nov. 24,
2025
Deadline for Defendant's Opposition to Class March 24,
2026
certification motion:
Deadline for Plaintiff's Reply: June 23,
2026
Motion for Class Certification to be Heard by: Aug. 18,
2026,
at 2:00
p.m.
Joint Statement of Scope Of Litigation: Nov. 1,
2024
Joint Statement Identifying Private ADR Mediator: Nov. 1,
2024
Compliance Deadline : Nov. 8,
2024,
at 9:01
a.m.
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EuWxKh at no extra
charge.[CC]
GMDSS LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Wheatley Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
HANNIBAL WHEATLEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GMDSS LLC d/b/a The Travel Agency Downtown
Brooklyn; Terrapin Greens LLC d/b/a The Travel Agency Fifth Avenue;
and The Doe Store LLC d/b/a The Travel Agency Union Square,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-07323 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 27, 2024) is a
civil action against Defendants for their failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate the Defendants' website,
www.thetravelagency.co, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York
State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the
New York State Civil Rights Law.
Around September 15, 2024, the Plaintiff discovered the Defendant's
website following a recommendation from a close friend who was
aware of the Plaintiff's condition and the potential benefits of
marijuana and related products. The same day, the Plaintiff
accessed the website for the first time with the assistance of a
sighted relative. The Plaintiff was very impressed with the
thoroughness of the product descriptions, which detailed each
product's unique characteristics. However, at the time of the
Plaintiff's initial visit, he encountered access barriers on the
Defendant's website including but not limited to: "Redundant
Alternative Text," "Linked Images Missing Alternative Text," and
"Missing Form Labels," says the suit.
The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
the Defendants' corporate policies, practices, and procedures so
that Defendants' website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
GMDSS LLC, d/b/a The Travel Agency Downtown Brooklyn, owns the
website the serves as a cannabis store.[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
GO STORE: Wright Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELE WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GO STORE IT ROCK HILL, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. CACE-24-014274 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty.,
October 4, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of Florida's Consumer Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent an electronic mail
communication to the Plaintiff in connection with the collection of
a consumer debt at 1:01 AM in the Plaintiff's time zone without
consent. The Defendant's action violated the FCCPA as it prohibits
the collection of consumer debts between the hours of 9:00 PM and
8:00 AM in the debtor's time zone without the prior consent of the
debtor, says the suit.
Go Store It Rock Hill, LLC is a company that offers various storage
needs based in Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Faaris K. Uddin, Esq.
Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
faaris@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
gerald@jibraellaw.com
GREENHAUS BOUTIQUE: Robles Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIMITIVO ROBLES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GREENHAUS BOUTIQUE LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-07528 (S.D.N.Y., October 4, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, the New York
State Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights, and
declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.greenhausboutique.com, contains access barriers which hinder
the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: broken links, empty aria elements absent accessible
names, links without accessible names, empty buttons, redundant
alternative text, and skipped heading levels.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Greenhaus Boutique LLC is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [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
Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
HAPPY HIPPO: Faces Class Action Over Kratom Harmful Side Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that a reports that a
proposed class action lawsuit alleges Happy Hippo, LLC has
intentionally failed to disclose the dangers of its kratom
products, whose active ingredients, the suit says, are equivalent
to -- and just as addictive as -- opioids.
The 31-page Happy Hippo lawsuit relays that millions of
unsuspecting people have developed addictions to kratom, which
interacts with the same opioid receptors in the brain as morphine,
heroin, oxycodone, fentanyl and other opiates and has the same
risks of dependency, withdrawal and other harmful side effects. The
packaging for Happy Hippo kratom powder, capsule and liquid extract
products makes no mention of the fact that they interact with
opioid receptors, are highly addictive, should not be consumed on a
daily basis, and come with short- and long-term side effects and
withdrawal symptoms, the suit contends.
The case alleges Happy Hippo has relied on the ignorance of
consumers to reap a profit from kratom addiction "and does nothing
to correct it," intentionally misrepresenting its kratom products
through "vague packaging" in a manner that does not speak to their
status as a "hard opioid."
"Here, Defendant intentionally failed to disclose these material
facts regarding the dangers of kratom consumption anywhere on its
Products' labeling, packaging, website or marketing material," the
complaint summarizes. "As a result, Defendant has violated warranty
law and state consumer protection laws."
According to the suit, kratom products are sold stateside at herbal
stores, gas stations and smoke shops, and marketed primarily as
herbal supplements to "treat" a variety of ailments or obtain a
"legal" or "natural" high. Per the suit, the alkaloids in kratom
that produce a psychoactive effect are mitragynine (MG) and
7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH). Crucially, both alkaloids interact
with the mu-opioid receptor, which produces "the most addictive or
habit-forming effects, such as euphoria and analgesia," the case
says.
"For this reason, the mu-opioid receptor is known as 'the gateway
to addiction' because it is the receptor which all opioids interact
with to produce the classic opioid high feelings of euphoria,
sedation, and pain relief," the case reads, noting that kratom's
effects, in sufficient doses, are "substantially similar" to those
of opioids and other drugs.
The filing says that kratom has "exploded in popularity" in the
United States in recent years, growth attributed in no small part
to its marketing as a safe, natural substitute to painkillers, the
suit specifies. The result of the failure of kratom makers and
retailers to warn consumers of the products' addictive potential is
that many users "find themselves blindsided when they stop taking
kratom and find themselves facing withdrawal symptoms," the case
charges.
"Consumers who knew the truth about kratom may not have purchased
Defendant's Products or would have paid less than they did for
them," the filing suggests.
The Happy Hippo lawsuit looks to cover anyone nationwide who,
within the applicable statute of limitations period, bought Happy
Hippo kratom products. [GN]
HAPPY HIPPO: Faces Suit Over Kratom Products' Addictive Effects
---------------------------------------------------------------
L.S., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. HAPPY HIPPO, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company,
and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-08566 (C.D.
Cal., October 4, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the
California's Unfair Competition Law, and the California's False
Advertising Law, fraud by omission, breach of implied warranty, and
unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of kratom powder,
capsule, and liquid extract products. According to the complaint,
the Defendants intentionally failed to disclose material facts
regarding the dangers of kratom consumption anywhere on their
products' labeling, packaging, website, or marketing material. As a
result of the Defendants' misrepresentations and omissions,
millions of unsuspecting consumers, including the Plaintiff, have
developed kratom dependencies that have caused them serious
physical, psychological, and financial harm, says the suit.
Happy Hippo, LLC is a manufacturer of kratom powder, capsules, and
extracts, with its principal place of business in Jurupa Valley,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
Scott G. Braden, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1234 Camino del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (619) 762-1910
Facsimile: (858) 313-1850
Email: todd@lcllp.com
scott@lcllp.com
- and -
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
Luke Sironski-White, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ndeckant@bursor.com
lsironski@bursor.com
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Sumlin Sues Over Website's Access Barriers
----------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS SUMLIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES,
INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07565 (S.D.N.Y., October
6, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City
Human Rights Law, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York State Civil Rights, and declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.jbl.com,
contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class
members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and
services offered to the public through the website. The
accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to:
inaccurate landmark structure, ambiguous link texts, inaccessible
contact information, unclear labels for interactive elements,
inaccessible drop-down menus, redundant links where adjacent links
go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions
be performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Harman International Industries, Incorporated is a company that
sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher H. Cohen, Esq.
ASHER COHEN PLLC
2377 56th Dr.
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Telephone: (718) 914-9694
Email: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com
HG PUTNAM: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Robles Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
PRIMITIVO ROBLES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HG PUTNAM INC. d/b/a HUDSON VALLEY HEMP,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07548 (S.D.N.Y., October 4, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of
the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights
Law, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York State
Civil Rights, and declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.hudsonvalleyhemp.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: broken links, empty aria elements absent accessible
names, links without accessible names, empty buttons, redundant
alternative text, and skipped heading levels, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
HG Putnam Inc., doing business as Hudson Valley Hemp, is a company
that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York.
[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
Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
HYRECAR LLC: Anderson Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cory Anderson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HyreCar, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-09276 (N.D. Ill., October 1, 2024) seeks 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.
Allegedly, HyreCar did not inform Plaintiff in writing that HyreCar
was collecting or storing his biometric information. Instead, the
Plaintiff was simply instructed to have his facial geometry scanned
as part of the overall account opening processes. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff now alleges that the Defendant violated the Biometric
Information Privacy Act by failing to publicize a written policy
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 the Defendant.
HyreCar 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
Telephone: (847) 986-5889
Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
SIMON LAW CO.
11 1/2 N. Franklin Street
Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 816-8696
E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com
ILEARNINGENGINES INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against iLearningEngines, Inc. ("iLearningEngines" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: AILE). Such investors are advised to contact
Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.
The class action concerns whether iLearningEngines and certain of
its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or
other unlawful business practices.
You have until December 6, 2024, to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class if you are a shareholder who purchased
or otherwise acquired iLearningEngines securities during the Class
Period. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com.
On August 29, 2024, before the market opened, Hindenburg Research
published a report titled "iLearningEngines: An Artificial
Intelligence SPAC With Artificial Partners and Artificial Revenue."
In its report, Hindenburg Research alleged that nearly all of the
Company's revenue and expenses in 2022 and 2023 were run through an
undisclosed related party, which the Company refers to as their
"Technology Partner." Hindenburg Research further alleged that
iLearningEngines uses its undisclosed related party relationship to
report revenue and expenses that are "largely fake." Among other
things, Hindenburg Research alleged the Company used its
undisclosed related party relationship with this Technology Partner
to falsely report $138 million in revenue from the Indian market in
2022, when in reality, total revenue was approximately only
$853,741, or 99.4% lower than what iLearningEngines reported.
On this news, iLearningEngines' stock price fell $1.70 per share,
or 53.29%, to close at $1.49 per share on August 29, 2024.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members.
See www.pomlaw.com.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
Danielle Peyton
Pomerantz LLP
dpeyton@pomlaw.com
(646) 581-9980 ext. 7980 [GN]
ILEARNINGENGINES INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against
iLearningEngines, Inc. ("iLearningEngines" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: AILE). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
adverse information regarding the Company's business, operations,
and prospects, including allegations that: (1) iLearningEngines'
"Technology Partner" was an undisclosed related party; (2) the
Company used its undisclosed related party Technology Partner to
report "largely fake" revenue and expenses; and (3) as a result of
the foregoing, iLearningEngines significantly overstated its
revenue.
If you bought shares of iLearningEngines between April 22, 2024 and
August 28, 2024, and you suffered a significant loss on that
investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by
contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by
toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's
website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/ilearningengines/ to learn more.
The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the
case is December 6, 2024.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law
firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys
have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of
dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate
misconduct. More information about the firm is available through
its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this
promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney
responsible for its content.
CONTACT:
Corey Holzer, Esq.
(888) 508-6832 (toll-free)
cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN]
IRIS ENERGY: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Iris Energy Limited (NASDAQ: IREN) between June 20,
2023 and July 11, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Iris Energy investors
under the federal securities laws.
To join the Iris Energy class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=27776 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Defendants overstated Iris Energy's prospects with data
centers and high performance computing, in large part as a result
of material deficiencies in Iris Energy's Childress County, Texas
site; and (2) as a result, defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
6, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=27776 or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at case@rosenlegal.com.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
IRONNET INC: Settles Securities Fraud Class Action Suit for $6.6MM
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Novinson, writing for Gov Info Security, reports that
IronNet agreed to pay $6.6 million to resolve a class-action
lawsuit accusing the company and former executives of misleading
investors about the firm's financial health.
The proposed settlement covers roughly 15% of the $44.4 million in
estimated class-wide damages, with plaintiffs arguing it's an
excellent outcome given IronNet's Chapter 11 bankruptcy and the
complexities involved in proving their case. The plaintiffs said
IronNet, former CEO Keith Alexander and others made false and
misleading statements that inflated the company's stock price and
led to big financial losses (see: Why IronNet Ran Out of Cash,
Filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy).
"This case, which survived a motion to dismiss, was far from over,
and if it did not settle now would have continued to pose many
risks and would have continued to incur substantial costs that
could have jeopardized the class’s ability to recover anything in
this action," counsel for the plaintiffs wrote in a Sept. 23 motion
for preliminary approval of the class action settlement.
Why Both Plaintiffs and Defendants Opted for a Settlement
The settlement represents a major cost for the Washington D.C.-area
network detection and response firm, which emerged from bankruptcy
in February as a shell of the company that had once been valued at
$1.2 billion and led by a retired four-star Army general. Alexander
-- who is a named defendant in the class action suit -- stepped
down as IronNet's CEO in July 2023 and as chairman of the board in
February.
In addition to Alexander, the lawsuit also names co-CEO William
Welch and Chief Financial Officer James Gerber - both of whom left
in company in September 2022 - as defendants. The defendants are
accused of misleading investors about IronNet's financial health
and business projections, particularly regarding public sector
deals that didn't materialize. IronNet didn't immediately respond
to requests for comment.
In the settlement agreement, IronNet denies all allegations against
the company of fraud, liability, wrongdoing or damages, and said
the company is entering into the settlement to avoid and eliminate
the burden, expense, uncertainty and risk of further litigation, as
well as the associated business disruption. Alexander, Welch and
Gerber similarly continue to deny all allegations of wrongdoing or
liability.
"Defendants further have asserted and continue to assert that, at
all times, they acted in good faith and in a manner they reasonably
believed to be in accordance with applicable rules, regulations and
laws," counsel wrote. "Nonetheless, defendants have determined that
it is desirable and beneficial to them that the action be settled .
. . to avoid the further expense, uncertainties, inconvenience and
burden of this action."
Counsel for the plaintiffs said that proving intent and materiality
of IronNet's misrepresentations could be challenging and make it
difficult to achieve a favorable outcome if the case proceeded to
trial. And even if the plaintiffs were successful, counsel said
there would be significant costs, delays and potential challenges
in collecting damages from a company like IronNet that recently
emerged from bankruptcy.
"This case involves forward-looking projections where actual
knowledge is required to prove fraud," counsel for the plaintiffs
wrote. "Although plaintiffs are confident in this case, proving –
not merely pleading – actual knowledge in securities fraud cases
is always a challenging and difficult task."
How the Settlement Compares to Other Securities Fraud Cases
Proving that defendants acted with intent to mislead is often
difficult in securities fraud cases since the company can argue its
statements were forward-looking or based on assumptions. In
addition, IronNet's Chapter 11 bankruptcy could have limited the
company's liability or made collecting any judgment more difficult
had the case gone to trial.
The size of the settlement is three times the median recovery for
similar securities fraud cases, particularly given IronNet's recent
bankruptcy, plaintiffs said.
"The settlement is over three times larger than the median 4.2%
recovery for similarly situated 2023 securities class actions that
settled after a ruling on a motion to dismiss but before the filing
of class certification," counsel for the plaintiffs wrote. The
settlement class includes everyone who acquired IronNet's stock
between Sept. 14 and Dec. 15, 2021, excluding the company's
officers and directors.
The settlement provides equitable treatment to everyone in the
protected class, plaintiffs said, ensuring that all members receive
a pro-rate distribution of the settlement funds based on recognized
claims that have been reviewed by experts. The settlement emerged
from extensive arm's-length negotiations involving a mediator, with
both sides filing statements and engaging in multiple mediation
sessions.
IronNet has been led since July 2023 by former Houghton Mifflin
Harcourt CEO Linda Zecher, with ex-Fidelis Cybersecurity President
Cameron Pforr serving as president and chief financial officer
since September 2022. Former Fidelis CEO Eric Moseman joined
IronNet as chief revenue officer in January 2024. IronNet employs
roughly 80 people, down from a staff of 250 as recently as
September 2022. [GN]
JP MORGAN: Wins Dismissal of Securities Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Skadden helped secure the dismissal of a putative securities fraud
class action on behalf of an underwriter syndicate including JP
Morgan Securities, Canaccord Genuity, Citigroup Global Markets
Inc., Galaxy Digital Partners, Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc.,
Compass Point Research & Trading, and Cantor Fitzgerald & Co.
The plaintiffs raised claims against the underwriter defendants
alleging the offering materials misrepresented and/or failed to
disclose certain material facts about Iris Energy's debt financing
obligations and goodwill. Judge Jamel K. Semper of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the
complaint without prejudice. The court found that the plaintiffs
failed to sufficiently plead why alleged omissions made statements
about counterparty risk and cash flow misleading, and that they
failed to allege that Iris' statements regarding its goodwill were
insincere or untrue at the time they were made. Scott Musoff led
the Skadden team. [GN]
LA RUTA: Torres Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
HERMINIA TORRES, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LA RUTA 75 LLC, and RICARDO MELO MARTINEZ,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-23733 (S.D. Fla., Sept.
27, 2024) is a collective action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of
herself and other similarly situated current and former employees
of Defendants to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff and those similarly situated are non-exempt employees
who have worked for Defendants but have not been paid overtime
wages for all hours worked in excess 40 hours per workweek, in
violation of the FLSA.
Plaintiff Torres was employed by the Defendnts as a non-exempt,
full-time, hourly restaurant employee from approximately June 4,
2021 to August 13, 2024, or 166 weeks, as a cook, prep cook,
server, and cleaning employee.
La Ruta 75 LLC is a Florida Limited Liability Company that operates
Colombian food restaurant, La Ruta 75 restaurant, in Hialeah,
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
LEPOZZI INC: Faces Raheel Suit Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AISHA RAHEEL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LEPOZZI, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-07034 (E.D.N.Y., October 6, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, the New York
State Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights, and
declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.laurenbjewelry.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, ambiguous link texts,
inaccessible contact information, unclear labels for interactive
elements, inaccessible drop-down menus, redundant links where
adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that
transactions be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Lepozzi, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services,
doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher H. Cohen, Esq.
ASHER COHEN PLLC
2377 56th Dr.
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Telephone: (718) 914-9694
Email: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE: Faces Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit filed yesterday, October 7, accuses 40 of
the nation's top private colleges and universities -- including
MIT, NYU and Brown -- and College Board of a conspiracy to increase
the price of college, allegedly violating federal antitrust law and
exacerbating skyrocketing student loan debt, according to law firm
Hagens Berman.
The class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois alleges the higher ed institutions engaged in
a concerted action to require noncustodial parents -- typically the
parent that the student did not live with most of the time during
the past year -- of applicants seeking non-federal financial aid to
provide financial information. College Board then requires schools
to take this sum into consideration for financial aid allotments,
regardless of the parent's actual involvement or financial
assistance. Absent this agreement, the lawsuit states, schools
would compete in offering financial aid to enroll top candidates.
The lawsuit says this alleged price-fixing agreement increased the
cost of tuition by approximately $6,200 when compared to top
schools not participating in College Board's agreement.
"The financial burden of college cannot be overstated in today's
world, and we believe our antitrust attorneys have uncovered a
major influence on the rising cost of higher education," said Steve
Berman, managing partner and cofounder of Hagens Berman. "Those
affected -- mostly college applicants from divorced homes -- could
never have foreseen that this alleged scheme was in place, and
students are left receiving less financial aid than they would in a
fair market."
If you are a student or a custodial parent of a college student who
received nonfederal financial aid since 2006 at one of the
following colleges or universities, find out more about the College
Board class-action lawsuit: California Institute of Technology,
Stanford University, University of Southern California, Yale
University, University of Miami, Emory University, Northwestern
University, University of Notre Dame, Tulane University, Johns
Hopkins University, Brandeis University, Harvard University,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Northeastern University,
Tufts University, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Boston College,
Boston University, Washington University in St. Louis, Dartmouth
College, Columbia University, Cornell University, Fordham
University, New York University, Syracuse University, University of
Rochester, Duke University, Wake Forest University, Case Western
Reserve University, Lehigh University, Carnegie Mellon University,
University of Pennsylvania, Villanova University, Brown University,
Baylor University, Rice University, Southern Methodist University,
American University, George Washington University and Georgetown
University.
The Impacts of College Board's 2006 Changes
The lawsuit accuses College Board of an "intentional push" to
require schools to consider the income and assets of noncustodial
parents when making financial aid determinations. These rules
require all applicants seeking financial aid to submit a CSS
Profile, "an online application used by colleges and scholarship
programs to award non-federal institutional aid," and includes the
requirement that all noncustodial parents provide information
related to income and assets, which each school must take into
consideration. This, the complaint alleges, constitutes
anticompetitive behavior by forming an agreement between horizontal
competitors -- the universities -- related to price.
"Students were told there were no exceptions to the requirement –
even if a divorce court order was issued concerning college
expenses," the lawsuit states. "Formulas are then used to generate
a financial aid offer. The student then ultimately receives an
estimate for the family contribution based on what the two parents
can contribute, regardless of whether both parents do actually
contribute."
The lawsuit also highlights that College Board's effort was led and
organized by individuals from the involved universities including
College Board's current chair of Financial Assistance Assembly
Council from Columbia University, and Harvard's Director of
Financial Aid who was a chair at College Board.
The Costs
While FAFSA pertains to federal financial aid and does not require
the financial information of noncustodial parents, a CSS Profile is
only required at 250 private schools, and only CSS requires
noncustodial parent financial information.
The lawsuit outlines the cost impacts in a brief example in which a
student with divorced parents is applying to colleges: "Consider a
FAFSA school that costs $35,000 and a Profile school that costs
$75,000. . . This student's custodial parent is unmarried, earns
a modest income and rents a home. Her noncustodial parent earns
high income, is remarried to a high earner and owns a home. The
FAFSA school counts only the income of the custodial parent. The
CSS Profile counts the income of the custodial parent, the
noncustodial parent and the stepparent. FAFSA calculates the family
contribution at $10,000, which the CSS Profile calculates it at
$50,000."
In 2024, the Washington Post reported that 45 million Americans
have debt from student loans totaling more than $1.7 trillion, and
studies cited in the lawsuit link high levels of student loan debt
to poor college performance, anxiety and depression. The complaint
also quotes the dean of students at Boise State University in
reporting that around one third of college students in the U.S.
lacks enough to eat as well as stable housing.
Learn more about the firm's antitrust case against College Board
and 40 of the nation's top private colleges and universities.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation law
firm with a tenacious drive for achieving real results for those
harmed by corporate negligence and fraud. Since its founding in
1993, the firm's determination has earned it numerous national
accolades, awards and titles of "Most Feared Plaintiff's Firm,"
MVPs and Trailblazers of class-action law. More about the law firm
and its successes can be found at www.hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm
for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw.
Contacts
Media Contact
Ash Klann
pr@hbsslaw.com
(206) 268-9363 [GN]
MDL 2873: Valente Files Suit Over Toxic Chemical Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------
KEITH VALENTE, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT
DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05389-RMG
(D.S.C., September 27, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances.
According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption
of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, he was diagnosed with
thyroid disease, alleges the suit.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter.
The Valente case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Constantine Venizelos, Esq.
CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP
737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440
Cleveland, OH 44115
Telephone: (216) 815-9000
Facsimile: (216) 274-9365
MDL 2873: Wilson Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
MAURICE WILSON, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT
DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05385-RMG
(D.S.C., September 27, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances.
According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption
of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, he was diagnosed with
prostate cancer, alleges the suit.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter.
The Wilson case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Constantine Venizelos, Esq.
CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP
737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440
Cleveland, OH 44115
Telephone: (216) 815-9000
Facsimile: (216) 274-9365
MDL 3060: Revlon Must Defend Against Hair Relaxer Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mary M. Rowland of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois denied Revlon, Inc., Revlon Consumer
Products Corporation, and Revlon Group Holdings LLC's Motion to
Strike Class Allegations Under Rule 23(d)(1)(D) and Dismiss the
Consolidated Class Action Complaint captioned as IN RE: HAIR
RELAXER MARKETING SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 3060 (N.D. Ill.).
Plaintiffs, including those who have not filed personal injury
complaints in the MDL, bring the Class Action Complaint against the
Revlon Defendants, among other Defendants.
On June 15, 2022, Revlon filed petitions under chapter 11 of the
bankruptcy code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York. In the proceedings that followed, the
bankruptcy court ordered all potential claimants seeking to assert
a prepetition claim against Revlon to file a Proof of Claim in the
Revlon bankruptcy proceedings by April 11, 2023. Pursuant to the
order, a Hair Straightening Claim is a claim "that arose, or is
deemed to have arisen, prior to June 15, 2022."
On April 3, 2023, the bankruptcy court entered an order confirming
and adopting Revlon's Plan of reorganization, which became
effective on May 2, 2023.
The order and Plan discharged and released all claims and causes of
action against Revlon "of any nature whatsoever . . . whether known
or unknown . . . that arose before [the Effective Date of May 2,
2023]."
Claimants who filed a Proof of Claim by April 11, 2023 or whose
Proof of Claim "is otherwise deemed timely and properly filed
pursuant to a Final Order finding excusable neglect or a
stipulation" with Revlon, are exempted from the Plan's permanent
injunction if those claimants file suit in the MDL by deadlines
prescribed in the Plan. The Plan requires claimants to file suit in
the MDL by no later than September 14, 2023 or, for claimants who
are diagnosed with uterine or ovarian cancer after April 11, 2023,
six months from the date of the applicable diagnosis by a licensed
medical doctor.
Motion to Strike
Plaintiffs have alleged a nationwide consumer class defined as "All
individuals in the United States and its territories who, for
personal use, purchased any Toxic Hair Relaxer Product(s) in the
United States of America and/or its territories," and alternatively
pleaded statewide classes defined substantially the same.
Plaintiffs also allege a medical monitoring class defined as "All
females residing in [particular states] who used Toxic Hair Relaxer
Product(s) at least four times a year and have not been diagnosed
with uterine or ovarian cancer," and substantially similar
alternative statewide classes.
Revlon moves to strike the class allegations against Revlon under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(d)(1)(D). Revlon asserts the proposed class
definitions are overbroad because, as pleaded, they include class
members who Revlon contends have not complied with the bankruptcy
court's orders and Plan. According to Revlon, Plaintiffs who have
not filed a valid Proof of Claim in the bankruptcy proceedings or a
complaint in the MDL by the deadlines the bankruptcy court set are
permanently enjoined from litigating or liquidating claims against
Revlon. Accordingly, Revlon argues the class definitions are
facially deficient and should be stricken.
The Court agrees that only class members with viable claims against
Revlon as governed by the bankruptcy court's orders and Plan may
assert class claims against Revlon. While the parties continue to
litigate whose claims are viable before the bankruptcy court, the
Court will not determine the scope of who has a viable claim
against Revlon as doing so would be to effectively rule on the same
issue before another court. Thus, Revlon's motion to strike is
denied.
Motion to Dismiss
Revlon moves to dismiss the claims of particular named Plaintiffs,
whom they claim did not comply with the bankruptcy court's orders
or Plan. Revlon also moves to dismiss the Class Action Complaint in
its entirety because the claims, relief, and the parties are
near-identical to those already in the MDL. The Court denies
Revlon's motion to dismiss on both grounds.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YakMNW
About Revlon Inc.
Revlon Inc. manufactures, markets and sells an extensive array of
beauty and personal care products worldwide, including color
cosmetics; fragrances; skin care; hair color, hair care and hair
treatments; beauty tools; men's grooming products; antiperspirant
deodorants; and other beauty care products. Today, Revlon's
diversified portfolio of brands is sold in approximately 150
countries around the world in most retail distribution channels,
including prestige, salon, mass, and online.
Since its breakthrough launch of the first opaque nail enamel in
1932, Revlon has provided consumers with high-quality product
innovation, performance and sophisticated glamour. In 2016, Revlon
acquired the iconic Elizabeth Arden company and its portfolio of
brands, including its leading designer, heritage and celebrity
fragrances.
Revlon is among the leading global beauty companies, with some of
the world's most iconic and desired brands and product offerings in
color cosmetics, skin care, hair color, hair care and fragrances
under brands such as Revlon, Revlon Professional, Elizabeth Arden,
Almay, Mitchum, CND, American Crew, Creme of Nature, Cutex, Juicy
Couture, Elizabeth Taylor, Britney Spears, Curve, John Varvatos,
Christina Aguilera and AllSaints.
Revlon sought Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No.
22-10760) on June 15, 2022. Fifty affiliates, including Almay,
Inc., Beautyge Brands USA, Inc., and Elizabeth Arden, Inc., also
sought bankruptcy protection on June 15 and
June 16, 2022. Revlon disclosed total assets of $2,328,093,000
against total liabilities of $3,689,240,395 as of April 30, 2022.
MERCK & CO: Faces Class Action Over Overcharged Mumps Vaccine
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vandana Singh of Benzinga reports that a class-action lawsuit
claims Merck overcharged for a less potent mumps vaccine, violating
the Sherman Act.
The District Court denied Merck's summary judgment, acknowledging
ethical issues but ultimately upholding its Noerr-Pennington
immunity.
In the late 1990s, the FDA expressed concerns regarding the
diminishing potency of Merck & Co., Inc.'s MRK +0.17% mumps vaccine
as it neared its shelf life.
To address these issues, Merck increased the vaccine's initial
potency; however, this adjustment failed to resolve the underlying
problem.
Rather than informing the FDA of this ineffective fix, Merck
allegedly concealed the potency issues. The company ran a flawed
clinical trial and utilized unreliable data to secure FDA approval
for a less potent vaccine.
In response, a group of healthcare professionals and organizations
filed a class-action lawsuit against Merck, alleging that they had
been overcharged for the vaccine.
They claimed that Merck engaged in anti-competitive behavior by
making misleading statements on the vaccine's labeling, thereby
extending its monopoly and violating the Sherman Act.
The lawsuit accused Merck of falsely representing the vaccine's
potency to deter potential competition from GSK Plc GSK -1.07%.
"The record contains troubling evidence that Merck sought to extend
its apparent monopoly by misrepresenting facts about its mumps
vaccines on the FDA-approved drug labeling," the lawsuit noted.
"But those allegedly false claims were the result of Merck's
genuine and successful petitioning of the FDA."
Merck sought summary judgment, asserting that its actions fell
under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which protects companies from
antitrust claims when their conduct is tied to legitimate
government petitioning, such as seeking FDA approval.
Despite acknowledging Merck's ethical issues, the District Court
denied its motion, citing evidence that the company misrepresented
facts regarding the vaccine's potency.
The case was appealed, and while the appellate court recognized
Merck's questionable ethics, it ultimately upheld the
Noerr-Pennington immunity, concluding that Merck's actions were
legitimate attempts to obtain regulatory approval.
This ruling emphasized the distinction between government actions
and private conduct, suggesting that any injury to competition
stemmed from FDA decisions rather than Merck's actions alone.
Moreover, GSK also faced scrutiny in this context.
It was alleged that Merck's tactics successfully delayed GSK's
entry into the U.S. market by more than a decade, raising the bar
for GSK to meet regulatory standards.
Despite the claims of anti-competitive behavior, the immunity
granted under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine shields Merck from
liability, as its actions were deemed to have been aimed at
securing government approval, not harming competition directly.
Price Action: MRK stock is down 0.29% at $108.28 at last check
Tuesday, October 8. [GN]
MERRILL LYNCH: Asks Court to Dismiss ERISA Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Advisor Hub, reports that Merrill Lynch
has asked a federal court to toss a putative class action lawsuit
filed by one of its former brokers in California who alleges the
wirehouse illegally withheld deferred compensation when he left to
join another firm in 2021.
Merrill, as its peers have argued in similar cases, said that its
deferred pay is part of a "bonus program" and is exempt from
anti-forfeiture provisions of federal retirement plan law,
according to a motion to dismiss filed on September 30.
The suit was filed in May by Kelly D. Milligan, a 24-year industry
veteran who joined Sanctuary Wealth. Milligan, who has to respond
to Merrill's motion, argued that the plan qualifies as an employee
benefit or pension plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974. He said it cannot be considered a bonus
because a fixed portion of the commissions that brokers earn are
automatically deferred, and it is entirely funded by employee
contributions.
But Merrill argues those awards "easily fall" within the rules set
by the federal government for bonuses, rather than under ERISA. The
plan does not "systematically defer payment to termination or
beyond," so ERISA does not apply, Merrill argues.
"[T]he mere fact that some FAs might be paid when or after they
leave does not create a 'pension plan,'" Merrill argued. "FAs
typically must be employed on the stated vesting date to earn and
receive payment, whereas an FA's termination before that date
typically results in cancellation. This is effectively the opposite
of a 'systematic deferral' to termination, given that most
departures preclude an FA from earning the right to payment."
Milligan's lawsuit is the latest challenge to a common industry
practice at large brokerage firms that withhold a portion of
brokers' pay and require them to forfeit those amounts if they
leave to join a competitor. It was filed by the same Houston-based
plaintiff firm, Ajamie LLP, that won four years ago a $79 million
settlement against Wells Fargo over similar allegations and is
pursuing a deferred compensation claim in arbitration against
Morgan Stanley.
Milligan, a Danville, California-based advisor, worked with the
thundering herd for 21 years before moving to Sanctuary. When he
left Merrill, he was forced to relinquish $500,000 in deferred
compensation, according to his complaint.
At least 5% of Merrill brokers' pay is withheld from their
paychecks each year under the firm's WealthChoice plan, and that
money does not fully vest for eight years, according to his
complaint.
Merrill brokers who retire, are laid off or become disabled receive
the value of their deferred compensation accounts, and that is what
makes it governed under federal retirement law, Milligan's
complaint alleges.
"We are confident the WealthChoice Plan is not covered under ERISA
and that our compensation program complies with all relevant laws,"
a Merrill spokesperson said at the time Milligan filed his lawsuit.
Both the Merrill spokesperson and Jack Edwards, the lawyer from
Ajamie who represents Milligan, declined to comment about the
pending litigation for this story.
Prior to its settlement, Wells had argued its plan was a "top hat"
program designed for a select group of highly-paid employees and
was thus exempt from ERISA rules. Morgan Stanley also argued their
plans are not governed by ERISA because they are bonus plans.
A New York federal judge overseeing the Morgan Stanley suit ruled
in November 2023 that its plan likely does fall under ERISA
guidelines, which gave a boost to the dozens of brokers pursuing
deferred compensation claims in arbitration.
But Morgan Stanley has appealed that ruling and since it was issued
both won and lost related arbitrations. In March, arbitrators
awarded $3 million to seven former Morgan Stanley brokers. Morgan
Stanley executives have said privately that they are concerned that
the ruling would jeopardize deferred programs industry-wide and
even outside of wealth management. [GN]
META PLATFORMS: District Court Dismisses Putative Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
On September 30, 2024, Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a
putative class action asserting claims under the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 against a social media company and certain of
its executives. Ohio Public Emps. Ret. Sys. v. Meta Platforms,
Inc., et al., 2024 WL 4353049 (N.D. Cal. 2024). Plaintiffs alleged
that the company made misrepresentations regarding various business
operations. Although it dismissed claims relating to certain
statements, the Court held that plaintiffs adequately alleged that
others were false or misleading and that plaintiffs had adequately
alleged scienter and loss causation.
Plaintiffs alleged that the company made misrepresentations
regarding (1) its commitment to holding all users to the same
standards, despite allegedly making exceptions for certain high
profile accounts, (2) the company's algorithm and content
moderation, despite allegedly promoting divisive content on its
platform, (3) uncertainty around harm incurred by young users of
one of the company's platforms, despite alleged evidence of the
same, and (4) the company's growth rate, which was allegedly
overstated because the number of duplicate accounts was not
adequately disclosed.
The Court held that certain challenged statements were statements
of opinion, and that plaintiffs had not adequately alleged that
they were either objectively or subjectively false. For example,
the Court explained that one executive's statement, "I think more
than anyone else in the industry, we invest on the safety and
security side to sort of keep bad content off the site," was
inactionable, because plaintiffs did not allege that others in the
industry did more or that the executive did not believe the
statement to be true. The Court determined that other statements,
however, such as that it was "simply false" that the company
"amplifies ideas you disagree with," were not non-actionable
opinion statements because they were "capable of objective
verification."
Similarly, the Court held that certain challenged statements were
non-actionable corporate puffery, while others were not. For
example, the Court explained that statements that the company was
taking "significant steps" to fight misinformation and was focused
on "trust and safety" were "too generalized and [did] not describe
a 'specific and testable characteristic.'" However, the Court held
that statements that the company "has never had a general rule that
is more permissive for content posted by political leaders" could
be verified and were not corporate puffery.
The Court next addressed the alleged falsity for each of the four
categories of challenged statements. With respect to allegations
regarding enforcement of community standards, the Court held that
certain statements alleged to be false based on internal reports
failed to satisfy the heightened pleading requirements for fraud
under the PSLRA and Rule 9(b), because plaintiffs did not allege
who drafted the reports, "who received or reviewed them, or what
the reports entailed." However, the Court held that allegations
relating to statements that the company applied a different
standard only in limited newsworthy situations, were sufficiently
alleged to be false in light of plaintiffs' allegation that a
company transparency report published by the company's oversight
board acknowledged that those statements were misleading.
As for statements regarding harm to young users from one of the
company's platforms, the Court determined that certain challenged
statements were either statements of opinion and/or not actually
contradicted by factual allegations in the complaint, such as
statements that research on wellbeing was inconclusive and that
"social media isn't inherently good or bad for people." However,
the Court held that plaintiffs adequately alleged other
misrepresentations. For example, the Court explained that the
statement that research findings were "bi-directional, so small
effects positive and small effects negative but it's quite small"
was misleading given the company's allegedly extensive internal
research as to the extent of the harms the company's platform
caused to teenagers. And the Court held that statements such as,
"we never compromise on [young people's] privacy and safety" were
sufficiently alleged to be misleading because they omitted that,
based on internal documents, the company was aware of harm to young
girls but avoided taking certain protective steps.
The Court rejected plaintiffs' claims as to all challenged
statements in the two remaining categories. As for challenged
statements relating to the company's algorithm and content
moderation practices, the Court explained that plaintiffs'
allegations regarding the prevalence of hate speech on the platform
as compared to the small percentage identified by the company
through its content moderation did not contradict challenged
statements that the company was taking significant steps to fight
misinformation, that it removed misinformation from its platforms,
or that the company was investing in artificial intelligence to
boost its spam detection. As for challenged statements regarding
the company's growth that allegedly did not adequately account for
the impact of duplicate accounts, the Court explained that
plaintiffs' citation to the company's internal statistics about the
prevalence of duplicate accounts did not necessarily render the
challenged growth-related statements false or misleading, and that
plaintiffs did not allege that it was false for the company to
state that duplicate accounts were "very difficult to measure at
our scale" and that the actual numbers "may vary significantly from
our estimates."
With respect to the element of scienter, the Court limited its
analysis to the statements for which the Court already determined
that plaintiffs had adequately alleged falsity. The Court first
examined scienter as to allegations regarding the different
standards applied to high-profile accounts, holding that plaintiffs
adequately alleged scienter as to certain defendants who were
allegedly personally involved in that process and crafting those
policies, but not as to other defendants who were not alleged to be
personally involved. And the Court held that plaintiffs had
adequately alleged scienter as to certain defendants relating to
statements about harm to young users, based on the prominence of
the issue and public statements by those defendants, although not
as to other defendants who were not alleged to have made such
statements. However, the Court rejected other theories of scienter,
including the "core operations" theory -- for which the Court noted
that plaintiffs relied on internal documents but failed to allege
any detail about who drafted the documents, who received them, and
the exact factual content of the documents. The Court also rejected
plaintiffs' attempt to plead scienter based on allegations of
improper motive, noting that general allegations about a broad
financial motive cannot support an inference of scienter.
In addition, the Court held that plaintiffs adequately alleged loss
causation with respect to the challenged statements that survived,
based on alleged corrective disclosures that allegedly caused the
company's stock price to decline. While defendants argued that one
set of disclosures did not reveal "new" information that had not
been disclosed previously on the same topic, the Court observed
that plaintiffs alleged that the previous disclosures on the same
topics were false or misleading, and that whether "news of the
truth credibly entered the market and dissipated the effects of
prior misstatements" was an issue for summary judgment or trial.
The Court further noted that other alleged corrective disclosures
were followed by stock price drops that were sufficient to
plausibly allege that the information disclosed was "at least a
substantial cause of the loss."[GN]
NEW VISION: Hernandez Seeks Proper Wages for Home Health Aides
--------------------------------------------------------------
LUISANNA VALERA HERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW VISION HOME CARE SERVICES,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:24-cv-07549 (S.D.N.Y., October 4, 2024)
accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the New York Labor Law, the Wage Theft Prevention Act, the New York
State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
Plaintiff Hernandez worked for Defendant as a home health aide from
approximately March 2019 through December 13, 2019, and again from
February 26, 2021, through the present. Throughout her employment
with Defendant, the Plaintiff was unlawfully paid at the same
hourly wage rate for all hours worked. Among other things, the
Defendant failed to furnish Plaintiff, with a wage notice upon
hiring or when her rate of pay changed reflecting, among other
things, their overtime wage rates. Defendant also failed to furnish
Plaintiff, with accurate wage statements with each payment of her
wages reflecting, among other things, the correct overtime wage
rates and total hours worked. Despite the availability of
light-duty work, the Defendants have refused to accommodate
Plaintiff's pregnancy and she has not been placed on any cases with
Defendant since April 2024.
Headquartered in Hawthorne, NY, New Vision Homecare Services, LLC
is a home health care agency providing care for ill and aging
patients in New York State. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Louis Pechman, Esq.
Vivianna Morales, Esq.
Camille A. Sanchez, Esq.
PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 583-9500
E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
morales@pechmanlaw.com
sanchez@pechmanlaw.com
NEW YORK CITY: Allen Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 2nd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
CLARENCE BOWEN ALLEN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court
order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the
lawsuit entitled Clarence Bowen Allen, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. City
of New York, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-3786, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The Plaintiffs filed this complaint against the Defendants for
breach of contract and employment discrimination on the basis of
age and race in violation of federal, state, and local law.
On Sept. 12, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary
judgment in part.
On Nov. 3, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion for judgment as a
matter of law, and a motion to strike.
On Aug. 28, 2024, Judge Jesse M. Furman granted the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment and denied as moot the Plaintiffs'
motion.
The Court concluded that the Plaintiffs' federal claims of
discrimination (and some of their parallel claims under state and
federal law) fail as matter of law. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs'
disparate treatment claims under the New York City Human Rights Law
(NYCHRL) and their breach of contract claims are dismissed, albeit
without prejudice to refiling them in state court.
The appellate case is captioned Allen v. City of New York, Case No.
24-2589, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on September 30, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants CLARENCE BOWEN ALLEN, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Erica Tracy Kagan, Esq.
THE KURLAND GROUP
28th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Defendants-Appellees CITY OF NEW YORK, et al. are represented by:
Sylvia Hinds-Radix, Esq.
NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
NEXTERA ENERGY: Court Dismisses Putative Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
JDSupra reports that on September 27, 2024, Judge Aileen Cannon of
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida dismissed a putative class action asserting claims under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against an electric utility,
its parent company, and certain of their executives. Jastram v.
NextEra Energy, Inc., No. 23-cv-80833, slip. op. (S.D. Fla. Sept.
27, 2024), ECF No. 118. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made
misrepresentations in response to claims in the media that the
utility used corporate funds to influence state and local
elections, targeted elected officials who opposed its initiatives,
employed a news outlet to support its efforts against these
officials, and intimidated journalists. The Court held that
plaintiffs failed to adequately allege loss causation and therefore
dismissed the action with prejudice.
The Court explained that, where the "fraud-on-the-market"
presumption applies, a plaintiff can plead loss causation by (1)
identifying a corrective disclosure, (2) showing that the stock
price dropped soon after the corrective disclosure, and (3)
eliminating other possible reasons for the price drop.
The Court first evaluated the parent's statement in a securities
filing that allegations that defendants had violated the law had
the potential to adversely affect the companies, and that media
articles had alleged violations of Florida state and federal
campaign finance law which "have the potential to result in fines,
penalties, or other sanctions or effects." The Court held this did
not qualify as a corrective disclosure. First, the statement did
not mention any of the specific alleged misstatements upon which
plaintiffs based their claims, and the statement acknowledging the
existence of allegations about campaign finance law violations did
not render any prior statements false or misleading. Second, the
Court explained that the warning of potential future risk due to
allegations of campaign finance violations also did not reveal any
prior statements to be false, but rather simply amounted to a
disclosure that an investigation existed. Third, the Court
emphasized that the same risks plaintiffs claimed were disclosed
for the first time in the purported corrective disclosure were also
contained in a nearly identical set of disclosures in SEC filings
three months earlier.
The Court next held that the announcement of the company CEO's
retirement -- and the related disclosure that his severance
agreement contained a claw back provision -- did not amount to a
corrective disclosure. The Court explained that retirement alone is
not enough to establish loss causation, and the announcement did
not reveal anything about the underlying allegations of
misrepresentations. The Court further noted that plaintiffs'
argument of a link between the claw back provision and "potential
legal exposure and reputational risk" was "strained and
speculative." For example, the news article that brought the
provision to light did not say that it was unique or unusual, and
in fact acknowledged that it was "unclear" whether the provision
and other severance terms were "standard."
Having concluded that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege loss
causation, the Court declined to consider defendants' arguments
that the complaint failed to adequately allege an actionable
misstatement or scienter. Moreover, because plaintiffs had already
previously amended their complaint twice and the Court concluded
that nothing could be added to change the loss-causation analysis,
the Court held that leave to amend would be futile and dismissed
the case with prejudice. [GN]
PEOPLECONNECT INC: Appeals Denied Bid to Dismiss Boshears Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
PEOPLECONNECT, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order denying
its motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled John Boshears, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. PeopleConnect, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-01222-MJP, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington.
On October 29, 2021, Plaintiff Boshears filed this lawsuit against
the Defendant alleging that its website, Classmates.com,
impermissibly used his persona to advertise its subscription
services in violation of the Indiana Right of Publicity Act and as
a common law tort of misappropriation of his name and likeness.
On Apr. 8, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss and compel
arbitration, which the Court denied through an Order entered by
Judge Marsha J. Pechman on Sept. 5, 2024.
The Court finds that PeopleConnect cannot compel Boshears's claims
to mandatory arbitration because he was opted out according to
PeopleConnect's own contract. But even if Boshears is still bound
by the terms, PeopleConnect fails to show that he conveyed
sufficient authority to agree to arbitrate his claims or that he
ratified his attorneys' unauthorized actions.
The appellate case is captioned Boshears, et al. v. PeopleConnect,
Inc., Case No. 24-5935, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on September 30, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 7,
2024;
-- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on October 10,
2024;
-- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on November 12, 2024;
-- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on December 19, 2024;
and
-- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on January 20, 2025.
[BN]
PEPSICO INC: Imposes Illegal Tobacco Surcharges, Noel Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTA E. NOEL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PEPSICO, INC., PEPSICO ADMINISTRATION
COMMITTEE, Defendants, Case No. 7:24-cv-07516 (S.D.N.Y., October 3,
2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and breach of
fiduciary duty.
The case arises from the Defendants' practice of charging a tobacco
surcharge that unjustly forces certain employees to pay higher
premiums for their health insurance. The PepsiCo Employee Health
Care Program Plan does not provide the required reasonable
alternative standard, and even if it did, it has failed to
adequately notify employees about the availability of such an
alternative in all its Plan communications. Consequently, the
Defendants' tobacco surcharge violates ERISA's anti-discrimination
provisions by imposing additional costs on employees who use
tobacco products without meeting the legal requirements for a bona
fide wellness program. As a result of the imposition of the
unlawful and discriminatory tobacco surcharge, PepsiCo enriched
itself at the expense of the Plan, resulting in it receiving a
windfall, says the suit.
PepsiCo, Inc. is a global food and beverage company, with its
principal place of business located in Purchase, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lisa R. Considine, Esq.
David J. DiSabato, Esq.
Oren Faircloth, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
Email: ddisabato@sirillp.com
ofaircloth@sirillp.com
PIZZAS DEL SUR: Salazar Seeks Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
PAMELA SALAZAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PIZZAS DEL SUR, INC. d/b/a PAPA JOHN'S,
Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-03751 (S.D. Tex., October 3, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for failure to pay accurate
federal minimum wages, including overtime, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a delivery driver at
Papa John's store located in Edinburg, Texas from approximately
January 2022 to November 2022.
Pizzas Del Sur, Inc. is an operator of numerous Papa John's Pizza
franchise stores, with its principal place of business in Texas.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katherine Serrano, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 N. St. Paul Street Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
Facsimile: (469) 399-1070
Email: kserrano@foresterhaynie.com
REPRODUCTIVE GENETIC: Donamaria Sues Over PGT-A Testing's False Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NOELIA DONAMARIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REPRODUCTIVE GENETIC INNOVATIONS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-09535 (N.D. Ill., October 4,
2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
Illinois' Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act,
breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, breach of the
implied warranty of usability, fraud, fraud by concealment, unjust
enrichment, and breach of express warranty.
The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of preimplantation
genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A or PGT-A testing). The
Defendant markets and sells PGT-A testing as a proven, accurate,
and reliable method to decrease the chance of miscarriage and
increase the chance of giving birth to a healthy baby. However,
science has shown that PGT-A testing is unproven, inaccurate, and
unreliable. The Plaintiff and Class members suffered direct
economic losses as a result of their purchase of PGT-A testing from
the Defendant, says the suit.
Reproductive Genetic Innovations, Inc. is a provider of assisted
reproductive technologies based in Northbrook, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Schwartz, Esq.
Zoe Seaman-Grant, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1720 W. Division
Chicago, IL 60622
Telephone: (773) 257-0255
Email: rschwartz@bm.net
zseamangrant@bm.net
- and -
Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
Abigail J. Gertner, Esq.
Dena Young, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Email: scarson@bm.net
agertner@bm.net
dyoung@bm.net
- and -
Allison S. Freeman, Esq.
CONSTABLE LAW, P.A.
139 6th Avenue S.
Safety Harbor, FL 34695
Telephone: (727) 797-0100
Email: allison@constable-law.com
- and -
Paula S. Bliss, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW COLLABORATIVE LLC
210 Washington St.
No. Easton, MA 02356
Telephone: (508) 230-2700
Email: paula@justicelc.com
REVENTICS LLC: Courts Grants Bid to Dismiss Data Breach Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Maatman, Jr., Bernadette Coyle and Ryan Garippo of Duane
Morris, in an article at Mondaq, report that on September 30, 2024,
in Henderson, et al. v. Reventics LLC, et al., No. 23-CV-00586 (D.
Colo. Sept. 30, 2024), Magistrate Judge Michael Hegarty of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado granted Reventics, LLC
and OMH Healthedge Holdings, Inc.'s (collectively Omega") motion to
dismiss based on lack of Article III standing in a data breach
class action. This decision represents another arrow in the quiver
of corporate defendants looking to protect themselves against data
breach claims involving speculative harms.
Case Background
Omega is a company that provides data analytics and software
solutions to healthcare organizations. In December 2022, Omega
learned that cyber criminals exfiltrated its network and obtained
the "names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and clinical
data" of 250,000 of its clients' patients. Two months later, after
its investigation of the cybercrime was completed, Omega sent out
notices regarding the incident to the potentially affected
individuals.
Within the next few weeks, Omega was sued seven times, by fifteen
different plaintiffs (the "Plaintiffs"), each alleging that the
cyber security incident constituted a breach of their personally
identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information
("PHI"). These Plaintiffs all alleged that they suffered injuries
in the form of:
"(1) public disclosure of private information, including Social
Security numbers and medical information; (2) increased spam
communications; (3) diminution of the value their PHI/PII; (4)
emotional distress; (5) actual fraud; and (6) future impending
injury."
Tellingly, despite the existence of 15 separate Plaintiffs, none of
these individuals could plausibly allege that they lost any money
as a result of the cyber security incident. Consequently, once all
these class actions where consolidated into one proceeding, Omega
moved to dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiffs lacked Article III
standing to sue.
The Court's Opinion
Magistrate Judge Hegarty granted Omega's motion to dismiss. In so
doing, he systematically rejected each of Plaintiffs' theories of
standing. Article III standing requires a plaintiff to plead the
existence of an injury in fact, that is traceable to the
defendant's conduct, and that can be redressed by judicial relief.
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016). The Court
reasoned that Plaintiffs failed to meet several of these
requirements.
First, the Court rejected Plaintiffs' theory that the public
disclosure of their so-called "private information" constitutes a
compensable injury in fact. Plaintiffs argued that public
disclosure of their alleged PII and PHI would cause them to
voluntarily spend money on future credit monitoring services.
However, the Court found that "Plaintiffs cannot manufacture
standing by choosing to make expenditures based on hypothetical
future harm that is not certainly impending." In the absence of
imminent risk of harm, the Court concluded proactive credit
monitoring cannot constitute an injury.
Second, the Court found that Plaintiffs' allegations of increased
spam communications were also not an injury in fact. But even if
they were, the Court held that Plaintiffs could not plausibly
allege that they received those spam communications because of
Omega's conduct. Put differently, "there [were] no specific
allegations regarding the timing of these communications from which
the Court could infer a causal connection between the breach and
the spam" and the theory, therefore, also failed on traceability
grounds.
Third, the Court considered and dispensed with the idea that
Plaintiffs' personal information "has independent monetary value"
sufficient to support a claim for diminution of value as to that
information. Even still, the Court ruled that because Plaintiffs
lacked the means to sell their own personal information at a lower
price, this theory failed as well.
Fourth, as to Plaintiffs' claims of emotional distress, the Court
succinctly found that "[e]motional distress does not constitute a
cognizable injury-in-fact in data privacy litigation" This holding
is aligned with other district courts around the country and should
not have come as a surprise.
Fifth, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' claim of "actual" fraud on a
different part of the standing analysis -- namely its lack of
traceability to Omega's conduct. The Court reasoned that the mere
existence of isolated incidents of "fraud" alerts on the
Plaintiffs' bank accounts were not the same as actual proof that
the so-called harm was caused by Omega.
Sixth, the Court held that allegations of a "future injury based on
stolen personal information" only can be considered a plausible
injury in fact where accompanied by allegations of current direct
harm. If no such current harm exists, then Plaintiffs were merely
speculating that harm may or may not occur in the future.
With all of these theories considered (and rejected), the Court
dismissed the class action as a whole and entered judgment on
behalf of Omega.
Implications For Companies
As corporate counsel is often well aware, the staggering liability
associated with class actions frequently hinges on the merits of a
cause of action or on whether the named plaintiff can achieve class
certification. However, in the data breach context, an attack to
the named plaintiffs' Article III standing is often a swift and
efficient way to dispense of such claims.
Corporate counsel should continue to take stock of opinions like
this one under the event that their companies' cybersecurity
protocols are put to the test. [GN]
RURAL MEDIA: Discloses Personal Info to Meta, Wissel Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
ELLYSE WISSEL; MICHELLE ANDERSON; and MCLAIN MOTT, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RURAL
MEDIA GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-00925-P (N.D. Tex.,
Sept. 27, 2024) seeks redress for Defendant's practice of knowingly
disclosing Plaintiffs' and its other customers' identities and the
identities of the prerecorded video materials to which they
purchased access on Defendant's www.cowboychannelplus.com website
to third parties in violation of the federal Video Privacy
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has systematically
transmitted (and continues to transmit today) its customers'
personally identifying video viewing information to at least three
companies using snippets of code called tracking pixels. The
Defendant knowingly and intentionally transmitted this personally
identifying video viewing information to: (i) Meta Platforms, Inc.,
formerly known as Facebook, Inc.; (ii) Alphabet, Inc., formerly
known as Google; and Yahoo! Inc.
Accordingly, on behalf of themselves and the putative Class members
defined below, the Plaintiffs bring this Class Action Complaint
against Defendant for intentionally and unlawfully disclosing their
Private Viewing Information to third parties.
Rural Media Group, Inc. is a steaming video service providing
access to a variety of Western-themed prerecorded video
programming.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tyler K. Somes, Esq.
HEDIN LLP
1100 15th Street NW, Ste 04-108
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 900-3332
Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
E-mail: tsomes@hedinllp.com
SAN JOSE RESTAURANT: Faces Vasquez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARITZA VASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SAN JOSE RESTAURANT CORP. (D/B/A SAN JOSE
RESTAURANT), TULCIMEXICO RESTAURANT INC. (D/B/A TULCIMEXICO
RESTAURANT), EDUARDO LUCERO VELAZQUEZ, and OLESYA DAVLAD,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-07321 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 27, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendants for unpaid overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations of the
New York Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage
orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor, including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiff Vasquez worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate overtime and spread of hours compensation
for the hours that she worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to
maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to
pay her appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight
rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium.
Further, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Vasquez the
required spread of hours pay for any day in which she had to work
over 10 hours a day. Regardless, at all relevant times, Defendants
paid her at the lowered tip-credited rate, says the Plaintiff.
Plaintiff Vasquez was employed as a waitress at the restaurant
located in Bronx, New York from approximately September 2021 until
October 28, 2022. She was then employed as a cashier from
approximately March 2022 until June 9, 2024.
The Defendants own, operate, or control Mexican restaurants in New
York under the name "San Jose Restaurant" and "Tulcimexico
Restaurant." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
SAVO GROUP: Robles Suit Seeks Website's Equal Access to Blind Users
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIMITIVO ROBLES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SAVO GROUP INC. d/b/a ALTO, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-07500 (S.D.N.Y., October 3, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, the New
York State Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights,
and declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.altocanna.nyc, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: broken links, empty aria elements absent accessible
names, links without accessible names, empty buttons, redundant
alternative text, and skipped heading levels, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Savo Group Inc., doing business as Alto, is a company that sells
online goods and services, doing business in New York. [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
Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
SKYLAND GRAIN: Lopez Files Suit in D. Kansas
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Skyland Grain, L.L.C.
The case is styled as Belle Lopez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Skyland Grain, L.L.C., Case No.
6:24-cv-01180 (D. Kan., Oct. 7, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Contract Default.
Skyland Grain -- https://www.skylandgrain.com/ -- operates grain
elevators in Kansas, Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin D. Winters, Esq.
PATTERSON LEGAL GROUP
6800 W. Kellogg Drive
Wichita, KS 67209
Phone: (316) 687-2400
Fax: (316) 687-2572
Email: ben@pattersonlegalgroup.com
SUNLIGHT FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Class Action in D.N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Berger Montague PC informs investors that the firm has filed a
securities class action in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey against Cross River Bank ("CRB"), Bank
Partner to Sunlight Financial Holdings, Inc. f/k/a Spartan
Acquisition Corp. II ("Sunlight") (NYSE: SUNL; OTC: SUNLQ; NYSE:
SPRQ). The action is captioned Wax v. Cross River Bank, Case No.
2:24-cv-09510 and is brought on behalf of investors who purchased
Sunlight securities between January 25, 2021 and October 31, 2023,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investor Deadline: Investors who purchased or acquired Sunlight
securities during the Class Period may, no later than December 2,
2024 seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the
class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in
this litigation, please contact Berger Montague: Andrew Abramowitz
at aabramowitz@bm.net or (215) 875-3015, Peter Hamner at
phamner@bm.net or (215) 875-3048, or visit:
https://investigations.bergermontague.com/sunlight-financial/
According to the complaint, during the Class Period, CRB engaged in
a scheme to extend loans to disreputable solar contractors of
dubious credit quality and facilitate Sunlight's accumulation of a
large loan pools of fixed-rate loans on CRB's balance sheet for
which Sunlight retained the risk of loss. These loans contained
enormous levels of risk of default and interest rate risk for
Sunlight, but Sunlight lacked the necessary capital to tolerate a
default or significant rise in interest rates.
Neither Sunlight nor CRB disclosed to Plaintiff and the Class the
magnitude of that risk or, when interest rates increased, the
extent of Sunlight's mounting off-balance sheet liabilities (which
were being warehoused on the balance sheet of Sunlight's Bank
Partner, CRB).
CRB's repeated extensions of credit and agreement to help Sunlight
conceal its true indebtedness from investors by having it recorded
in CRB's books, coupled with Sunlight's false statements about its
true loan exposure, kept Sunlight's true financial distress a
secret from investors, which kept the price of Sunlight's shares
artificially inflated during the Class Period.
A series of disclosures beginning on September 28, 2022 revealed
the true state of Sunlight's financial picture. For instance, on
that date, Sunlight announced that it was taking a non-cash advance
receivable impairment of $30 to $33 million stemming from liquidity
issues by one installer. Sunlight's stock price plummeted 57%, or
$1.44 per share, on the news, falling from a closing price of $2.52
per share on September 28, 2022 to a close of $1.08 per share on
September 29, 2022.
The truth continued to be incrementally revealed to investors until
October 31, 2023, when investors fully learned of CRB's fraudulent
scheme. On that date, Sunlight announced it had filed for Chapter
11 bankruptcy with a pre-packaged plan whereby CRB would provide
exit financing in return for 12.5% of the New Equity in the
reorganized company. Under the plan, the interests of Plaintiff and
the other common stockholders of Sunlight were extinguished. On
this news, shares of Sunlight fell $0.13 per share, or 34%, from a
closing price of $0.38 per share on October 30, 2023 to a close of
$0.25 per share on October 31, 2023.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff
is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the
largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of
the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel
to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys,
if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability
to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision
whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Communicating with any
counsel is not necessary to participate or share in any recovery
achieved in this case. Any member of the purported class may move
the Court to serve as a lead plaintiff through counsel of his/her
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an inactive class
member.
Berger Montague, with offices in Philadelphia, Minneapolis,
Washington, D.C., San Diego, San Francisco and Chicago, has been a
pioneer in securities class action litigation since its founding in
1970. Berger Montague has represented individual and institutional
investors for over five decades and serves as lead counsel in
courts throughout the United States.
Contacts:
Andrew Abramowitz, Esq.
Berger Montague
(215) 875-3015
aabramowitz@bm.net
- and -
Peter Hamner, Esq.
Berger Montague PC
(215) 875-3048
phamner@bm.net [GN]
TD ASSET: Reaches $70.25MM Deal on Broker Commissions Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Star reports that Siskinds LLP says a $70.25 million
class-action settlement has been reached with TD Asset Management
over commissions paid to discount brokers.
The law firm says class action members alleged that since discount
brokers aren't allowed to provide investment advice, investors
receive no value for the trailing commissions they pay to such
brokers.
It says trailing commissions paid on mutual funds are meant to
compensate mutual fund dealers for investment advice they provide
to investors.
Siskinds says it has filed proposed class actions against several
mutual fund managers that have discount brokers, which along with
TD Direct Investing, includes RBC Direct Investing, BMO
InvestorLine, CIBC Investor's Edge, Scotia iTRADE and National Bank
Direct Brokerage.
The proposed settlement with TD, which is still subject to approval
by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, covers anyone who held
units of a TD mutual fund trust through a discount broker on Sept.
11, 2024 or earlier.
The bank says TD Asset Management has a strong track record of
providing investment solutions that meet the diverse needs of its
clients, but that it is not able to comment on matters that are
before the court.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 9, 2024.
[GN]
TEMU INC: Faces Another Class Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laurel Deppen of Fashion DIve reports that Temu is facing another
class action lawsuit accusing it of sending marketing texts to
people on the National Do Not Call Registry, according to court
documents.
-- In July, another lawsuit was filed against Temu alleging the
same claim. However, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the
complaint in August.
-- In the newly filed case, attorneys for the plaintiffs are
requesting a jury trial. This class action case marks the latest in
a string of recent legal battles for Temu.
Dive Insight:
The complaint was filed October 3 in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts and claims violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991.
The lead plaintiff in the case has been registered with the
National Do Not Call Registry since 2010, according to the
complaint, and received texts advertising Temu without "prior
express written consent."
Attorneys in the case argue that text message advertising differs
from conventional advertising because they could cost recipients
money and texts are "distracting and aggravating to the recipient
and intrudes upon the recipient's seclusion."
"Temu takes consumer protection seriously," a Temu spokesperson
said in an email to Fashion Dive. "We believe the lawsuit is
without merit and intend to defend our interests vigorously."
In August, Temu faced another similar lawsuit over text messaging
and violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. That one,
however, claimed Temu sent marketing texts to users who had opted
out of them. Similar to the July class action, the complaint was
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff. Attorneys for the plaintiff
opted to handle the dispute through arbitration rather than the
courts, according to the notice of dismissal.
Temu has seen a surge in popularity since its U.S. launch in 2022
and has earned appeal among budget-conscious consumers. However, it
has faced several legal challenges.
The company is facing two class action lawsuits related to data
privacy.
Last year, it was sued for allegedly failing to secure its
customers' personal and financial data. A judge in that case
granted Temu's request to compel arbitration last week.
It was later sued for allegedly misleading consumers about the
scope and reach of its data collection; that case is ongoing.
It has also been sued by its fast fashion rival Shein, which
claimed Temu wasn't a legitimate e-commerce company and
"strategically ripped off" Shein. [GN]
TICKETMASTER LLC: Burns Suit Transferred to D. Montana
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Andrea Burns, on her own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Ticketmaster LLC, Live Nation
Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-04674 was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana on Oct. 9,
2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00120-BMM to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Ticketmaster Entertainment, LLC -- https://www.ticketmaster.com/ --
is an American ticket sales and distribution company based in
Beverly Hills, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Yana A. Hart, Esq.
Tiara Avaness, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM PC
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Phone: (213) 788-4050
Fax: (213) 788-4070
Email: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com
tavaness@clarksonlawfirm.com
- and -
Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP PC
1133 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor
New York, NY 10036
Phone: (917) 438-9189
Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
- and -
Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq.
Michael E. Criden, Esq.
CRIDEN AND LOVE PA
2020 Salzedo Street, Suite 302
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Phone: (305) 357-9000
Fax: (305) 357-9050
Email: lgrossman@cridenlove.com
mcriden@cridenlove.com
The Defendants are represented by:
D. Scott Carlton, Esq.
Raymond W. Stockstill, Esq.
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
515 South Flower Street 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 683-6000
Fax: (213) 627-0705
Email: scottcarlton@paulhastings.com
beaustockstill@paulhastings.com
- and -
James Michael Pearl, Esq.
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, 27th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 620-5700
Fax: (310) 620-5899
Email: jamespearl@paulhastings.com
TIKTOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Risk on Minor Mental Health
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Herrero and Gidget Alikpala, writing for AS, report that the
war between the United States and TikTok is far from over. A
coalition of 14 prosecutors representing 14 states in the U.S. has
filed a class-action lawsuit against the Chinese app for allegedly
creating addiction and damaging the mental health of minors.
These claims refer to elements such as the endless content feed in
the "For You" section or the "shorts" that encourage users to carry
out challenges that often represent risky situations not only for
the user's mental health, but also their physical health. Added to
this is the night-time automatic notification system, which is
accused of harming children's sleep.
New battle in the US-TikTok war
"TikTok claims to be safe for young people, but that is far from
the truth. Across the country, young people have died or been
injured while doing some of its challenges, and many more are
feeling sad, anxious and depressed because of the addictive
qualities of the app," said Letitia James, Attorney General of New
York.
Meanwhile, the use of filters and effects to make shorts more
polished or to make creators appear more attractive than they
really are is also being questioned.
"These encourage young people to alter their image and imitate
plastic surgery and harbor unrealistic standards of beauty,
creating dysmorphic disorders that impact self-esteem and induce
negative thoughts about their body image," says the lawsuit.
"TikTok is specifically targeting children because it knows that
children do not have the defenses or ability to create healthy
boundaries around addictive content," said California State
Attorney General Rob Bonta.
"Our children and teenagers don't stand a chance against these
social media giants. TikTok must be held accountable for the harm
it has done by taking time away from our childhood," Bonta said.
The lawsuit is based on an investigation carried out two years ago
into a social media application that reached a whopping 150 million
users per month in the United States in 2023. The 14 prosecutors
are composed of Democrats and Republicans. [GN]
TILES & DECOR: Calle Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOHN GUILLERMO YAURI CALLE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TILES & DÉCOR INC., JAZ
WHOLESALE, INC. and CUSTOMERS KITCHEN & BATH, INC., and AJAYVIR
SONDHI, AVLEEN KAUR SONDHI and PRABHGUN SONDHI, as individuals,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-06979 (E.D.N.Y., October 2, 2024)
seeks to recover damages for Defendants' alleged violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
Plaintiff Calle was employed by Defendants from in or around March
2021 until in or around September 2024. Although the Defendants
designated Plaintiff as "supervisor", Plaintiff's primary duties
were performing manual labor as a kitchen installer, cleaner,
construction worker, delivery person, salesperson and inventory
clerk while performing other miscellaneous duties. He was regularly
required to work approximately 63 hours per week from in or around
March 2021 until in or around August 2023 and approximately 50 or
more hours per week from in or around September 2023 until in or
around September 2024. However, the Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff the legally prescribed minimum wage for all his hours
worked from in or around March 2021 until in or around December
2022. The Defendants also did not pay him time and a half for hours
worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions
contained in the FLSA and NYLL, says the Plaintiff.
Based in New York, Tiles & Decor Inc. owns and operates a store
that sells tiles, kitchen cabinets, & vanities. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
TOYOTA MOTORS: Settles Canadian Cablegate Class Suit for $40MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nadine Filion, writing for Driving, reports that some thought --
mea culpa, we were among them -- that the "Cablegate" class-action
lawsuit against Toyota was started far too early. But some will say
that, with this class-action ending in one of the most generous
settlements ever seen in the Canadian auto industry, such a happy
ending is precisely because a group of Quebecers brought pressure
-- and international attention -- to the problem.
Whatever the case, according to the Automobile Protection
Association (APA) -- which has been defending Canadian motorists
That's a vindication for the organization's decision to call on
Montreal firm Adams Avocat to bring a class-action. It also brings
to an end an issue that was highly publicized in Quebec through
this Facebook page, with nearly 7,000 members.
The problem it solves is that, on certain Toyota and Lexus hybrid
vehicles from model years 2019 to 2022, the AWD system's
traction-motor-cable high-voltage subfloor wires presented a design
defect (the plaintiffs claim) that leaves the connector poorly
protected from winter water and salt spray. This could cause
premature corrosion and, in some cases, failure of the hybrid
system. Indeed, after a sufficient number of warning indicators
were illuminated, the vehicle might not even start.
Iny reports that it's mostly Toyota RAV4s (2019-2022) that are
affected, and that it's especially prevalent in northern regions
where salt is spread in winter. The proof: "In the United States to
date, apart from Maine and the Midwest states, the problem has not
arisen," the APA president told Driving.ca.
The trouble is that the warranty covering this part was initially
only for three years and 60,000 km. Since then, the infamous cable
has been modified four times and, for the vehicles covered by the
agreement, a warranty enhancement program now extends the
protection to eight years and 160,000 km. It is worth noting that
as of yet, for 2023 and 2024 models, the hybrid cable is still
covered by the shorter warranty.
A settlement that benefits all of Canada
The request for a class-action filed by Fredy Adams on May 19, 2022
and featuring consumer Constantin Sultana as the
applicant-plaintiff will not have to be debated before Quebec's
highest court. Indeed, at the approval hearing held in 2023, and in
view of Toyota's "positive attitude" towards the problem, the Court
suggested the two parties come to an agreement.
The negotiations, which lasted almost a year, notably enabled the
settlement to become a national solution -- not one just for owners
in Quebec. "When I learned that there was no other group of its
kind in the country, I asked to expand the class to include
Canadian consumers," explained Adams, in a telephone interview with
Driving.ca. "I went by the principle that if Toyota was willing to
settle in Quebec, why not for the rest of Canada?"
Another example of Toyota's willingness to take responsibility for
the problem is that the entire process of filing, authorizing, and
ratifying this class-action took barely two years. In Quebec,
class-actions last an average of seven years.
$40-million "uncommon" settlement
In mid-September, the Honorable Sylvain Lussier of the Quebec
Superior Court approved a final resolution of the case. In
approving the settlement agreement, the judge said the following:
"Class members obtain full satisfaction of their principal claims.
Such a result is uncommon." He also emphasized the simplicity of
the process, saying the result was "quick and unconditional."
Adams agreed, noting that "an agreement of this nature is rare."
Indeed, the plaintiff's lawyer told us, "We got everything we
wanted, and even more than what was initially asked. We asked for
the same warranty for the hybrid cable system. We got it. We asked
for reimbursement of the repairs that members had to pay for,
including rental and towing costs. We got that, too."
Nearly 100,000 Toyotas and Lexuses involved
What initially targeted only Toyota RAV4 Hybrids in Quebec has now
been extended to a total of seven Toyota and Lexus hybrid models --
and to the rest of Canada. According to the statistics brought in
evidence before the court, the settlement concerns 96,274 Toyota
and Lexus vehicles across the country, nearly a quarter of which
(21,084) are registered in Quebec.
Toyota's Canadian division estimates that it will spend $40 million
to repair all affected vehicles in the country (including the
rental of courtesy vehicles when necessary). As of last July,
Toyota had already spent more than a third ($16 million) of this
sum.
The APA still has two regrets
For George Iny, this agreement between the plaintiffs and Toyota is
"a very good settlement, firstly because it benefits all Canadians
by settling future breakdowns in advance," but also "because it
helped trigger similar warranty enhancement programs in the U.S."
That said, the APA president has two regrets. One is that the price
of the original replacement part remains very high. Iny reports
that "repair [of the faulty cable] at a dealership still costs
between $5,500 and $7,500, including about $1,500 labour." That's
fine as long as Toyota is footing the bill, but that won't be the
case forever. "We feel that Toyota should have reduced the price of
the part to less than $1,000, so that the repair, after the
extended warranty expires, would be in the $2,000 to $2,500 range.
After all, it's an orange extension cord. There's no reason for it
to cost that much!"
Iny also noted that Toyota has not yet provided a kit to improve
the protection of the part -- "for example an additional connector
sheath, which worried owners could have made installed for less
than an hour's labour."
That said, customers should be wary of aftermarket solutions. At
least one company is supplying a cable protector, but it costs
almost $400 and is of questionable use. And it's reported that some
independent garages are adding some dielectric grease to the
existing connector. While that will indeed protect the electrical
terminals, most protectants are designed for 12V applications, not
the high-voltage systems used in hybrids. Whether they will stand
up to the extra strain is also unproven.
The "CableGate" settlement in nine points
If you happen to be one of those 96,274 Toyota or Lexus owners
affected by this issue, here's everything you need to know about
this Canada-wide agreement.
Owners offered 100% coverage
With its warranty enhancement program, Toyota has extended the
coverage of the hybrid cable system to eight years and 160,000 km
(whichever comes first) for several vehicle models (this warranty
applies automatically).
Vehicles covered by the agreement:
-- Toyota Highlander Hybrid (2020-2022)
-- Toyota RAV4 Hybrid (2019-2022)
-- Toyota RAV4 Prime (2021-2022)
-- Toyota Venza Hybrid (2021-2022)
-- Toyota Sienna Hybrid (2021-2022)
-- Lexus NX350h (2022)
-- Lexus NX450h+ (2022)
Please note that Toyota Prius cars (2019-2022) are not included, as
they use a different hybrid powertrain.
Owners offered free repairs under the extended warranty
Vehicles affected by the problem that have not already been
repaired will be repaired free of charge by dealers, at the
manufacturer's expense, within the limits of the extended
warranty.
Owners who have already paid for repairs offered refunds
Consumers who have already had the affected cable repaired will
receive a full refund for what they have already paid. This
includes, if applicable, the rental of a courtesy car and towing
costs.
We got everything we wanted, and even more than what was initially
asked. We asked for the same warranty for the hybrid cable system.
We got it. We asked for reimbursement of the repairs that members
had to pay for, including rental and towing costs. We got that,
too. -- Fredy Adams, partner, Adams Avocat law firm
Owners who have previously signed releases also eligible
Unexpectedly, even customers who have previously signed a release
with Toyota, absolving the manufacturer of further responsibility
in exchange for a total or partial contribution to the cost of the
repair, can now request reimbursement of what they have paid. "This
is unprecedented," says Adams. "It's rare, very rare that a company
agrees to reimburse when a release has already been signed."
Owners who no longer have the vehicle still eligible
Those who have paid for inspection or towing fees and who have not
had their vehicle repaired but no longer own it, are eligible for
reimbursement (upon presentation of invoices).
Owners' legal fees will be paid by Toyota
Toyota has agreed to pay the plaintiffs' legal fees, "without any
participation by the members of the group." In other words, the
$700,000 in legal fees to be paid to Adams Avocat will not be
assumed by the consumers.
Toyota settles without liability
The settlement reached between the parties is without any admission
of liability on the part of Toyota or its subsidiaries.
No expiration date on the period for filing the claim
Beyond the fact that Toyota and Lexus hybrid vehicles presenting
the defective electric component will be repaired free of charge
and within the limits (96 months and 160,000km) of the extended
warranty, the period for filing a claim has no expiration date.
Numbers to call for information
If you are a Toyota customer and encounter any difficulty at your
dealership regarding the application of the warranty enhanced
program, you are invited to contact Toyota Customer Service at
1-888-869-6828. For Lexus customers, the phone number is
1-800-26-LEXUS (1-800-265-3987).
What about newer Toyota and Lexus hybrids?
Some consumers have asked the agreement include Toyota and Lexus
hybrid vehicles for model years 2023 and 2024. The magistrate did
not grant this request, explaining that newer vehicles were not
part of the original request. He did, however, specify in his
ruling that these consumers "remain free to bring a new
class-action." [GN]
U.S. CRIME: Worthington Sues Over Unpaid OT, False Tax Form Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Worthington, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jaime Barba, individually, and
U.S. Crime Prevention, Corp. d/b/a Texas Crime Prevention Agency,
Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-03772 (S.D. Tex., October 4, 2024)
seeks to recover unpaid overtime that is required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act, damages for theft of wages under false pretenses of
a 401k withdrawal, and damages under the Internal Revenue Code for
reporting false information on Federal tax forms.
Plaintiff Worthington worked for the Defendants as a security guard
from December of 2022 until September of 2024. During that time,
Worthington regularly worked more than 40 hours per week. However,
during the time that Defendants paid Plaintiff on an hourly basis,
the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff the required overtime premiums
for all the hours he worked over 40 in a workweek, although they
paid it for some.
Additionally, the Plaintiff has false 401k deductions all received
W-2s that reflected deductions from pay and deposits into a 401k.
However, these were fraudulent W-2s because the company had full
knowledge that the deducted funds were not actually deposited into
a 401k account, says the suit.
U.S. Crime Prevention, Corp. is a Texas corporation owned and
controlled by Jaime Barba. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
PO Box 10099
Houston, TX 77206
Telephone: (713) 868-3388
Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
UBISOFT INC: Players Sue Over User Information Sharing With Meta
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marie Dealessandri of Games Industry reports that two US-based
players have filed a class action lawsuit against Ubisoft for
allegedly sharing its online store users' Personally Identifying
Information with Meta.
The lawsuit was filed on October 3, 2024 at the US District Court
for the Northern District of California, as shown on Court
Listener. The two plaintiffs filed the suit on behalf of
"themselves and all others similarly situated."
They alleged that when purchasing a game via Ubisoft's store (or
accessing it as a Ubisoft+ subscriber) while logged into their
Facebook account, users PII "would be captured by the Meta
Platforms tracking Pixel utilised by [Ubisoft], and then
transferred to Meta thereby exposing the subscribers' PII to any
person of ordinary technical skill who received that data."
"The Video Privacy Protection Act prohibits video tape service
providers, such as [Ubisoft], from sharing PII," the lawsuit noted.
"[Ubisoft] purposefully implemented and utilised the Pixel, which
tracks user activity on [its] website and discloses that
information to Facebook to gather valuable marketing data."
The lawsuit also clarified that Meta's Pixel tool can't be placed
on a website without the "knowledge and cooperation" of the website
owner, in this case Ubisoft.
"[Ubisoft] does not seek, and have not obtained, consent from PII
Users to utilise the Pixel to track, share, and exchange their PII
with Facebook," it continued.
The plaintiffs said that they "privacy interests" were violated by
the situation, with the lawsuit adding: "This threat of injury to
plaintiffs from the continuous violations requires temporary,
preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief to ensure their PII is
protected from future disclosure without adequate notice and
consent." [GN]
ULTA BEAUTY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Ulta Beauty, Incorporated, Defendant, Case
No. 0:24-cv-03802 (D. Minn., October 2, 2024) arises because
Defendant's website, www.ulta.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 as well as
asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human
Rights Act.
The Plaintiff found a number of digital barriers on Defendant's
website. These barriers deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff
full and equal access to important website content. Accordingly,
the Plaintiff now seeks relief including an injunction requiring
Defendant to make its website accessible to Plaintiff and the
putative class. She also seeks an award of statutory attorney's
fees and costs, damages, a damages multiplier, a civil penalty, and
such other appropriate relief.
Headquartered in Bolingbrook, IL, owns and operates the website
which offers makeup, personal care products, and accessories for
sale including, but not limited to, makeup, nail products, skin
care, hair care, body care, fragrances, and more. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 South 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
E-mail: chad@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Illegal Passport Processing Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Scarcella, writing for Reuters, reports that the U.S. State
Department has overcharged millions of Americans over two decades
with a $60 fee to fast-track passport applications, according to a
new lawsuit in California federal court.
The proposed class action filed, opens new tab by an Oakland
resident on Friday, October 4, said the State Department's fee for
an expedited two-to-three-week turnaround was unjustified. Routine
processing takes four to six weeks.
Applicants already pay $100 or more for new passports or renewals.
The lawsuit asked the court to declare the $60 fee excessive and
order the "return or refund of all expedited passport processing
fees unlawfully and arbitrarily charged during the class period."
The State Department did not immediately respond to a request for
comment, and neither did the plaintiff’s lawyers at law firm
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll.
The number of U.S. passports issued annually rose from 13.5 million
in 2013 to more than 24 million last year, according to State
Department statistics.
The State Department did not charge for expedited processing before
1994 if an applicant could show urgent travel needs, the lawsuit
said. It raised the price for the service from $35 to $60 in 2002.
Federal law allows the department, which oversees U.S. passport
requests, to charge for expedited processing for passports to cover
the cost of the service. But the $60 charge is unreasonable,
according to the complaint.
"The State Department has never provided a sufficient justification
for setting the expedited passport processing fee at $60," the
lawsuit said.
The case is Bourque v. United States, U.S. District Court, Northern
District of California, No. 3:24-cv-06994.
For plaintiff: Geoffrey Graber and Madelyn Petersen of Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll; Charles Reichmann of Law Offices of
Charles Reichmann; and Mariel LaSasso of LaSasso Law Group
For defendant: No appearance yet [GN]
WARNER MUSIC: Website Not Blind-Accessible, Williams Says
---------------------------------------------------------
MILTON WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WARNER MUSIC GROUP CORP.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07352 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 27, 2024) is a
civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://jonimitchell.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on
June 26, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a Mingus T-Shirt from
Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff
encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping
experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal
access to the goods and services offered to the public. He was
unable to ascertain information relating to Defendant's official
Joni Mitchell apparel, accessories & merchandise including pricing
and was not able to add the items to the cart due to broken links,
pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on the
website, says the suit.
The 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.
Warner Music Group is an American multinational entertainment and
record label conglomerate headquartered in New York City. The
Company operates the Joni Mitchell online retail store, as well as
the Joni Mitchell 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 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
WEST GABLES: Pardo Sues Over Property's ADA Breaches
----------------------------------------------------
NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. WEST GABLES SHOPPING
PLAZA, LLC; and RINCONCITO LATINO INC. d/b/a EL RINCONCITO LATINO,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-23732 (S.D. Fla., Sept. 27, 2024) is a
class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals, for
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Defendant West Gables Shopping Plaza owns, operates, and oversees a
commercial property, its general parking lot and parking spots
specific to the businesses therein, located in Miami Dade County.
The individual Plaintiff visited the commercial property on August
23, 2024, and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that
directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the commercial
property, the suit asserts.
Specifically, the Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers
that are in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial
property. The barriers to access at the property have denied or
diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and
have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA, says the suit.
West Gables Shopping Plaza, LLC owns and operates the commercial
property.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beverly Virues, Esq.
Armando Mejias, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 553-3464
E-mail: bvirues@lawgmp.com
amejias@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL 33155
Telephone: (305) 350-3103
E-mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com
WOLVERINE WORLD: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Sumlin Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS SUMLIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-07567 (S.D.N.Y., October 6, 2024) arises from the
Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate
their website, www.merrell.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons.
Plaintiff Sumlin alleges that the Defendant violated the basic
equal access requirements under the Americans with Disabilities
Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City
Human Rights Law. Due to Defendant's failure and refusal to remove
access barriers to its website, blind individuals have been and are
being denied equal access to its numerous goods, services and
benefits offered to the public through the website.
Headquartered in Rockford, MI, Wolverine World Wide provides to the
public the commercial website which provides consumers with access
to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view
and purchase slip-ons, sneakers, sandals, boots, tops, bottoms,
outerwear, bags, hats, socks and accessories. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher H. Cohen, Esq.
ASHER COHEN PLLC
2377 56th Dr,
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Telephone: (718) 914-9694
E-mail: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com
[*] New Rules Reshape Homebuying Process After Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Foster of KGUN 9 reports that a class action lawsuit settled
this summer between the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and
various plaintiffs has led to significant changes in the homebuying
process.
These changes, effective since August 17, are aimed at increasing
transparency regarding real estate agents' compensation. However,
the settlement has also brought confusion among homebuyers about
what to expect.
Before the new rules, a seller would typically list the buyer's
agent's compensation on the Multiple Listing Service (MLS), with
the fee often being around 5 percent of the home's sale price,
split between the buyer's and seller's agents.
The settlement eliminated this practice, with compensation no
longer being posted on the MLS.
David Dynes, a designated broker with Tierra Antigua Realty, says
that some of his clients are anxious about the new rules.
"There was a lot of just uncertainty, anxiety about what was going
to happen," Dynes said. "A lot of misunderstanding out there about
how it would impact potential buyers and sellers."
However, Dynes says that the changes are actually quite minimal and
are unlikely to pose a large impact on homebuyers. In fact, he says
the new rules provide more transparency in understanding how real
estate agents and brokers are paid.
One of the key changes is the requirement for a formal buyer
employment agreement, which must be signed before a prospective
buyer can view a property. This agreement clearly outlines how the
real estate agent will be compensated.
Dynes sees this change as a step toward greater clarity in the
process.
"It explains how we're paid and how much we're paid," he said. "You
know what you're getting into upfront versus it being sometimes an
afterthought."
Despite the headlines that have sparked concern, Dynes emphasizes
that the changes are relatively minor. The compensation structure
is still negotiable, and sellers may still choose to cover the
buyer's agent's fee.
Deborah Breslin, a designated broker with Realty ONE Integrity in
Green Valley, agrees, stating that the agreements make the
compensation process more transparent.
"We are professionals and we're providing a service," Breslin said.
"As such, we make a living by being compensated just as someone
would go to work and make an hourly wage."
Breslin says that her agency, and many other realtors, already
focused on being transparent in how agents are paid. She also
stated that agent and broker compensation has always been
negotiable even before the new rules went into effect.
"So it wasn't a change," she said. "It was an adherence to
communicating about compensation for professional services."
She cited the confusion over the rule change as a reason why it's
important for Realtors to educate their clients throughout the
entire home buying process.
"We've always advocated proactively the practice of the options
that are given to our clients the minute we sit with them and have
that relationship start," Breslin said. "This includes talking
about what the contract says, what is our agreement going to be.
It's no different than any profession."
Dynes says that misinformation regarding the changes makes it that
much more crucial to engage and ask questions from your agent.
"The key thing is to talk with your agent about what your
relationship is, how they're being paid and what they're being
paid," he said. "Your agent should be educating you throughout the
process."
Final court approval of the settlement is expected in November.
[GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***