/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241104.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, November 4, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 221
Headlines
267 DEVELOPMENT: Fails to Pay Manager's OT Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
3M COMPANY: Allen Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Ambrose Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Armstrong Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
3M COMPANY: Baker Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Nelson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Simon Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Sullivan Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: White Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Wilson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
A&A SERVICES: Appointment of Interim Class Counsel in Foster OK'd
AFFINITY BANCSHARES: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Atlanta Postal
AGC CHEMICALS: Jones Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
AGC CHEMICALS: Santa Cruz Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
ALCHEMEE LLC: Ramos Suit Transferred to C.D. California
ALIBABA GROUP: Settles Shareholder Class Suit for $433.5-Mil.
ALLSTATE CORP: Palacios Appeals Summary Judgment in Shannon Suit
AMERICAN WATER: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Fishman Says
APPLE INC: $20-M Apple Watch Class Settlement Granted Prelim. OK
AROMA DEL PERU: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Tordoya Suit Claims
ASCEND FINANCE: Class Cert Reply Due Nov. 12 in Gillen Class Suit
ASTRIX TECHNOLOGY: Gooden Suit Removed to C.D. California
AUTHOR REPUTATION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Simmons Claims
BARNORTH GROUP: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA & NYLL, Leon Says
BLING LASH LOUNGE: Moon Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
BON SECOURS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Smalls Suit Says
BOSTON COLLEGE: Federal Judge Approves ERISA Class Settlement
BOTH INC: Dail Suit Seeks FLSA Class Certification
C2 FINANCIAL: Weber Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California
CALIFORNIA STATE: Anders Seeks OK of Renewed Class Cert Bid
CENTURYLINK INC: Appeals Judgment in Bultemeyer Suit to 9th Cir.
CERTUS HEALTHCARE: Class Cert. Bids in Wesel Suit Due May 2, 2025
CHRIS REYKDAL: N.D. Suit Seeks Initial OK of Settlement
CHX TX INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Essianor Suit Alleges
COCA-COLA SOUTHWEST: Mismanages 401(k) Plan, Bosque Suit Alleges
CRICKET WIRELESS: Lively Sues Over Failure to Secure PI
CVS PHARMACY: Montenegro Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
DANIEL LANZER: Class Action Moves Ahead With Amended Claims
DARTMOUTH-HITCHCOCK: Adams Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
DAVID'S BRIDAL: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Mora Suit Alleges
DISCOVERY COMMUNICATIONS: Simons Sues Over Data Privacy Violations
DROUIN LLC: Granados Class Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
EIGHT ORANGES: Mangahas Bid for Summary Judgment Partly OK'd
ELEVATE 1 FINANCIAL: Morales Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
EMBARK VETERINARY: Faces Pi Suit Over Deceptive Reference Prices
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Court OKs Proposed $40M Securities Suit Deal
ENGAGESMART INC: Bid for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set December 19
EVOLV TECHNOLOGIES: Court Appoints Glancy Prongay as Lead Counsel
EVOLV TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Dukes Files FCRA Suit in D. Arizona
EXXODO LLC: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Suit Says
FLAGLER WEST: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property
FLORIDA HOMES: Class Cert Bid Filing in Landeweer Due July 15, 2025
FREIGHTBULL INC: Ledet Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages
FULLBEAUTY BRANDS: Faces Hills Suit Over Deceptive Reference Prices
GAVIN NEWSOM: Laponte Bid to Proceed in Forma Pauperis OK'd
GENERAL MOTORS: White Appeals Summary Judgment to 10th Circuit
GEO GROUP: Bid to Vacate Class Cert Deadlines in Gonzalez Granted
GILLSON TRUCKING INC: Escarcega Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
GNC HOLDINGS: Espinosa Suit Removed to C.D. California
GOAT FIFTY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sanchez Suit Alleges
GOTHAM DISPENSARY: Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
GREEN MAN GAMING: Birch Sues Over Wiretap Act Violation
GREEN MAN: Discloses Users' Personal Info to Meta, Birch Says
GREENERY SPOT: Turner Seeks Website's Equal Access to Blind Users
GREENEVILLE, TN: School Board Considers Joining Insulin Class Suit
GROW TOGETHER: Turner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GRYPHON HEALTHCARE: Lacap Sues Over Failure to Secure Data
HEIDI WASHINGTON: Evans Objection to Sept. 13 Order Tossed
HENRY SCHEIN: Deadline for Claims Filing Set for January 14, 2025
HERSHEY CO: Faces Consumer Class Action Over Forever Chemicals
HOICE HOTELS: De La Pena Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
HUMANA INC: Elliot Bid to Amend Scheduling Order Granted in Part
HUNT CONSTRUCTION: Almander Suit Moved to S.D. Calif.
INMODE LTD: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set November 27
JAGUAR LAND: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Windshields
JANUS HENDERSON: Schissler Wins Class Certification Bid
JERICO PICTURES: Geletko Files Fraud Suit in C.D. Calif.
JMC COMMUNITIES: Griffith Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
JOHN WOOD: Court Stays Discovery & Vacates Deadlines
JOHN WOOD: Walther Bid to Seal Class Cert Materials Partly OK'd
JUDGE DENTAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Craig Suit Alleges
JUSTPLAY GMBH: Disclose Private Data Without Consent, Brewer Says
KASPI.KZ AO: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
KBI SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jones Suit Alleges
KENYON RANDLE: Lamar Class Certification Tossed w/o Prejudice
KONICA MINOLTA: Class Certification Filing Amended to Feb. 28, 2025
KWH MERCHANDISING: Jury Trial in Sides Suit Set for Nov. 3, 2025
LA TROPICANA: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
LANDMARK ADMIN: Tanner Sues Over Failure to Protect Clients' Info
LUMIO HX INC: Smith Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
MARYVILLE INC: Fails to Safeguard Patients' Info, Garrity Says
MDL 2873: Exposed Military Members to PFAS, Williams Suit Claims
MDL 2873: Faces Betak Suit Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF Products
MDL 2873: Yancey Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
MEDIBASE GROUP: Court Stays Deadlines for Class Cert Bid Filing
MIGOM GLOBAL: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Financial Statements
MOBIS ALABAMA: Aquino Suit Seeks to Certify Two FLSA Classes
MONEYGRAM PAYMENT: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Drake Alleges
MONSANTO COMPANY: Casey Suit Transferred to N.D. California
MOTORSPORT.TV DIGITAL: Discloses Users' Info to Meta, Guereca Says
MYLAN INC: Takeda Appeals Class Cert. Order in Actos Antitrust Suit
NATIONAL VISION: Maisnier Files Suit in California State Court
NEIMAN MARCUS GROUP: Sherman Files Suit in D. Montana
NEVADA GOLD MINES: Wieben Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
NEW EURO: Yoo Bok Son Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Cosmetologists
NEXA MORTGAGE: Appeals Remand Order in Diaz Labor Suit to 9th Cir.
NFL PLAYER: Reply to Alford Class Cert Bid Due Nov. 18
PAQ INC: La Vine Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PAQ INC: Sibley Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PASO ROBLES: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
PENTAIR RESIDENTIAL: Court of Appeals Reverses Class Cert. Order
PICKLEBALL BELLA: Espina Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
PINNACLE PROPERTY: Faces Williams Suit Over Breach of Contract
PLBY GROUP INC: Fagnani Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
PLEASANT HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alarcon Says
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Files Appeal in Mendoza Suit to 9th Circuit
PURPOSE FINANCIAL: Rayle Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina
ROBLOX CORP: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
ROCKET COMPANIES: Shupe Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 6th Cir.
ROSENDIN ELECTRIC: Varble Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ROYAL PETS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Supple Alleges
SA CONSUMER: Faces Austin Suit Over Defective Gun Safe Products
SAM'S EAST: Wallace Consumer Suit Removed to S.D. Ill.
SELECT PORTFOLIO: DeSimone Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York
SHIELDED BEAUTY: Miller Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
SINOVAC BIOTECH: Notice of Appeal Filed in Gestion Case
SMTC MANUFACTURING: Nguyen Suit Removed from Sup. Ct. to N.D. Cal.
STAGE ONE: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Turner Suit Alleges
SUBWAY LLC: Sandwiches Have Less Meat Than Advertised, Suit Says
SUBWAY RESTAURANTS: Sandwich's Ads "Deceptive," Tollison Claims
SUMMIT PATHOLOGY: Donohoe Files Suit in D. Colorado
SUMMIT PATHOLOGY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Richardson Says
SUMMIT PATHOLOGY: Klarin Sues Over Failure to Secure Information
THIELMANN FAMILY: Turner Sues Over Disabled's Access to Property
TRUSPER INC: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid in Ramirez Suit
UNIGO LLC: McLee Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
VARSITY BRANDS: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Huntley Says
VARSITY BRANDS: Le Sues Over Failure to Protect Information
VEROGEN INC: Hutcheson Sues Over Illegal Disclosure of Information
WALMART INC: R. C. Files Personal Injury Claims in C.D. Calif.
WALMART INC: Timmins Sues Over Petroleum Jelly's Hypoallergenic Ads
WELLLIFE NETWORK: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Dudek Says
XPO INC: Faces Hill ERISA Suit Over Illegal Tobacco Surcharge
YSA ARM: Unlawfully Obtains Drivers' Personal Info, Magden Alleges
ZANMAI LABS: May Face Class Action Suit Following $235-Mil. Hack
ZUMBA FITNESS: Discloses Customers' Viewing Info to Meta, Suit Says
[*] Court Rejects Bid to Add Maple Leaf to Price Fixing Suit
*********
267 DEVELOPMENT: Fails to Pay Manager's OT Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
------------------------------------------------------------------
ZACHARY MARTINEZ individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. 267 DEVELOPMENT LLC and CHOICE NY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT,
LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-07409 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 23, 2024) seeks to
recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay, and
other monies pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.
The suit alleges that the Plaintiff rarely received any overtime
compensation for the hours over 40 that he worked every week nor
any spread of hours compensation for any days in which he worked
over 10 hours. For the duration of employment with the Defendants,
the Plaintiff was paid a weekly paycheck of $927.18 per week after
deductions. This was calculated at a fixed rate of $31.50 per hour
for the prescribed 40 hours a week. On direct deposit statements,
it would reflect that the Defendants had only ever marked down 40
hours regardless of how much time Plaintiff had actually worked
that week. The Defendants systematically and intentionally ignored
the requirements of the FLSA and NYLL, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief against the
Defendants' unlawful actions, compensation for unpaid minimum and
overtime wage, spread-of-hours pay, liquidated damages,
compensatory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the FLSA and NYLL.
The Plaintiff worked as the live-in Resident Manager, performing
mechanical and/or technical maintenance duties at the Premises from
June 2022 until on Feb. 12, 2024.
267 Development is the owner and landlord of the residential
apartment building located at 267 6th St, Brooklyn, NY 11215.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Farzad Ramin, Esq.
SONG RAMIN PLLC
40-21 Bell Blvd., Second Floor
Bayside, NY 11361
Telephone: (718) 321-0770
E-mail: framin@songramin.com
3M COMPANY: Allen Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Allen, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL
COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No.
2:24-cv-05062-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 13, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist
biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in
people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air,
and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire
suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to
extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS,
PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are man-made compounds that are
persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the
environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and
safety. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals.
Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the
human body while presenting significant health risks to humans.
Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required
to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades
by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in
training and in response to Class B fires.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff,
and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate
for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing,
reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in
connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as
a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive,
equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training during the Plaintiff's service in the United
States Air Force.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 375-0111
Email: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
james@ferrarolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Ambrose Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Ambrose, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL
COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No.
2:24-cv-05087-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 13, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist
biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in
people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air,
and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire
suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to
extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS,
PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are man-made compounds that are
persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the
environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and
safety. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals.
Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the
human body while presenting significant health risks to humans.
Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required
to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades
by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in
training and in response to Class B fires.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff,
and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate
for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing,
reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in
connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as
a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive,
equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training during the Plaintiff's service in the United
States Air Force.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone (305) 375-0111
Email: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
james@ferrarolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Armstrong Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
-------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Armstrong, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION;
ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.;
CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD
INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.;
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX
CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY
APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE
DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No. 2:24-cv-05066-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 13,
2024), is brought for damages for personal injuries resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist
biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in
people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air,
and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire
suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to
extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS,
PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are man-made compounds that are
persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the
environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and
safety. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals.
Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the
human body while presenting significant health risks to humans.
Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required
to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades
by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in
training and in response to Class B fires.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff,
and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate
for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing,
reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in
connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as
a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive,
equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training during the Plaintiff's service in the United
States Air Force.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 375-0111
Email: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
james@ferrarolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Baker Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Baker III, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION;
ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.;
CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD
INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.;
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX
CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY
APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE
DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No. 2:24-cv-05055-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 13,
2024), is brought for damages for personal injuries resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist
biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in
people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air,
and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire
suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to
extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS,
PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are man-made compounds that are
persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the
environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and
safety. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals.
Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the
human body while presenting significant health risks to humans.
Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required
to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades
by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in
training and in response to Class B fires.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff,
and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate
for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing,
reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in
connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as
a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive,
equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training during the Plaintiff's service in the United
States Air Force.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone (305) 375-0111
Email: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
james@ferrarolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Nelson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Nelson, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL
COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No.
2:24-cv-05054-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 13, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist
biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in
people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air,
and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire
suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to
extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS,
PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are man-made compounds that are
persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the
environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and
safety. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals.
Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the
human body while presenting significant health risks to humans.
Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required
to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades
by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in
training and in response to Class B fires.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff,
and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate
for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing,
reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in
connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as
a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive,
equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training during the Plaintiff's service in the United
States Air Force.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone (305) 375-0111
Email: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
james@ferrarolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Simon Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andre Simon, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL
COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No.
2:24-cv-05053-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 13, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist
biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in
people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air,
and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire
suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to
extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS,
PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are man-made compounds that are
persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the
environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and
safety. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals.
Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the
human body while presenting significant health risks to humans.
Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required
to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades
by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in
training and in response to Class B fires.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff,
and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate
for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing,
reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in
connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as
a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive,
equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training during the Plaintiff's service in the United
States Army.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone (305) 375-0111
Email: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
james@ferrarolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Sullivan Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kristin Waters Sullivan, individually and as Personal
Representative/Administrator/Executor of the Estate of Charles
Williams Jr., deceased, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.;) DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case No.
2:24-cv-05042-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 13, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Kristin Waters Sullivan is the duly-appointed
personal representative/administrator/executor of the Estate of
Charles Williams Jr. who regularly used, and was thereby directly
exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his
working career in the Navy and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as
a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: White Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth White, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL
COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No.
2:24-cv-05064-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 13, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist
biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in
people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air,
and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire
suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to
extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS,
PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are man-made compounds that are
persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the
environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and
safety. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals.
Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the
human body while presenting significant health risks to humans.
Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required
to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades
by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in
training and in response to Class B fires.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff,
and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate
for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing,
reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in
connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as
a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive,
equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training during the Plaintiff's service in the United
States Air Force.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 375-0111
Email: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
james@ferrarolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Wilson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
George Wilson, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL
COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No.
2:24-cv-05060-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 13, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist
biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in
people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air,
and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire
suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to
extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS,
PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are man-made compounds that are
persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the
environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and
safety. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals.
Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the
human body while presenting significant health risks to humans.
Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required
to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades
by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in
training and in response to Class B fires.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff,
and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate
for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing,
reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in
connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as
a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive,
equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training during the Plaintiff's service in the United
States Air Force.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 375-0111
Email: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
james@ferrarolaw.com
A&A SERVICES: Appointment of Interim Class Counsel in Foster OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Foster v. A&A Services,
LLC (Re: SAV-RX Data Breach Litigation), Case No. 7:24-cv-05005 (D.
Neb.), the Hon. Judge Michael Nelson entered an order that:
1. The Coordinated Plaintiffs' motion for appointment of interim
class counsel is granted to the extent it requests
appointment
of interim co-lead class counsel.
2. Courtney E. Maccarone of Levy & Korsinsky, LLP; Terence R.
Coates of Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC; Jean S. Martin of
Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group; James S. Pizzirusso
of
Hausfeld LLP; Kate M. Baxter-Kauf of Lockridge Grindal Nauen
PLLP; and Charles E. Schaffer of Levin Sedran & Berman LLP
are
appointed as interim co-lead class counsel pursuant to
Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3).
3. The amended application of Brian Paul Thompson of Chicago
Consumer Law Center for appointment to Plaintiffs' Executive
or
Steering Committee or Other Position is denied without
prejudice.
Although Mr. Thompson is also qualified counsel with experience in
handling class actions, other complex litigation, and the types of
claims asserted in these cases, as outlined above, the Court finds
that counsel have not established that a Leadership / Steering
Committee should be created at this juncture.
Mr. Thompson's motion and brief demonstrate he is qualified to be
appointed to any such leadership structure, but also does not
explain why a larger leadership structure is necessary to begin
with.
Accordingly, the Court will deny his application, without
prejudice.
In sum, the Court finds that appointment of Coordinated Plaintiff's
Counsel as interim co-lead class counsel at this juncture is
appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).
However, the Court will not create a Leadership Committee without a
further showing of necessity, information outlining each member's
roles and duties within the committee, and any other information
justifying its establishment.
A&A Home offers a range of renovation services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tmEWoJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
AFFINITY BANCSHARES: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Atlanta Postal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating:
-- Affinity Bancshares, Inc. (Nasdaq: AFBI), relating to its
proposed merger with Atlanta Postal Credit Union ("APCU"). Under
the terms of the agreement, APCU will pay Affinity an aggregate
amount estimated to provide Affinity with sufficient cash to pay
Affinity shareholders approximately $22.40 - $22.60 per share.
ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for November 4, 2024.
Click here for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/affinity-bancshares-inc/. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- ARC Document Solutions, Inc. (NYSE: ARC), relating to its
proposed merger with TechPrint Holdings, LLC. Under the terms of
the agreement, ARC shareholders are expected to receive $3.40 in
cash per share they own.
DON'T MISS YOUR CHANCE. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for
November 21, 2024.
Click here for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/arc-document-solutions-inc/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Vista Outdoor Inc. (NYSE: VSTO), relating to its proposed
merger with Revelyst, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Vista
shareholders will receive $25.75 in cash per share of Vista stock
they own.
ACT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for
November 25, 2024.
Click here for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/vista-outdoor-inc/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341
Attorney Advertising. (C) 2024 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law
firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates
PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
AGC CHEMICALS: Jones Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Jones, and other similarly situated v. AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S.
INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; 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; FIRE-DEX, LLC;
GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA,INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY
LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES,
INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI
PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, 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 CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.; a, W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, Case No.
2:24-cv-05082-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 13, 2024), is brought 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
the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change
in the products' condition. Plaintiff were unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused
Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seek 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
seek injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed
with testicular cancer, thyroid cancer, and other injuries, as a
result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG 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:
Eric W. Cracken, Esq.
Steven D. Davis, Esq.
TORHOERMAN LAW LLC
210 S. Main Street
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Phone: 618-656-4400
Facsimile: 618-656-4401
AGC CHEMICALS: Santa Cruz Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Santa Cruz, and other similarly situated v. AGC
CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION;
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; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL
SAFETY PRODUCTS USA,INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY
SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, 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 CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.; a, W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, Case No.
2:24-cv-05083-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 13, 2024), is brought 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
the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change
in the products' condition. Plaintiff were unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused
Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seek 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
seek injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed
with testicular cancer, thyroid cancer, and other injuries, as a
result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG 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:
Eric W. Cracken, Esq.
Steven D. Davis, Esq.
TORHOERMAN LAW LLC
210 S. Main Street
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Phone: 618-656-4400
Facsimile: 618-656-4401
ALCHEMEE LLC: Ramos Suit Transferred to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Efren Ramos, Joshua Cross, Marisol Scharon,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
ALCHEMEE, LLC, Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., Case No.
3:24-cv-02230 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on Sept. 13, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-07827-SB-BFM to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Alchemee -- https://www.alchemee.com/ -- offers pro-active and
restorative elements services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephanie B. Sherman, Esq.
Robert Brent Wisner, Esq.
WISNER BAUM LLP
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 1750
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Phone: (310) 207-3233
Fax: (310) 820-7444
Email: ssherman@wisnerbaum.com
rbwisner@wisnerbaum.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Ingrid K. Campagne, Esq.
WFBM LLP
255 California St., Suite 525
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 781-7072
Email: icampagne@wfbm.com
- and -
David S. Kurtzer-Ellenbogen, Esq.
Paul E. Boehm, Esq.
Jessica Bodger Rydstrom, Esq.
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
680 Maine Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20024
Phone: (202) 434-5000
Email: dkurtzer@wc.com
pboehm@wc.com
jrydstrom@wc.com
ALIBABA GROUP: Settles Shareholder Class Suit for $433.5-Mil.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Navdeep Yadav of Benzinga reports that In a recent development,
Alibaba Group BABA has decided to settle a class-action lawsuit
filed by its shareholders for $433.5 million. The lawsuit alleged
that the company had made misleading statements about its
exclusivity practices.
What Happened: The e-commerce behemoth, based in China, denied all
allegations of fault, liability, wrongdoing, or damages, reported
The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, October 23. The company
stated in a regulatory filing that it opted for the settlement to
evade further litigation costs and disruptions.
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court in the Southern
District of New York in March 2023. It accused Alibaba of violating
federal securities laws by making numerous false statements about
its antitrust and exclusivity practices. This allegedly led to an
artificial inflation of its stock price, causing financial losses
to investors.
The legal action was initiated against Alibaba, along with certain
directors and officers, representing all investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired the company's American depositary shares between
July 9, 2020, and Dec. 23, 2020.
Why It Matters: The lawsuit alleged that Alibaba enforced
exclusivity practices that "required or coerced merchants to sell
exclusively on Alibaba platforms," and penalized merchants who sold
on competitors' platforms. The company allegedly continued these
practices even after promising to stop them in an agreement signed
in July 2020 with the State Administration for Market Regulation,
which enforces China's e-commerce and antimonopoly laws.
The settlement, however, is still subject to several conditions,
including court approval. [GN]
ALLSTATE CORP: Palacios Appeals Summary Judgment in Shannon Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROSA PALACIOS, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit
entitled Sara Shannon, et al., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Allstate Corporation, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-448, in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Texas.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
filed a complaint against the Defendants for violations of the
Texas Insurance Code.
On June 12, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.
On May 10, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment.
On Aug. 7, 2024, Mag. Judge Mark Lane filed a Report and
Recommendation granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment
and denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
On Sept. 16, 2024, Judge Alan D. Albright adopted Judge Lane's
Report and Recommendations. After a thorough review, Judge Albright
was persuaded that the Magistrate Judge's findings and
recommendation should be adopted.
The appellate case is captioned Shannon v. Allstate Corporation,
Case No. 24-50836, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit, filed on October 20, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants ROSA PALACIOS, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
John R. Davis, Esq.
SLACK DAVIS SANGER, L.L.P.
6001 Bold Ruler Way
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (512) 795-8686
Defendants-Appellees ALLSTATE CORPORATION, et al. are represented
by:
William W. Reichart, III, Esq.
DLA PIPER, L.L.P. (US)
6225 Smith Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21209
Telephone: (410) 580-4104
AMERICAN WATER: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Fishman Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
DENISE FISHMAN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AMERICAN WATER WORKS COMPANY, INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-09964 (D.N.J., Oct. 21, 2024) sues the Defendant for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other
similarly situated individuals' sensitive personally identifiable
information.
On Oct. 3, 2024, American Water "learned of unauthorized activity
within its computer networks and systems" which was determined to
be the result of a cybersecurity incident.
The compromised information includes names, email addresses, phone
numbers, home addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers
("SSN"), drivers' license information, bank account and other
financial information, account information, and other personally
identifying information, the suit says.
The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury because of
American Water's conduct. These injuries include invasion of
privacy, lost or diminished value of PII, lost time and opportunity
costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual
consequences of the Data Breach, loss of benefit of the bargain, an
increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails, and the continued and
certainly increased risk to their PII, the suit asserts.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff and Class Members seek to remedy these
harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of herself
and all similarly situated persons whose PII was compromised and
stolen because of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to
Defendant's inadequate data security practices.
Plaintiff Fishman has been a customer of American Water for
forty-five years and provided her PII to American Water as a
condition of opening and maintaining an account with American Water
to receiver its utility services.
American Water is a New Jersey-based water and wastewater utility
company that provides essential water and wastewater services to
more than 14 million people across 14 states.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWTIZ OSTROW P.A.
65 Overhill Road
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com
ostrow@kolawyers.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Grayson Wells, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
gwells@stranchlaw.com
APPLE INC: $20-M Apple Watch Class Settlement Granted Prelim. OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Simons, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
federal judge in Oakland granted on Friday, October 25, 2024,
preliminary approval for a class action settlement for $20 million
over claims that multiple series of Apple Watches have a defect
that could potentially harm owners.
The settlement, besides lightening the tech giant's pocketbook,
concludes a three-year legal battle that will ultimately release
the company from all future liabilities related to the defect.
The move appears to be a victory for the plaintiffs, whose
attorneys stated in their motion to approve the settlement that
going to trial would run the risk of recovering much less money for
the harm done to their clients or even none at all.
The $20 million settlement is expected to cover attorney's fees
plus incentive payments to the lead plaintiff, named plaintiffs of
the case and payments to class members.
Class members who make a payment selection by the response deadline
will receive $20 for each relevant device they own. If there is
more than $50,000 remaining in the settlement fund after all
payments have been issued, class members may receive up to $50 per
covered device.
In their agreement, the parties also proposed that any leftover
funds will be donated to the Rose Foundation's Consumer Products
Fund.
U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam wrote that he thought the
terms appeared fair and reasonable.
The Obama-appointed judge had little to gripe about in his 15-page
order, only noting a few inconsistencies in the full class notice
that needed to be corrected by a final fairness hearing.
For example, the full class notice states that the attorneys may
ask the court for an award of attorneys' fees of up to 30% of the
settlement fund, but in their motion, they say they will apply for
no more than $5 million, or 25%.
Gilliam stressed the importance of accurately reflecting this
information to class members but found that with these minor
changes, the proposed class notice would have enough to conform
with court requirements.
The plaintiffs' counsel is currently asking for $5 million in
attorneys' fees, $5,000 for the lead plaintiff and up to $2,000 for
each of the remaining named plaintiffs. The attorneys' fees will
ultimately be decided at the settlement's final fairness hearing.
The court has directed parties to meet within seven days of its
order to confer and file a proposed schedule for future events and
deadlines, including the final fairness hearing.
The plaintiffs from several different states filed the California
class action in December 2021 on behalf of all Apple Watch
customers, claiming that several First Generation and SE series
watches contain "an undisclosed and unreasonably dangerous safety
hazard."
They claimed that sudden swelling of the watch batteries can cause
the screen to detach, shatter, or crack, "exposing its razor-sharp
edges and leading to operational failure of the watch and/or
personal injuries."
They said Apple did not give sufficient space within the watch to
prevent the screen issue and watches have injured class members,
creating a "substantial and material risk of serious injury,
including lacerations, cuts, abrasions, and other injuries."
Claims included violations of California's unfair competition,
consumer and warranty laws, federal warranty law and fraud by
omission under various state laws.
The plaintiffs have walked a long road to get to this settlement.
After the initial 2021 complaint and an amended complaint in 2022,
the lawsuit survived a motion to dismiss in 2023. The plaintiffs
moved to approve the settlement in August and Apple did not oppose
the motion.
Attorneys representing both sides did not respond to requests for
comment by press time. [GN]
AROMA DEL PERU: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Tordoya Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR TORDOYA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AROMA DEL PERU OF CORAL GABLES, CORP. A/K/A
AROMAS DEL PERU, MARIA I. ASTETE, and CARLOS VIDAL, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-24118-DPG (S.D. Fla., October 24,
2024) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt, full-time
restaurant employee from approximately January 10, 2017, to
September 24, 2024.
Aroma Del Peru of Coral Gables, Corp., also known as Aromas Del
Peru, is a restaurant owner and operator located in Coral Gables,
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
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
ASCEND FINANCE: Class Cert Reply Due Nov. 12 in Gillen Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as The Law Offices of William
M. Gillen PC v. Ascend Finance Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-00456
(D.N.H., Filed Oct. 5, 2023), The Hon. Judge Joseph N. Laplante
entered an order granting motion to extend time to Nov. 12, 2024,
to File Reply in Support of Class Certification and Request for
Additional Pages.
-- Follow up on Reply on: Nov. 12, 2024
The nature of suit states Trademark Infringement.
Ascend is a finance broking firm.[CC]
ASTRIX TECHNOLOGY: Gooden Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Toni Gooden, an individual and on behalf of all
others Similarly Situated v. Astrix Technology, LLC, Kite Pharma
Inc., Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV45436 was
removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of California on Sept. 20, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-08078-SVW-AGR to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Astrix -- https://astrixinc.com/ -- is the unrivaled market-leader
in creating & delivering innovative strategies, solutions, and
people to the life science community.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
Sara Ehsani-Nia, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP PC
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Phone: (310) 438-5555
Fax: (310) 300-1705
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
sara.ehsaninia@faegredrinker.com
- and -
Henry Glad Glitz, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, PC
1460 Westwood Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: (310) 438-5555
Fax: (310) 300-1705
Email: henry@tomorrowlaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey D Klein, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
1460 Westwood Blvd., Ste. 300
Los Angeles, CA 90024-4937
Phone: 310-438-5555
Fax: 310-300-1705
The Defendants are represented by:
Justin Tyler Goodwin, Esq.
Marisol Ramirez, Esq.
DTO LAW
915 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1950
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 335-6999
Email: jgoodwin@dtolaw.com
mramirez@dtolaw.com
- and -
Erik Paul Mortensen, Esq.
DTO LAW
702 Marshall Street, Suite 640
Redwood City, CA 94063
Phone: (415) 630-4100
Email: emortensen@dtolaw.com
AUTHOR REPUTATION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Simmons Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARGO SIMMONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AUTHOR REPUTATION PRESS LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-12330-NMG (D. Mass., Sept. 10, 2024) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.
Author Reputation Press LLC is a publishing company with
headquarters in Canton, Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (617) 485-0018
Facsimile: (508) 318-8100
Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com
BARNORTH GROUP: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA & NYLL, Leon Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL MANUEL PUMA LEON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. BARNORTH GROUP LLC d/b/a GREY LADY, and
CALLUM MCLAUGHLIN, GAVIN MCLAUGHLIN, RYAN CHADWICK and CHARLIE
GLIWA, as individuals, Case No. 1:24-cv-08060 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 23,
2024) alleges that the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff time
and a half (1.5) for hours worked over 40, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.
The suit says that the Plaintiff Leon was regularly required to
work 57 hours per week from April 2021 until December 2023 and 48
hours per week from January 2024 until September 2024. He was paid
by the Defendants a flat hourly rate of $15.00 per hour for all
hours worked from April 2021 until December 2023 and $16.00 per
hour for all hours worked from January 2024 until September 2024.
The Defendants also failed to provide the Plaintiff with an
accurate wage statement that included all hours worked and all
wages received each week when Plaintiff was paid in violation of
the NYLL.
As a direct result of the Defendants' violations and failure to
provide proper wage notices and wage statements, the Plaintiff
suffered a concrete harm, resulting from Plaintiff's inability to
identify Plaintiff's employer to remedy his compensation problems,
lack of knowledge about the rates of pay he was receiving and/or
should have receiving for his regular hours and overtime hours,
terms, and conditions of his pay, and furthermore, an inability to
identify his hourly rate of pay to ascertain whether he was being
properly paid in compliance with the FLSA and NYLL -- which he was
not, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and liquidated damages.
The Plaintiff also seeks interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all
other legal and equitable remedies this Court deems appropriate,
the suit adds.
Plaintiff Leon was employed by the Defendants as a kitchen helper,
food preparer, stocker, cleaner and dishwasher while performing
related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants, from April 2021
until June 2024.
Grey Lady is an oyster bar and late-night hotspot in the Lower East
Side.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are 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
BLING LASH LOUNGE: Moon Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jina Moon, on behalf of herself and a collective of similarly
situated individuals v. BLING LASH LOUNGE INC. doing business as
BLING LASH STUDIO and JANE DOE aka LEAH, Case No. 1:24-cv-07433
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2024), is brought for failure to pay minimum
wages, overtime wages, failure to provide accurate wage notices,
failure to provide wage statements in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").
The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the New York State minimum
wage for all her working hours and also failed to pay overtime
wages required under the FLSA and NYLL for hours worked over 40 per
week. The Defendants also failed to provide Plaintiff wage notices
and/or accurate wage notices as required by NYLL at the time of her
hiring or when any changes to the information required in the wage
notices took place. Accordingly, by failing to comply with their
wage notice requirements, Defendants owe Plaintiff per day for
every day such notice was not provided, up to $5,000 per employee,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a cosmetologist.
Bling Lash Studio is a nail salon.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan Kim, Esq.
RYAN KIM LAW, P.C.
222 Bruce Reynolds Blvd. Suite 490
Fort Lee, NJ 07024
Phone: 718) 573-1111
Email: ryan@ryankimlaw.com
BON SECOURS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Smalls Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
LATISHA SMALLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BON SECOURS MERCY HEALTH, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00616-MWM (S.D. Ohio, Oct. 28, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard the Plaintiff's and the Class's highly sensitive
personally identifiable information.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant
maintained the PII in a reckless and negligent manner. The PII was
maintained on the Defendant's computer system and network in a
condition vulnerable to cyberattack. Because of the Data Breach,
the Plaintiff and Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in
the form of the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket
expenses, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy
or mitigate the effects of the attack and the substantial and
imminent risk of identity theft, says the suit.
Bon Secours Mercy Health, Inc. is in the health care industry,
operating a hospital with office at Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert E.DeRose, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP
4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 221-4221
Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
- and -
Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
EKSM, LLP
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (888) 350-3931
Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
BOSTON COLLEGE: Federal Judge Approves ERISA Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Boston College reports that a federal judge has approved a $330,000
settlement agreement in a class action lawsuit brought against the
Investment Committee for Boston College's 401(k) plans and the
University by two former employees who claimed that the committee's
actions with respect to the plans had violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
The case, one of many ERISA class action suits brought against
universities nationwide, was filed in June of 2022 by the two
plaintiffs, who had participated in BC retirement plans offered
through TIAA CREF and Fidelity Investments.
In a statement, Boston College said it entered into the settlement
solely to eliminate the burden, expense, and distraction of further
litigation, despite its clear contention that the lawsuit was
baseless.
"Boston College believes that the lawsuit was without merit and
that the University's management of its retirement plans fully
complies with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. BC also
believes that had the case proceeded to trial, the University would
have prevailed and defeated the plaintiffs' claims. The University
takes pride in the generous benefit plans it offers to its
employees, which include retirement benefits that are provided at a
low cost and with exceptional levels of customer service, and which
have consistently helped BC employees to achieve their retirement
goals."
Attorney James Fleckner of Goodwin Procter, LLP, which represented
the University, said that BC believes strongly that it and its
Investment Committee met their fiduciary responsibilities.
"BC and the Investment Committee had a robust and prudent process
for evaluating the investments made available under its retirement
plans," said Fleckner. "Among other things, the committee engaged
in regular negotiations to lower fees and monitored the retirement
plans' investments and fees with the assistance of its independent
advisor's regular, industry-standard benchmarking, to continually
provide BC faculty and staff with reasonably priced investments and
services to best allow them to prepare for retirement."
United States District Court Judge William G. Young's April 11
ruling granted Boston College summary judgment on many of the
plaintiffs' claims but allowed the case to proceed on two discrete
issues. The settlement was approved by Judge Young in August.
The settlement proceeds, after fees and costs, will be distributed
in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement to class
members in amounts proportional to assets they had in the 401(k)
plans between January 2019 and June 2024. Settlement notices will
be mailed on October 25. [GN]
BOTH INC: Dail Suit Seeks FLSA Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIAN DAIL, et al.,
Individually and on behalf of all Others similarly situated, v.
BOTH, INC., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00276-JKW-DEM (E.D. Va.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for
class certification pursuant to Federal Rule 23 and Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) Conditional Certification.
Both is a bank holding company owning or controlling one or more
banks.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4VHZ3d at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Harris D. Butler, III, Esq.
Craig J. Curwood, Esq.
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
Samantha Galina, Esq.
BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 648-4848
Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
E-mail: harris@butlercurwood.com
craig@butlercurwood.com
zev@butlercurwood.com
samantha@butlercurwood.com
C2 FINANCIAL: Weber Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against C2 Financial
Corporation. The case is styled as Scott Weber, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. C2 Financial
Corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-02934-DC-SCR (E.D. Cal., Oct. 24,
2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
C2 Financial -- https://www.c2financial.com/ -- is a top mortgage
broker in the nation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gustavo Ponce, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 89148
Phone: (800) 520-5523
Email: gustavo@kazlg.com
CALIFORNIA STATE: Anders Seeks OK of Renewed Class Cert Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAYLOR ANDERS, HENNESSEY
EVANS, ABBIGAYLE ROBERTS, MEGAN WALAITIS, TARA WEIR, and COURTNEY
WALBURGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FRESNO, and BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, Case No.
1:21-cv-00179-KJM-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the
Court, on Jan. 23, 2025, for entry of an order granting renewed
motion for class certification.
Pursuant to the Court's Minute Order dated Aug. 8, 2024, the
Plaintiffs are concurrently filing a memorandum of points and
authorities, declarations, and exhibits in further support of the
Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification.
Pursuant to this Court's Civil Standing Order, the Plaintiffs
certify that the parties have exhausted their meet and confer
efforts regarding the relief sought by Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion
for Class Certification.
Pursuant to this Court's Civil Standing Order, the Plaintiffs state
that no settlement discussions are occurring.
California State University is a public university system in
California, and the largest public university system in the United
States.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mXCd8O at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
Amy E. Tabor, Esq.
CADDELL & CHAPMAN
Monterey, CA 93942
Telephone: (713) 751-0400
Facsimile: (713) 751-0906
E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com
cbc@caddellchapman.com
aet@caddellchapman.com
- and -
Arthur H. Bryant, Esq.
Neda Saghafi, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Hwy
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
E-mail: abryant@clarksonlawfirm.com
nsaghafi@clarksonlawfirm.com
CENTURYLINK INC: Appeals Judgment in Bultemeyer Suit to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
CENTURYLINK, INC. is taking an appeal from a court judgment in the
lawsuit entitled Lydia Bultemeyer, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CenturyLink, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:14-cv-02530-SPL, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Arizona.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.
On Sept. 16, 2024, Judge Steven P. Logan entered an Order in favor
of the Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $500 for
statutory damages and $2,000 for punitive damages.
The appellate case is captioned Bultemeyer v. CenturyLink, Inc.,
Case No. 24-6413, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, filed on October 21, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 28,
2024;
-- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on October 30,
2024;
-- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on November 29, 2024;
-- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on January 8, 2025;
and
-- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on February 7, 2025.
[BN]
CERTUS HEALTHCARE: Class Cert. Bids in Wesel Suit Due May 2, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARGIE WESEL, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. CERTUS HEALTHCARE
MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01479-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Kimberly Jolson entered an case scheduling order as
follows:
-- Protective Order or Clawback Agreement Due: Nov. 15,
2024
-- The parties will mediate this case in: Dec. 2024.
-- Motions to Amend or Join Additional Feb. 24,
2025
Parties Due:
-- Motions for Class Certification Due: May 2, 2025
Certus is a growing organization and most experienced provider of
rehabilitation and long term care.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=piKz6c at no extra
charge.[CC]
CHRIS REYKDAL: N.D. Suit Seeks Initial OK of Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as N.D., et al., on behalf of
a class of those similarly situated, v. CHRIS REYKDAL, in his
capacity as the SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION and OFFICE OF
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, a Washington State
agency, Case No. 2:22-cv-01621-LK-MLP (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order that:
(1) certify the proposed settlement class comprised of:
"All students in Washington who were exited from special
education services due to age before their 22nd birthday
between Nov. 11, 2020 and the present,"
(2) appoint as class counsel the law firms of Susman Godfrey LLP
and Cedar Law PLLC,
(3) appoint N.D. and E.A., by and through their respective
guardians, as class representatives,
(4) grant preliminary approval of the settlement,
(5) approve the proposed notice plan, and
(6) schedule any final fairness hearing and related deadlines.
The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action in November of
2022, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants
Superintendent Chris Reykdal and the Office of Superintendent of
Public Instruction, alleging that they violated the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), by failing to ensure school
districts in Washington provide FAPE to "all children with
disabilities between the ages of 3 and 21, inclusive."
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sF1YXA at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ian B. Crosby, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
401 Union Street, Suite 3000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 516-3880
Facsimile: (206) 516-3883
E-mail: icrosby@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Lara Hruska, Esq.
Alex Hagel, Esq.
Kaitlin Leifur-Masterson
CEDAR LAW PLLC
113 Cherry Street, PMB 96563
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 607-8277
Facsimile: (206) 237-9101
E-mail: lara@cedarlawpllc.com
alex@cedarlawpllc.com
kaitlin@cedarlawpllc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Brian Rowe, Esq.
S. Todd Sipe, Esq.
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
Telephone: (206) 464-7744
E-mail: Brian.Rowe@atg.wa.gov
Todd.Sipe@atg.wa.gov
CHX TX INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Essianor Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
EMMANUEL ESSIANOR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHX TX, INC. D/B/A YESCARE,
Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-03063-DLB (D. Md., Oct. 22, 2024) is an
action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the
class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week.
Plaintiff Essianor was employed by the Defendant as a physician's
assistant.
CHX TX, Inc. d/b/a Yescare is a provider of correctional healthcare
in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edith K. Thomas, Esq.
Thomas J. Eiler, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Ave., Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 587-9373
Email: ethomas@zagfirm.com
teiler@zagfirm.com
COCA-COLA SOUTHWEST: Mismanages 401(k) Plan, Bosque Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
MONICA DEL BOSQUE, JENNA RODRIGUEZ, FABIOLA SOLIS-GARAY, NICOLE
WARE, and PHILIP WATTERSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COCA-COLA SOUTHWEST
BEVERAGES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-02707-L (N.D. Tex.,
October 28, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA) including breaches of fiduciary duty of prudence, breach of
fiduciary duty of loyalty, and breach of ERISA's anti-inurement
provision.
According to the complaint, the Defendant breached the duties it
owed to the Coca-Cola Southwest Beverages 401(k) Plan, to the
Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter
alia, (1) failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's
investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment
option was prudent, in terms of cost and performance; and (2)
failing to defray reasonable expenses of administering the Plan. As
a result of the Defendant's mismanagement of the Plan, the
Plaintiffs and the Class suffered losses, says the suit.
Coca-Cola Southwest Beverages LLC is a manufacturer and distributor
of bottled beverages, with its principal place of business in
Dallas, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel L. White, Esq.
WARD + WHITE PLLC
114 1/2 E. Louisianna Street, Suite 206
McKinney, TX 75069
Telephone: (469) 541-0040
Email: dwhite@wardwhitepllc.com
- and -
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
James A. Maro, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
Email: markg@capozziadler.com
jamesm@capozziadler.com
CRICKET WIRELESS: Lively Sues Over Failure to Secure PI
-------------------------------------------------------
Traci Lively, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CRICKET WIRELESS, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03044 (D.D.C.
Oct. 24, 2024), is brought for damages with respect to the
Defendant for its failure to exercise reasonable care in securing
and safeguarding consumers' Private Information ("PI" or "Private
Information") including phone numbers, the phone numbers of
consumers' contacts, the duration of the phone calls, and the
number of calls and text messages.
This class action is brought on behalf of consumers whose PI was
stolen by cyber-criminals in a cyber-attack against Cricket's
third-party cloud platform, Snowflake, that took place between May
1, 2022, and October 31, 2022, and January 3, 2023, resulting in
the access and exfiltration of consumers' Private Information (the
"Data Breach").
Cricket reported to Plaintiff and members of the putative "Class"
that information compromised in the Data Breach included their
Private Information. As a result of the Data Breach and Defendant's
failure to promptly notify Plaintiff and Class Members of the Data
Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have experienced and will
experience various types of misuse of their PI in the coming months
and years, including but not limited to, unauthorized credit card
charges, identity theft, and other fraudulent use of their Private
Information.
Accordingly, Plaintiff assert claims for negligence, breach of
implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy,
unauthorized disclosure of customer proprietary information, the
District of Columbia Consumer Protections Procedures Act, and
declaratory and injunctive relief, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Lively has been a Cricket consumer since 2022.
Cricket provides wireless telecommunications services to over ten
million subscribers and has locations across the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H Street NE
Washington D.C. 20002
Phone: (202) 470-3520
Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
jrathod@classlawdc.com
CVS PHARMACY: Montenegro Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALAN MONTENEGRO, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss in the lawsuit entitled
Alan Montenegro, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01876-SB-BFM, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendants for violations of California's
Unfair Competition Law and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act
and for false advertising, deceptive practices, breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty, and unjust enrichment.
On Aug. 9, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. granted on Sept. 19,
2024. The Plaintiffs' claims were dismissed on the merits with
prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned Montenegro, et al. v. CVS Pharmacy,
Inc., et al., Case No. 24-6404, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 21, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 28,
2024;
-- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on October 29,
2024;
-- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on November 29, 2024;
-- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on January 7, 2025;
and
-- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on February 6, 2025.
[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants ALAN MONTENEGRO, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
R. Brent Wisner, Esq.
WISNER BAUM, LLP
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 1750
Los Angeles, CA 90025
DANIEL LANZER: Class Action Moves Ahead With Amended Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Naomi Neilson, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that a Supreme
Court decision has cleared the way for alleged victims of celebrity
cosmetic surgeon Dr Daniel Lanzer and six of his associates to
pursue damages for disappointment and distress, a law firm behind
the class action has said.
In a decision handed down in the Victorian Supreme Court earlier
this month, Justice Jacinta Forbes approved the class action's
amended statement of claim and dismissed an application by the
defendants to strike out parts of the claim.
Kathryn Emeny, class actions principal with Maddens Lawyers, said
this was an "important step" in the firm's outline of the nature of
allegations against Lanzer and his associates.
Maddens filed the class action in 2022, and the number of group
members has since soared to over 1,000.
It was sparked by a media investigation into allegedly serious
hygiene and safety breaches and procedures, which left patients in
extreme pain. Some required further medical treatment and allegedly
suffered from ongoing physical and psychological issues.
In coming to her decision, Justice Forbes said the issues in the
group proceedings "have been tolerably clear" and able to be
responded to by the defendants since the original statement of
claim.
She also noted that each of the seven doctors has "admitted they do
not hold plastic surgery qualifications".
Maddens said this decision will allow the plaintiffs to continue
seeking damages for disappointment and distress and pursue claims
they were allegedly misled by the defendants on the Lanzer website
and across their social media platforms.
The firm alleged the doctors made representations they were
specialist surgeons with specialist surgical training. [GN]
DARTMOUTH-HITCHCOCK: Adams Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBRA M. ADAMS, DANILLIE
L. MARS, MICHELLE L. MILLER and ANITA W. DAME, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DARTMOUTH-HITCHCOCK
CLINIC, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH-HITCHCOCK CLINIC, THE
ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE OF
DARTMOUTH-HITCHCOCK CLINIC and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No.
1:22-cv-00099-LM (D.N.H.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court, pursuant
to FED. R. CIV. P. 23, to enter an order:
-- certifying class action,
-- appointing Plaintiffs as representatives of the proposed class
defined below ("Class"), and
-- appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the Class.
The Plaintiffs submit that the Court should certify the following
proposed Class:
"All persons, except Defendants and their immediate family
members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan,
at
any time between March 18, 2016, through the date of judgment
(the
"Class Period")."
Dartmouth provide primary and specialty care throughout NH and VT.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wdysmq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
James A. Wells, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
- and -
Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
MUHIC LAW LLC
923 Haddonfield Road,
Suite 300 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
Telephone: (856) 324-8252
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: peter@muhiclaw.com
DAVID'S BRIDAL: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Mora Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
PAULA L. OLIVA MORA, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. DAVID'S BRIDAL, INC. ("DB"), Case No. 2:24-cv-05651
(E.D. Pa., Oct. 23, 2024) sues the Defendant for failure to
properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class members'
personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's
information network.
The lawsuit says that DB did not inform the public of the Data
Breach until after Sept. 13, 2024, even though it became aware of
the data breach on or about January 22, 2024, which had occurred
approximately 8 months earlier. A wide variety of PII was
implicated in the breach, including names, social security number,
date of birth, mailing address, and telephone number. As a direct
and proximate result of DB's inadequate data security, and its
breach of its duty to handle PII with reasonable care, the
Plaintiff's PII has been accessed by hackers, posted on the dark
web, and exposed to an untold number of unauthorized individuals,
the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff is now at a significantly increased and certainly
impending risk of fraud, identity theft, misappropriation of health
insurance benefits, intrusion of her health privacy, and similar
forms of criminal mischief, and such risk may last for the rest of
her life, the suit adds.
Consequently, the Plaintiff must devote substantially more time,
money, and energy to protect herself, to the extent possible, from
these crimes.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
brings claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
fiduciary duty, breach of confidences, breach of an implied
contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment, seeking
actual and putative damages, with attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses, and appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief.
The Plaintiff is an adult individual and a resident of Nevada. On
Sept. 13, 2024, the Plaintiff was notified of the Data Breach and
of the impact to her PII via letter from the Defendant.
DB operates over 300 bridal stores across the United States and
Canada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Liberato P. Verderame, Esq.
Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S. State Street, Suite N300
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (215) 867-2399
E-mail: lverderame@edelson-law.com
medelson@edelson-law.com
DISCOVERY COMMUNICATIONS: Simons Sues Over Data Privacy Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTANCE SIMON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DISCOVERY COMMUNICATIONS LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-08175 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2024) alleges violation
of the Video Privacy Protection Act.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Plaintiff have
Facebook accounts and watch videos on hgtv.com and subscribe to
HGTV's newsletter. The Defendant monetizes its website by knowingly
collecting and disclosing its subscribers' personally identifiable
information—including a record of every video clip they view, to
Facebook without consent. The Defendant violated the VPPA by
knowingly transmitting Plaintiff's and the putative class's
personally identifiable information to unrelated third parties,
says the suit.
Discovery Communications, LLC provides entertainment services. The
Company offers cable and satellite television services. Discovery
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: jarisohn@bursor.com
pfraietta@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
DROUIN LLC: Granados Class Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beatriz Granados, Jose L. Perez, and other similarly situated
individuals v. J Drouin LLC, aka Ellenton Cafe, Jerome Drouin, and
Sylvie Lebreton aka Sylvie Drouin, individually, Case No.
8:24-cv-02457 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 23, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
While employed by the Defendants, the Plaintiffs worked six days
per week, a total of 54 hours weekly. The Plaintiffs did not take
bona fide lunchtime hours. The Plaintiffs were paid for all their
hours but at their regular rate. However, the Defendants willfully
failed to pay the Plaintiffs overtime wages, at the rate of time
and a half their regular rate, for every hour that they worked in
excess of 40, the suit alleges.
The Plaintiffs asserts that they were paid for 40 hours with
checks, and the remaining 14 hours were paid separately in cash.
They were not provided with paystubs detailing accurate information
about wage rate paid, number of days and hours worked, employee
taxes withheld, etc.
Plaintiffs Perez and Granados were employed by the Defendants from
June 15, 2020 to July 29, 2024 and from January 15, 2021, to July
28, 2024, respectively.
Ellenton Cafe is an American cafe serving breakfast, lunch, and
dinner.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are 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
EIGHT ORANGES: Mangahas Bid for Summary Judgment Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSY MANGAHAS, and
PITCHAYA WOHLFAHRT, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. EIGHT ORANGES INC. d/b/a THE BAO, CHIBAOLA
INC. d/b/a ULUH, JOANNE HONG BAO, and RICHARD LAM, Case No.
1:22-cv-04150-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis Liman entered an
order:
-- granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment; and
-- denying Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment.
The Class Representatives alleges violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").
Class Representatives move on behalf of themselves and a certified
class of servers, runners, bussers, bartenders, and barbacks that
work or have worked at The Bao or Uluh after October 5, 2015 for
partial summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56.
The Plaintiffs claim that Defendants violated the overtime, minimum
wage, and tip credit provisions of the FLSA, and the overtime,
minimum wage, tip credit, uniform reimbursement, spread of hours,
wage notice, and wage statement provisions of the NYLL.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7q9v1M at no extra
charge.[CC]
ELEVATE 1 FINANCIAL: Morales Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Elevate 1 Financial,
LLC. The case is styled as Nicole Morales, individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated v. Elevate 1 Financial, LLC,
Case No. 3:24-cv-01951-GPC-SBC (S.D. Cal., Oct. 23, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Elevate 1 Financial specialize in connecting you with an array of
loan products at the speed of life.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1700
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (754) 444-7539
Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com
EMBARK VETERINARY: Faces Pi Suit Over Deceptive Reference Prices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Li Pi, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals v. Embark Veterinary, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and
Does 1-10, inclusive; Case No. 5:24-cv-07384-NC (N.D. Cal., Oct.
23, 2024) contends that Embark advertises Products at continuously
discounted prices alongside struck-out Reference Prices, which are
materially greater than the true prevailing prices for Products, in
violation of California's False Advertising Law.
The Defendant advertises significant discounts off the Reference
Prices it provides for its Products. The Defendant communicates
this in at least three ways. The Defendant starts by listing the
purportedly discounted prices in bold next to struck-out Reference
Prices on its Products listing webpage. Then, when customers place
the Products in their online shopping carts, the purportedly
discounted prices and struck-out Reference Prices are also listed
there. Finally, Defendant lists and tallies up customers' supposed
savings during the checkout process -- e.g., "$30 OFF EACH KIT
(-$30.00)," "$40 OFF EACH KIT (-$80.00)," and "TOTAL SAVINGS
$110.00," the suit alleges.
But Defendant's Products are always advertised with discounts off
of higher Reference Prices, so consumers never actually pay the
supposedly "regular" prices (i.e., Reference Prices) that the sale
prices are purportedly discounted against. In other words, the
"discounted" prices are Defendant's regular prices, and its
Reference Prices are fictitious prices used solely to induce
potential customers into purchasing its Products, the Plaintiff
avers.
To confirm that Embark always offers discounts off of its Reference
Prices, Plaintiff's counsel investigated its advertising history
using the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine (available at
www.archive.org). That investigation confirms that, except for its
Dog Age Test, discounts off of the Reference Prices for
Defendant’s Products have persisted continuously since at least
Oct. 12, 2022, the Plaintiff says.
Also, since at least May 14, 2024, Defendant's Dog Age Test has
been continuously advertised as marked down from $159 but never
actually sold for more than $129. Had Defendant marketed its
products truthfully, consumers would not have purchased the
Products or would done so only at lower, legitimately discounted
price points, added the suit.
Plaintiff Li Pi purchased an Embark Breed + Health Test from
Defendant's website, www.embarkvet.com, on Aug. 12, 2024. He made
this purchase while living in Palo Alto, California.
Embark primarily makes, markets, and sells a variety of dog DNA and
health testing kits to dog owners, breeders, and veterinarians who
make up its consumer base.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elliot J. Siegel, Esq.
Julian Burns King, Esq.
Brent R. Boos, Esq.
KING & SIEGEL LLP
724 South Spring Street, Suite 201
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Telephone: (213) 465-4802
Facsimile: (213) 465-4803
E-mail: elliot@kingsiegel.com
julian@kingsiegel.com
brent@kingsiegel.com
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Court OKs Proposed $40M Securities Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland has approved the following announcement of
a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of
Emergent BioSolutions Inc. common stock (NYSE: EBS):
NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE
COMMON STOCK OF EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS INC. ("EMERGENT") (NYSE: EBS)
BETWEEN MARCH 10, 2020 AND NOVEMBER 4, 2021, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, that a hearing will be held on
February 27, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Deborah L.
Boardman, United States District Judge, at the courthouse for the
United States District Court, District of Maryland, 6500 Cherrywood
Lane, Suite 445, Greenbelt, MD 20770 for the purpose of
determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in
the above-captioned Action for consideration in the amount of forty
million dollars ($40,000,000.00) should be approved by the Court as
fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the Plan of Allocation
is fair and reasonable, and should be approved; (3) whether Lead
Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees of up to
thirty percent (30%), and reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses
of not more than five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) plus
interest on such fees and expenses, and a compensatory award for
Lead Plaintiffs of not more than eighty thousand dollars ($80,000)
total, all to be paid from the Settlement Fund, should be approved;
and (4) whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice
against the Settling Defendants as set forth in the Stipulation of
Settlement dated September 12, 2024 (the "Stipulation") filed with
the Court.
You are receiving this Notice because the Court has certified a
class of investors for settlement purposes only ("Settlement
Class") and you may be a member of the Settlement Class
("Settlement Class Member"). The proposed Settlement Class will
consist of all Persons who purchased, or otherwise acquired, the
common stock of Emergent (NYSE: EBS) during the Settlement Class
Period. Excluded from the Settlement Class are Settling Defendants;
members of their immediate families and their affiliates; any
entity in which Settling Defendants had a controlling or
partnership interest during the Settlement Class Period; any person
serving as an Officer or director of Emergent during the Settlement
Class Period; the judges presiding over the Action and the
immediate family members of such judges; and the successors, heirs,
and assigns of any excluded person.
If you purchased or acquired Emergent common stock during the
Settlement Class Period, your rights may be affected by this Action
and the Settlement thereof, including the release and
extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your ownership
interest in Emergent common stock. If you have not received a
more-detailed, long-form Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class
Action, Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, and Settlement
Fairness Hearing ("Notice") and the Proof of Claim and Release
Form, you may obtain copies of these documents and the Stipulation
by downloading them at the Claims Administrator's website at:
www.strategicclaims.net/emergent. If you are unable to do so, you
may contact the Claims Administrator to obtain copies:
In re Emergent BioSolutions Inc. Securities Settlement
Strategic Claims Services
P.O. Box 230
600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205
Media, PA 19063
(866) 274-4004
info@strategicclaims.net
The case has been litigated since April 19, 2021. Lead Plaintiffs
allege that, in violation of the U.S. federal securities laws,
Settling Defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions,
with scienter, concerning Emergent's business operations, reported
results, and internal controls causing Emergent's common stock
price to be inflated during the Settlement Class Period. Lead
Plaintiffs further allege that revelation of Settling Defendants'
fraud caused statistically significant stock declines, thereby
injuring Lead Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class of investors.
Settling Defendants have denied and continue to deny these
allegations, deny that they committed any act or omission giving
rise to any liability or violation of the law, and believe that the
claims are without merit. The Settlement will resolve the lawsuit
and the Released Claims as to the Settling Defendants, Released
Defendant Parties, and other Released Parties. Lead Plaintiffs and
the Settlement Class are represented by Lead Counsel who may be
reached by contacting: Matthew L. Tuccillo or Jennifer B. Sobers,
Pomerantz LLP, 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10016,
(212) 661-1100.
If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of
Claim and Release Form online or received no later than February 4,
2025, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Unless you
submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any
Judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you make a claim.
If you want to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion, in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, so that it
is received no later than February 6, 2025. If you decide to
exclude yourself from the Settlement Class and wish to file your
own individual lawsuit based on the Released Settlement Class
Claims, Settling Defendants and Released Defendant Parties may
argue that you face a time bar under applicable statutes of
limitation or repose, risks that you should discuss with an
appropriate legal advisor. All members of the Settlement Class who
have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be
bound by any Judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the
Settlement Stipulation.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not exclude yourself,
you can object to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses and compensatory award to Lead Plaintiffs in the manner
and form explained in the Notice and received no later than
February 6, 2025.
Any questions regarding the Settlement should be directed to Lead
Counsel for the Settlement Class.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, THE SETTLING
DEFENDANTS, OR SETTLING DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.
Dated: October 16, 2024
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND [GN]
ENGAGESMART INC: Bid for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set December 19
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until December 9, 2024 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against
EngageSmart, Inc. ("EngageSmart" or the "Company") (NYSE:ESMT), if
they (1) purchased or otherwise acquired EngageSmart common stock
between October 23, 2023 and January 26, 2024, or (2) held
EngageSmart common stock as of the December 21, 2023 record date of
the take-private acquisition of the Company (the "Merger") by Vista
Equity Partners Management, LLC and its affiliates. This action is
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware.
What You May Do
If you would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case
might affect you and your right to recover for your economic loss,
you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact contact KSF
Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via
email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
http://ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-esmt/to learn more. If you wish
to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by December 9, 2024.
About the Lawsuit
The Complaint alleges that a pattern of material misstatements and
omissions of material facts concealed the conflicted and tainted
sales process that led to EngageSmart's January 2024 take-private
Merger with Vista, which was motivated not by what was best for
Unaffiliated Stockholders but by controlling shareholder General
Atlantic's desire to monetize part of its five-year investment in
EngageSmart while maintaining its control position or, at the very
least, to roll over some of its equity to maintain an upside
benefit in the Company going forward, in violation of an "equal
treatment" provision in the Company charter.
The case is Altshares Event-Driven ETF v. Engagesmart, Inc., et
al., No. 24-cv-1083.
About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking recoveries for
investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, Delaware,
California, Louisiana and New Jersey.
To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.
CONTACT:
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 960
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]
EVOLV TECHNOLOGIES: Court Appoints Glancy Prongay as Lead Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces that it has been
appointed Lead Counsel in the securities class action against Evolv
Technologies Holdings, Inc. ("Evolv" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
EVLV) and certain executive officers of the Company, currently
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.
Investors that purchased Evolv common stock are encouraged to
contact Charles H. Linehan, Esq. of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to
discuss the status of the case and the claims in the litigation.
On November 2, 2022, IPVM published a report detailing Evolv's
"deceptive marketing and colluding with NCS4, a public entity, to
hide test results showing failures at weapons screening." That same
day, BBC published reported that a previous National Center for
Spectator Sports Safety and Security ("NCS4") report had been
manipulated by Evolv employees, including deleting a reference to
the system being incapable of detecting every knife. On this news,
Evolv's stock price fell $0.08, or 2.7%.
Then, on October 12, 2023, Evolv disclosed that the U.S. Federal
Trade Commission requested information about "certain aspects" of
the Company's "marketing practices." On this news, Evolv's stock
price fell $0.58, or 13.3%, to close at $3.77 per share on October
12, 2023.
Then, on February 20, 2024, Evolv disclosed that the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") notified the Company
that the SEC was initiating a "non-public, fact finding inquiry."
On this news, Evolv's stock price fell $0.82, or 15.7%, to close at
$4.41 per share on February 20, 2024.
Then, on March 13, 2024, the independent company, which Evolv
claimed had "tested and validated" its technology, told BBC News
that it was "not correct to say [it] ‘validated' the system." On
this news, Evolv's stock price fell $0.13, or 3.5%.
Then, on October 25, 2024, Evolv announced that it would restate
its financial statements since second quarter 2022 due to improper
revenue recognition. The announcement follows an investigation into
"the Company's sales practices, including whether certain sales of
products and subscriptions . . . were subject to extra-contractual
terms and conditions that impacted revenue recognition and other
metrics." On this news, the Company's stock fell 40% to close at
$2.47 per share.
Follow us for updates on LinkedIn, Twitter, or Facebook.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
(310) 201-9150
(888) 773-9224
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]
EVOLV TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Evolv Technologies Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: EVLV)
resulting from allegations that Evolv may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.
So What: If you purchased Evolv securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=30142 call Phillip Kim,
Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for
information on the class action.
What is this about: On October 25, 2024, before market hours, Evolv
filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC announcing its
"delay filing its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended September 30, 2024." The reason behind the delay is due to
"an internal investigation that is focused on the Company's sales
practices, including whether certain sales of products and
subscriptions to channel partners and end users were subject to
extra-contractual terms and conditions that impacted revenue
recognition and other metrics, and if so, when senior Company
personnel became aware of these issues." In addition, results of
the investigation "determined that the accounting for certain sales
transactions was inaccurate and that, among other things, revenue
was prematurely or incorrectly recognized in connection with
financial statements prepared for the periods between the second
quarter of 2022 and the second quarter of 2024."
On this news, Evolv's stock price fell $1.63 per share, or 40%, to
close at $2.47 per share on October 25, 2024.
Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Dukes Files FCRA Suit in D. Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Meloniece M. Dukes also known
as: Meloniece Dukes, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Case
No. 2:24-cv-02855-SMB (D. Ariz., Oct. 22, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Experian Information Solutions, Inc. -- https://www.experian.com/
-- operates as an information services company. The Company offers
credit information, analytical tools, and marketing services.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
EXXODO LLC: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA CARIDAD GUTIERREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JACINTO LAM; and EXXODO LLC D/B/A
EXXODO RESTAURANT, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-24091-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., Oct. 22, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants'
commercial restaurant at 5396 W 12th Avenue, Hialeah, Florida
33012, is not accessible to mobility-impaired individuals in
violation of ADA.
Exxodo LLC d/b/a Exxodo Restaurant owns, operates and oversees the
commercial restaurant, including general parking lot, pathway and
commercial goods areas, aisles and restroom areas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104
Miami, FL 33144
Telephone: (786) 361-9909
Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
FLAGLER WEST: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property
-----------------------------------------------------
Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated v. FLAGLER WEST CORPORATE CENTER LLC, and
COOPER HOSPITALITY GROUP LLC D/B/A FONDA SABANETA, Case No.
1:24-cv-24097-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 23, 2024), is brought for
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result
of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff
by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the commercial property and restaurant and bar
business within the commercial property.
Although over 30 years has passed since the effective date of Title
III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make its/their facilities
accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Plaintiff found
the commercial property and commercial restaurant business located
within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The
Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial
property and commercial restaurant business located within the
commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of
the premises.
The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at the subject places of public accommodation.
The barriers to access at Defendant's commercial property and
commercial restaurant business have each denied or diminished
Plaintiff's ability to visit these places of public accommodation
and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The
barriers to access, which is set forth below, have likewise posed a
risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff and
others similarly situated.
The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff
by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the commercial property, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate.
FLAGLER WEST CORPORATE CENTER LLC, owned and operated a commercial
retail shopping plaza.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104
Miami, FL 33144
Phone: (786) 361-9909
Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
Primary Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com
FLORIDA HOMES: Class Cert Bid Filing in Landeweer Due July 15, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN LANDEWEER, v. FLORIDA
HOMES REALTY & MORTGAGE LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00788-WWB-SJH (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Wendy Berger entered the case management and
scheduling order as follows:
Mandatory Initial Disclosures: Oct. 29, 2024
Motions to Add Parties or to Amend Pleadings: Dec. 16, 2024
Disclosure of Expert Reports
Plaintiff: July 1, 2025
Defendant: July 31, 2025
Rebuttal: Aug. 14, 2025
Deadline for Moving for Class Certification: July 15, 2025
Discovery Deadline: Aug. 29, 2025
Dispositive Motions, and Daubert Motions: Sept. 30, 2025
All Other Motions Including Motions In Limine: Jan. 2, 2026
Meeting In Person to Prepare Joint Final Jan. 23, 2026
Pretrial Statement:
Trial Status Conference: Feb. 10, 2026
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CcXqVm at no extra
charge.[CC]
FREIGHTBULL INC: Ledet Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Duval Ledet, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FREIGHTBULL INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-10974 (N.D. Ill.,
Oct. 24, 2024), is brought alleging that the Defendant has violated
the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (the "IWPCA") by
misclassifying him and other similarly situated drivers as
independent contractors, when they are, as a matter of law,
employees; failure to pay drivers all wages they earned; taking
unlawful deductions from the wages earned; and failure to reimburse
Plaintiff for expenses they incurred.
The Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant has breached its
contracts with him and other similarly situated drivers by failing
to pay them all compensation they were entitled to receive under
the contracts and by taking deductions from their compensation that
were not authorized by or provided for in the contracts, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a lease driver from December 2022 to
March 2024.
Freightbull Inc. is a trucking company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew R. Crimmins, Esq.
CRIMMINS LAW FIRM, LLC
214 S. Spring Street
Independence, MO 64050
Phone: (816) 974-7220
Facsimile: (855) 974-7020
Email: m.crimmins@crimminslawfirm.com
- and -
Hillary Schwab, Esq.
FAIR WORK, P.C.
192 South Street, Suite 450
Boston, MA 02111
Phone: (617) 607-3260
Fax: (617) 488-2261
Email: hillary@fairworklaw.com
FULLBEAUTY BRANDS: Faces Hills Suit Over Deceptive Reference Prices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MARY UHT, BARBARA FITCH, and JESSICA HILLIS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FULLBEAUTY BRANDS
OPERATIONS, LLC, and Does 1-10, Case No. 2:24-cv-09067 (C.D. Cal.,
Oct. 21, 2024) is a case concerning deceptive representations and
omissions made by the Defendants because of its misleading and
unlawful pricing, sales, and discounting practices on its
websites.
The lawsuit alleges that the Defendant creates the false impression
that its Products' regular or former prices are higher than they
truly are. The Plaintiffs -- like hundreds of thousands of other
customers across the United States -- fell prey to Defendant's
false, deceptive, and misleading discount scheme. As a result, the
Defendant has earned millions of dollars selling products at
misrepresented discounts that do not actually exist, the lawsuit
contends.
The products at issue are all goods that have been offered
consistently on FullBeauty Brands websites, at a sale or discounted
price from a supposedly higher reference price. The Defendant's
conduct violated and continues to violate the California Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"), California's False Advertising Law
("FAL"), and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA").
The Defendant's conduct also constitutes negligent
misrepresentation, and has unjustly enriched the Defendant by the
sale of these Products, the Plaintiffs aver.
Through this class action lawsuit, the Plaintiffs seek monetary
damages, restitution, and declaratory and injunctive relief on
behalf of the proposed Class.
On Aug. 12, 2023, Plaintiff Uht purchased a pair of The Skyla Slip
On Sneakers from Defendant's website Woman Within. Based on and
consistent with archived copies of Defendant's website, the
Plaintiff Uht saw on the listing page a reference to a former or
regular price of $99.99 - $109.99 per unit in strikethrough text,
and an adjacent sale price of $39.99. Prior to August 2023, the
Defendant listed the product at $39.99 (and even as low as $27.99),
with the same reference price of $99.99 - $109.99.
Full Beauty sells and markets plus-size clothing products online
through its various brands and websites.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeff Westerman, Esq.
Caleb Marker, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
6420 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1080
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Telephone: (877) 500-8780
Facsimile: (877) 500-8781
E-mail: jeff.westerman@zimmreed.com
caleb.marker@zimmreed.com
- and -
Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq.
JENNINGS PLLC
500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 372-1300
E-mail: chris@jenningspllc.com
tyler@jenningspllc.com
winston@jenningspllc.com
GAVIN NEWSOM: Laponte Bid to Proceed in Forma Pauperis OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN LAPONTE, v. GAVIN
NEWSOM, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-02808-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Chi Soo Kim entered an order that:
1. Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is
granted.
2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of
$350.00 for this action. Plaintiff is assessed an initial
partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in
accordance with this court's order to the Director of the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed
concurrently herewith.
3. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed.
4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff
shall
complete the Notice of Amendment
The Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. The Plaintiff
seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and requested leave to
proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915. This
proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to
28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1).
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CG33dA at no extra
charge.[CC]
GENERAL MOTORS: White Appeals Summary Judgment to 10th Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROY WHITE is taking an appeal from a court order granting the
Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Roy
White, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. General Motors, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-CV-00410-CNS-MEH, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged design, production,
and marketing of 2011-2014 GM vehicles with defective Generation IV
5.3 Liter V8 Vortec 5300 LC9 engines.
On Apr. 13, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which Judge Regina M. Rodriguez granted in part and
denied in part on July 7, 2022. The Plaintiff's First, Fifth, and
Sixth causes of action were dismissed without prejudice. The
Plaintiff's Fourth cause of action was dismissed with prejudice.
On Oct. 5, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class,
which Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney granted on May 5, 2023.
On May 19, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration
of the Order to certify class, which Judge Sweeney denied on June
30, 2023.
On Oct. 23, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment, which Judge Sweeney granted on Sept. 17, 2024. The Court
ruled that without expert testimony to prove that the alleged Oil
Consumption Defect caused engine issues in the Generation IV LC9
engine, the Plaintiff cannot satisfy an element of his breach of
implied warranty claim. Summary judgment was, thus, warranted.
The appellate case is captioned White v. General Motors, Case No.
24-1409, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit, filed on October 17, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ROY WHITE, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:
H. Clay Barnett, Esq.
Rebecca D. Gilliland, Esq.
Tyner D. Helms, Esq.
Dylan T. Martin, Esq.
Wilson D. Miles, III, Esq.
James Mitchell Williams, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
P.O. Box 4160
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
- and -
Daniel Ferri, Esq.
Adam Jay Levitt, Esq.
Blake Stubbs, Esq.
John E. Tangren, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
Defendant-Appellee GENERAL MOTORS, LLC is represented by:
Jennifer Allen, Esq.
DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS
1550 Seventeenth Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 892-7533
- and -
Mike Brock, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 389-5000
- and -
Rachel Raphael, Esq.
April N. Ross, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 739-3000
- and -
Renee Deborah Smith, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS
333 West Wolf Point Plaza
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 862-2000
GEO GROUP: Bid to Vacate Class Cert Deadlines in Gonzalez Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUGO GONZALEZ, JOSE BACA,
ERICK LOPEZ, MARIO MANJARREZ, and RICARDO SANDOVAL GUADARRAMA, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. THE GEO
GROUP, INC., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-04014-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Jesus Bernal entered an order granting Geo Group's
ex parte application to vacate or continue the current deadline to
file its opposition to the motion for class certification and
corresponding dates:
Current Date Requested
Date
Dispositive Motion/Class Nov. 18, 2024 Dec. 2, 2024
Certification Motion hearing
cut-off:
Briefing deadline for Class
Certification
Motion filing deadline Sept. 23, 2024 Oct. 15,
2024
Opposition deadline Oct. 28, 2024 [no
change-date
passed]
Reply deadline Oct. 29, 2024 Nov. 11,
2024
Briefing deadline for
Dispositive Motion
Motion filing deadline Sept. 30, 2024 Oct. 15,
2024
Opposition deadline Oct. 21, 2024 Nov. 4, 2024
Reply deadline Nov. 4, 2024 Nov. 18,
2024
GEO Group is a publicly traded C corporation that invests in
private prisons and mental health facilities.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K807FZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
GILLSON TRUCKING INC: Escarcega Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gillson Trucking,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Juan Escarcega, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated v. Gillson Trucking, Inc., Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2024-0014223 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Oct.
23, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Gillson Logistics -- https://www.teamgillson.com/ -- provides many
services with expertise in moving and handling goods and delivers
the best assistance to its customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101
Pasadena, CA 91103
Phone: (818) 230-7502
Fax: (818) 230-7259
Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
GNC HOLDINGS: Espinosa Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Alondra Manzo Espinosa, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. GNC HOLDINGS, LLC,
a California limited liability company; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Case No. 24ST-CV-24172 was removed from the Superior Court for the
State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, on Oct. 23,
2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-09138.
The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts the following eight causes of
action: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime
Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest
Periods; Failure to Pay Reporting Time Wages; Failure to Provide
and Maintain Complete and Accurate Wage Statements; Failure to
Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses; and Violation of California
Business & Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Sophia B. Collins, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Treat Towers
1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Phone: 925.932.2468
Fax: 925.946.9809
Email: scollins@littler.com
- and -
Nathaniel H. Jenkins, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916.830.7200
Fax: 916.561.0828
Email: njenkins@littler.com
GOAT FIFTY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sanchez Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
LORIS SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOAT FIFTY, LLC d/b/a COCO BISTRO; ABC
CORPORATION d/b/a INATTESO PIZZA BAR; and FRANK CASANO, Defendants,
Case No. 1:24-cv-08191 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2024) seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Sanchez was employed by the Defendants as a waiter.
Goat Fifty, LLC d/b/a Coco Bistro operates a restaurant in downtown
Manhattan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian L. Greben, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN L. GREBEN
316 Great Neck Road
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 304‐5357
GOTHAM DISPENSARY: Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
-----------------------------------------------------------
TAVON TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOTHAM DISPENSARY LLC; HYDROMAN DISPENSARY
LLC; and GOTHAM CAURD LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-08017
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 22, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, www.gotham.nyc., is not fully or equally accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Gotham Dispensary LLC is NYCs luxury and legal recreational weed
dispensary, located in Lower Manhattan's East Village. [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
GREEN MAN GAMING: Birch Sues Over Wiretap Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Adam Birch, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Green Man Gaming Limited, Case No. 2:24-at-01342 (E.D. Cal.,
Oct. 23, 2024), is brought on behalf of all persons who visited
https://www.greenmangaming.com/ (the "Website"), operated by
Defendant, and purchased video games on the Website ("PII Users"),
seeking relief on behalf of PII Users of the Website for violations
of the VPPA and the Wiretap Act.
The Website's purpose is selling and delivering PC, Xbox and
Nintendo video games. The Defendant does not disclose on the
Website that PII Users' personally identifying information ("PII")
would be captured by the Meta Platforms, Inc. ("Meta" or
"Facebook") tracking Pixel (the "Pixel") utilized by Defendant, and
then transferred to Meta thereby exposing the PII Users' PII to any
person of ordinary technical skill who received that data.
The Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA") prohibits video tape
service providers, such as Defendant, from sharing PII. Under the
VPPA, PII is information that can specifically tie the identity of
an individual to the individual's requested pre-recorded audio
video material, either through the title, description, or summary
of the video content.
The Defendant purposefully implemented and utilized the Pixel,
which tracks user activity on the Website and discloses that
information to Facebook to gather valuable marketing data. The
Pixel cannot be placed on a Website without steps taken directly by
Defendant or on behalf of Defendant (e.g., by a website manager).
The Pixel cannot be placed on the Website by Facebook without the
knowledge and cooperation of Defendant.
The Defendant does not seek, and have not obtained, consent from
PII Users to utilize the Pixel to track, share, and exchange their
PII with Facebook. The Defendant knew that their Pixel resulted in
users' PII and search terms being shared (resulting in VPPA and
Wiretap Act violations), and that it failed to obtain users'
consent to allow their Pixel to operate in a way that shares users'
protected information with Facebook.
The Defendant violated the VPPA the moment, and each time,
Plaintiff and Class Members purchased a video on the Website and
had their PII shared. The Defendant violated the Wiretap Act the
moment, and each time, Plaintiff and Class Members purchased a
video game on the Website, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff visited the Website while logged into his Facebook
account, to purchase at least one video game containing cut
scenes.
Green Man is an online digital distribution, gaming and
entertainment service website at
https://www.greenmangaming.com/.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN
21031 Ventura Blvd, Suite 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
Email: abacon@toddflaw.com
- and -
Mark S. Reich, Esq.
Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
Email: mreich@zlk.com
cbrown@zlk.com
GREEN MAN: Discloses Users' Personal Info to Meta, Birch Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Birch, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Green Man Gaming Limited, Case No. 2:24-cv-02929-DC-AC (E.D.
Cal., Oct. 23, 2024) is a class action brought on behalf of all
persons who visited the Website, operated by the Defendant, and
purchased video games on the Website.
According to the complaint, the Defendant does not disclose on the
Website that PII Users' personally identifying information would be
captured by the Meta Platforms, Inc. tracking Pixel utilized by the
Defendant, and then transferred to Meta thereby exposing the PII
Users' PII to any person of ordinary technical skill who received
that data.
The suit alleges that the Defendant purposefully implemented and
utilized the Pixel, which tracks user activity on the Website and
discloses that information to Facebook to gather valuable marketing
data. Further, the Defendant does not seek, and have not obtained,
consent from PII Users to utilize the Pixel to track, share, and
exchange their PII with Facebook.
The Plaintiff seeks relief in this action individually and on
behalf of PII Users of the Website for violations of the Video
Privacy Protection Act and the Wiretap Act.
Mr. Birch visited the Website through a Chrome browser, while
logged into his Facebook account, to download at least one video
game, which contained cut scenes and cinematics. Mr. Birch's
Facebook profile includes his name, location, photos, relationship
status, friend list, and posts.
Green Man is an online digital distribution, gaming and
entertainment service website at
https://www.greenmangaming.com/.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN
21031 Ventura Blvd, Suite 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: abacon@toddflaw.com
GREENERY SPOT: Turner Seeks Website's Equal Access to Blind Users
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TAVON TURNER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GREENERY SPOT LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-08086 (S.D.N.Y., October 24, 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.greeneryspot.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, contrast errors, suspicious alternative
text, skipped heading levels, and null alternative text.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Greenery Spot 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
GREENEVILLE, TN: School Board Considers Joining Insulin Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Metcalfe, writing for WGRV.com, reports that the Greeneville
City School Board tabled any action on retention of a law firm to
represent them in a proposed class action lawsuit against insulin
manufacturers.
Attorneys General in several states, along with municipalities and
other organizations, have joined a lawsuit accusing pharmaceutical
companies of unfairly fixing and inflating prices of insulin. The
board had a proposal from Frantz law firm to represent the district
in that suit. On a motion by board member Josh Quillen, the school
board decided table the action to give any other law firms the
opportunity to make a presentation to represent the school
district.
Local attorney Crystal Jessee addressed the County School Board at
their meeting earlier in the evening, asking that board to consider
her firm to represent the county schools in the suit.
The city board will discuss the issue again at their December
meeting. The county school board also will have further discussions
about their participation and representation at a later date. Both
boards and presentations pointed out that there is no cost of
joining the suit. Jessee told the county board that attorney fees
are only paid if the suit is successful, and then are either paid
by the defendant or from one-third of the settlement. [GN]
GROW TOGETHER: Turner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grow Together LLC.
The case is styled as Tavon Turner, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Grow Together LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-08031 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 22, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Grow Together LLC -- https://growtogetherbk.com/ -- offer
professional lead generation services that help local businesses
generate more sales leads on a consistent, long-term basis..[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
GRYPHON HEALTHCARE: Lacap Sues Over Failure to Secure Data
----------------------------------------------------------
Amado Lacap, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GRYPHON HEALTHCARE, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-04106 (S.D.
Ill., Oct. 24, 2024), is brought arising out of a recent
cyberattack and data breach (the "Data Breach") resulting from GH's
failure to implement reasonable and industry-standard data security
practices to protect its patients' personal identifying
information, including Private Information.
In providing medical care to patients from across the country, GH
collects a significant amount of data--including its patients'
personal identifiable information ("PII") such as names, dates of
birth, addresses, Social Security numbers, as well as health
information including dates of service, diagnosis information,
health insurance information, medical treatment information,
prescription information, provider information and medical record
number2 (the "PHI" or, collectively, the "Private Information"). GH
collects, uses, and derives a benefit from its patients' extremely
sensitive Private Information--and it assumes a significant duty to
protect that information.
The Data Breach compromised and exposed patients' Private
Information such as names, dates of birth, addresses, Social
Security numbers, dates of service, diagnosis information, health
insurance information, medical treatment information, prescription
information, provider information and medical record number.
GH failed to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII/PHI
therefore, Plaintiff's and Class Members have been exposed to
actual harm consistent with the litany of injuries that data
breaches cause, including loss of value of PII, loss of time spent
dealing with the Data Breach, imminent threat of and actual theft
of PII by cybercriminals financial loss, such as purchasing
protective measures including credit monitoring, credit freezes,
credit reports, and other means of detecting and mitigating
identity theft and (e) any other types of quantifiable harm that
stem from the breach, including out-of-pocket losses, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff relied on Defendant to keep their PII confidential
and securely maintained.
GH touts itself as "A Revenue cycle, coding and compliance, and
consulting service for: Hospitals, Emergency Departments and
Physicians, Ambulatory Surgery Centers, Imaging Centers,
Independent Labs, Healthcare Facilities, Large Physician Groups and
Private Practices and EMS Services."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Phone: 214/744-3000
Fax: 214/744-3015
Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: (215) 592-1500
Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Phone: (513) 345-8291
Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
- and -
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Phone: (516) 873-9550
Email: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com
HEIDI WASHINGTON: Evans Objection to Sept. 13 Order Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALRELIO EVANS, v. HEIDI
WASHINGTON, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00913-HYJ-RSK (W.D. Mich.),
the Hon. Judge Hala Jarbou entered an order denying Plaintiff's
objection to the Court's Sept. 13, 2024, order.
Moreover, having conducted the review required by the PLRA, the
Court determines that Defendants Bush, Heydens, Unknown Parties,
Atearn, Macauley, Hadden, Addis, Houghton, Unknown Party #1, and
Unknown Party #2 will be dismissed for failure to state a claim
under 28 U.S.C. sections 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C.
section 1997e(c).
The Court will also dismiss, for failure to state a claim, the
following claims against Defendants Washington, Davids, Bonn,
Brokaw, Dunigan, Luther, Simon, Smith, Saad, Shafer, Norton,
Bookie, and Maranka:
(1) Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claims;
(2) Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant
Washington;
(3) Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal
protection claims;
(4) Plaintiff's ADA claims against Defendants Davids, Bonn,
Brokaw,
Dunigan, Luther, Simon, Smith, Saad, Shafer, Norton, Bookie,
and Maranka;
(5) Plaintiff's PAIMI Act claims; and
(6) Plaintiff's RICO Act/embezzlement claims. The following
claims
remain in the case: (1) Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims
against Defendants Davids, Bonn, Brokaw, Dunigan, Luther,
Simon, Smith, Saad, Shafer, Norton, Bookie, and Maranka; and
(2) Plaintiff's ADA claim against Defendant Washington. An
order consistent with this opinion will be entered.
A copy of the Court's opinion dated Oct. 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5wrKEx at no extra
charge.[CC]
HENRY SCHEIN: Deadline for Claims Filing Set for January 14, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Kroll Settlement
Administration regarding a data breach class action settlement
involving Henry Schein, Inc.
What is the litigation about?
The litigation is Lucisbel Cruz-Bermudez and Helmut Becker v. Henry
Schein, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00387-BCM, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York. It involves a
data breach that Henry Schein, Inc. experienced in September 2023
that impacted certain company systems and that affected certain
personal information. Individuals included in the class action
settlement as class members are those whose personal information
was compromised in the data breach.
What is the class action settlement compensation and terms?
Class members who file an approved claim will receive a cash fund
payment (estimated to be $50) and may receive reimbursement for
out-of-pocket losses of up to $4,000 from the settlement fund of
$2,900,000.00.
What are class members' rights and options?
Submit a Claim Form. To qualify for settlement compensation, class
members must timely mail a short claim form (for a cash fund
payment), or full-length claim form (for a cash fund payment and
out-of-pocket losses), or timely complete and submit a claim form
online at www.henryscheinsettlement.com. Claim forms must be
postmarked or submitted online no later than the claims deadline of
January 14, 2025.
Opt-Out. Class members may exclude themselves from the class and
settlement and retain the ability to sue Henry Schein on their own
by mailing to the settlement administrator a request to opt-out of
the settlement. The request must be postmarked no later than
December 16, 2024. Class members who do not exclude themselves will
be part of the class and bound by the settlement and give up the
right to sue regarding the released claims.
Object. Class members who do not exclude themselves from the class
have the right to object to the settlement. Written objections must
be signed and submitted by mail to the settlement administrator,
postmarked no later than December 16, 2024. Class members may also
appear at the final approval hearing. Further instructions about
opting out and objecting can be found on the long form notice and
in the settlement agreement located on the
www.henryscheinsettlement.com.
Do Nothing. Class members who do nothing will not receive a cash
fund payment or out-of-pocket losses reimbursement from the
settlement but will be a member of the class bound by the
settlement and will lose the right to sue regarding the released
claims. They will be bound by the Court's decision because this is
a conditionally certified class action.
Attend the Final Approval Hearing. The Court will hold a final
approval hearing virtually at 10:30 AM on February 14, 2025 to
determine if the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. All
persons who timely object to the settlement may appear at the final
approval hearing.
Who are the attorneys for the Class Representatives and the
proposed Class?
The Court appointed Gary M. Klinger of Milberg Coleman Bryson
Phillips Grossman, PLLC, and Raina Borrelli of Strauss Borrelli,
PLLC to represent the class. Class members who want to be
represented by their own lawyer may hire one at their own expense.
Do class members have any obligation to pay attorneys' fees or
expenses?
No. The attorneys' fees and litigation expenses will be paid
exclusively from the settlement fund as awarded and approved by the
Court. The requested fee and expense award will be $966,666.67 plus
reasonable expenses incurred. The fee and expense application by
class counsel will be posted on the settlement website after it is
filed with the Court.
What is the amount of the Class Representatives' Service Awards?
The class representatives (Lucisbel Cruz-Bermudez, Helmut Becker,
and Randi Grifka) will seek service awards of up to $5,000 each for
their time, effort and service to the class in this matter.
This notice is a summary of the proposed settlement. Additional
information about the settlement can be found on
www.henryscheinsettlement.com. [GN]
HERSHEY CO: Faces Consumer Class Action Over Forever Chemicals
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mason Lawlor, writing for Law.com, reports that the complaint,
filed in Los Angeles Superior Court Oct. 24, accused Hershey of
omitting and failing to disclose that its Bubble Yum Original
Flavor Bubble Gum Product has organic fluorine and misleading
markets as "high quality," "sustainable" and "transparent about
[their] ingredients."
A class action lawsuit filed Thursday, October 28, in California
state court has accused The Hershey Co. and its brand name gum,
Bubble Yum, of allegedly failing to warn that its products
potentially expose consumers to perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl
substances, also know as "forever chemicals."
The complaint, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court Oct. 24, accused
Hershey of omitting and failing to disclose that its Bubble Yum
Original Flavor Bubble Gum Product has organic fluorine and
misleading markets as "high quality," "sustainable" and
"transparent about [their] ingredients."
Despite claims on its Hershey's and Bubble Yum's brand website
pages promoting its emphasis on "our planet, our communities, our
children" and "being transparent about the ingredients inside your
favorite Hershey products," these claims have allegedly misled
consumers. Organic fluoride can place consumers at risk of
contacting with synthetic chemicals known as PFAS, which the
California Legislature has deemed are "highly toxic and highly
persistent in the environment," according to the complaint.
PFAS are "extremely resistant to degradation in the natural
environment, including the water, the soil, the air, and our
bodies, because of their carbon-fluorine bond, one of the strongest
bonds known in nature." The Legislature has linked them to "severe
health problems," such as cancers, hormone disruption, kidney and
liver damage, thyroid disease, developmental harm, and immune
system disruption, including interference with vaccines, according
to California health codes.
The suit also noted the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's
additional warnings on the health effects caused by PFAS, including
decreased fertility and increased risk of asthma.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed California Assembly Bill 652,
Cal. Health & Safety Code Sections 108945-108947, and Assembly Bill
1200 into law in October 2021, which prevents the sale or
distribution of "juvenile products and food packaging containing
regulated PFAS chemicals."
Plaintiff Abraham Mohamed commissioned independent third-party
testing on the Bubble Yum product to determine whether it contained
organic fluoride, which confirmed its presence in both the gum and
packaging. The wrapper and gum contained 130 and 197
parts-per-million, respectively, according to Mohamed.
"Because PFAS chemicals are 'forever chemicals' and accumulate in
the human body and environment, there is no safe manner or level of
exposure to humans," the complaint said. "The products are
particularly concerning given the fact bubble gum is marketed to
and consumed by children."
Neither attorneys for the plaintiffs, Paul D. Stevens nor Lauren A.
Bochurberg of Stevens in Los Angeles, has returned a request a
comment. Counsel has yet to appear for Hershey. [GN]
HOICE HOTELS: De La Pena Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Farides De La Pena, Francia De La Pena, Luis Miguel Juanmayor,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HOICE
HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INC. (DBA MAINSTAY SUITES MT. LAUREL -
PHILADELPHIA) Case No. 2:24-cv-09981 (D.N.J., Oct. 22, 2024), is
brought to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation
for Plaintiff to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New
Jersey State Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL").
The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the
Plaintiffs and the FLSA collective employees to work more than 40
hours per week without providing them with any additional
compensation. The Defendants have willfully and intentionally
committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NJWHL by engaging
in a pattern and practice of failing to pay its employees,
including Plaintiff, minimum wage and overtime compensation for all
hours worked over 40 each workweek. The Defendants failed to
document the total hours worked by the Plaintiffs and other
employees in similar positions, particularly the hours worked
beyond the standard forty-hour workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants.
The Defendants owned and operated HOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
(DBA MAINSTAY SUITES MT. LAUREL - PHILADELPHIA), a corporate entity
principally engaged in the hotel services industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12t Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 203-2417
Web: www.StillmanLegalPC.com
HUMANA INC: Elliot Bid to Amend Scheduling Order Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID ELLIOT, v. HUMANA,
INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00329-RGJ-CHL (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge
Colin Lindsay entered an order that:
(1) Plaintiff's Motion to Amend/Correct Scheduling Order is
granted
in part.
(2) On or before Nov. 5, 2024, Plaintiff shall file any motion
for
class certification.
(3) On or before Nov. 5, 2024, the Parties shall file all
Daubert
and dispositive motions
Additionally, the Court has granted a stay on further production of
discovery material from CGX files by Defendant.
This Court granted the stay pending the Court's resolution of
Defendant's Objection. The Defendant has objected to Plaintiff's
Motion, and this Court has considered Defendant's objection.
As Defendant's CGX files will likely be necessary for class
certification, the Court finds good cause to amend the current
scheduling order.
However, the Court does not find good cause to grant Plaintiff a
new deadline of October 25, 2024, for rebuttal expert reports.
Humana Inc. is a for-profit American health insurance company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A54cTX at no extra
charge.[CC]
HUNT CONSTRUCTION: Almander Suit Moved to S.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled RUBEN ALMADER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUNT
CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05680-FLA-SK, was removed from the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on Oct.
24, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01980-MMA-VET to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Judge Michael M. Anello
and referred to Judge Valerie E Torres.
Hunt Construction Group operates as a construction company. The
Company offers construction management, general contracting,
design-build, preconstruction consulting, program management, as
well as general consulting services. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Pamela Vartabedian, Esq.
Elizabeth J. MacGregor, Esq.
Steven Wong, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: (415) 397-2823
Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
Email: pvartabedian@seyfarth.com
emacgregor@seyfarth.com
stewong@seyfarth.com
INMODE LTD: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set November 27
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP hereby advises investors of recent developments in
the class action lawsuit Cement Masons' and Plasterers' Local No.
502 Pension Fund v. InMode Ltd. , No. 24-cv-1219 (C.D. Cal.),
pending in U.S. District Court alleging violations of the federal
securities laws by InMode Ltd. ("InMode" or the "Company") and
certain of the Company's senior executives (collectively,
"Defendants"). The action is brought on behalf of all persons or
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired InMode common stock
between June 4, 2021, and October 12, 2023, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Pursuant to the Court's Order, as described in greater
detail below, any member of the putative Class may file a motion
seeking appointment as Lead Plaintiff, or otherwise challenge the
appointment of the presumptive Lead Plaintiff in this action, on or
before November 27, 2024.
InMode's Alleged Fraud
InMode is a global provider of aesthetic medical devices and
technology, including devices purporting to offer body sculpting
and other rejuvenation technologies. The Company's target customers
include dermatologists, dentists, obstetricians and gynecologists,
and medical spas.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and omissions
concerning two topics that are of critical importance to investors:
(1) the price at which InMode sells its devices, which reflects the
demand for those products; and (2) InMode's compliance with U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") regulations, including the
FDA's prohibition on off-label marketing of devices and the FDA's
requirements for the reporting of injuries. Specifically,
Defendants repeatedly touted the demand for InMode's devices and
told investors that those devices were never sold at a discount.
InMode also assured investors that it had "obtained [FDA] clearance
for the current treatments for which we offer our products" and
that "no third-party claims have been brought against us to date."
As a result of these misrepresentations, the price of InMode common
stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class
Period.
In reality, throughout the Class Period, InMode routinely
discounted the prices of its devices and violated FDA regulations
by promoting the off-label use of its devices, and by failing to
properly report injuries caused by its devices.
The truth began to emerge just before the market closed on February
17, 2023, when an investigative publication revealed that InMode
threatened some customers with legal action over complaints made
about the Company's devices and sales tactics. The customers also
stated that InMode offered to replace defective products on the
condition of signing confidentiality agreements with
non-disparagement clauses. However, despite these disclosures,
InMode continued to misrepresent the pricing of, and demand for,
its products.
Then, on October 12, 2023, before the market opened, InMode lowered
its full-year revenue guidance, which the Company blamed on higher
interest rates, tighter leasing approval standards, and bottlenecks
in loan processing. Later that same day, an investigative
publication announced a forthcoming report on InMode, relating to
the Company's statements to investors about pricing flexibility of
products and margin consistency. After the close of trading, the
publication released a story revealing that InMode significantly
discounted the prices of its devices on a routine basis throughout
the Class Period. As a result of these disclosures, the price of
InMode common stock declined precipitously.
Appointment of a Lead Plaintiff
Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
counsel for the initial plaintiff in the action published a notice
advising members of the putative Class that any member wishing to
serve as Lead Plaintiff must file a motion with the Court no later
than April 15, 2024.
On April 15, 2024, several putative Class members filed motions
seeking appointment as Lead Plaintiff, including a group of movants
comprised of Meitav Provident and Pension Funds Ltd., Meitav Mutual
Funds Ltd., Kranot Hishtalmut Le Morim Tichoniim Morey Seminarim Ve
Mefakhim Hevra Menahelet Ltd., Kranot Hishtalmut Le Morim Ve
Gananot Hevra Menahelet Ltd. (collectively, the "Funds"). After
reviewing the Funds' motion, each of the previously competing Lead
Plaintiff applicants stated their non-opposition to the Funds'
motion.
On October 24, 2024, following a hearing on the Funds' motion, the
Honorable Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, U.S.D.J., entered an Order
finding the Funds to be the presumptive lead plaintiff in this
action, and providing that any "any possible plaintiff may file,"
within thirty (30) days of the date of this notice- i.e. , on or
before November 27, 2024 -"a motion or other paper challenging the
[Funds'] status as presumptive lead plaintiff" of the Class in this
Action.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members.
See www.pomlaw.com.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes. [GN]
JAGUAR LAND: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Windshields
--------------------------------------------------------
Joe Kucinski, writing for Road & Track reports that a federal
class-action lawsuit has been filed against Jaguar Land Rover North
America, LLC with the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey. The lawsuit, filed with the court in September, is being
brought by owners of 2020-2022 model year Land Rover Defender
vehicles; the plaintiffs claim that the windshields in these
vehicles can easily fail.
The Land Rover Defender is positioned as a rugged, go-anywhere
off-road vehicle -- the SUV is expected to be able to withstand
operating in the harshest environments. However, according to the
suit, many frustrated owners believe that the windshield of these
vehicles cannot even withstand slight impacts. Repairing or
replacing these broken windshields can be both inconvenient and
expensive.
On the social media platform Reddit, there's been an ongoing
discussion among owners regarding the windshields in these
vehicles. Some posters claim the issue is merely the nature of an
upright windshield design, but others don’t buy, saying they have
owned similar vehicles -- including older Land Rover products --
and none of them suffered windshield cracks at the same rate as the
2020–2022 Defenders.
The current lawsuit claims that Land Rover knew as early as 2019
about the defective windshields. (A similar lawsuit was filed and
apparently dismissed for the same issue back in 2022.) The suit
references multiple National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) complaints, in which several owners claim that they
experienced windshield failures within 30 days of acquiring their
vehicle. In some cases, the complaints say it took months for a
replacement windshield to become available.
In addition to the inconvenience and expense related to failed
windshields, the lawsuit also calls out the safety risk. "The
windshield defect poses an extreme safety hazard to drivers,
passengers, and pedestrians because a spontaneously shattering or
cracking windshield can impair the driver's view, distract the
driver, and result in dislodged glass that can injure drivers,
passengers and pedestrians," the complaint reads.
The lawsuit is seeking monetary relief to cover actual damages, and
also seeks the replacement of vehicles possessing alleged faulty
windshields with new vehicles, or the repair of vehicles covered by
the class-action suit. The plaintiffs are also asking for the
Defenders to be recalled because of this issue. A jury trial has
been requested. [GN]
JANUS HENDERSON: Schissler Wins Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDRA SCHISSLER, KARLY
SISSEL, and DERRICK HITTSON, individually and as representatives of
a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Janus
401(k) and Employee Stock Ownership Plan, v. JANUS HENDERSON US
(HOLDINGS) INC., JANUS HENDERSON ADVISORY COMMITTEE, and JOHN AND
JANE DOES 1-30, Case No. 1:22-cv-02326-RM-SBP (D. Colo.), the Hon.
Judge Raymond Moore entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act ("ERISA").
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to more than 1700 Plan participants because proprietary
investment products were automatically included in the Plan while
non-proprietary offerings were subject to a rigorous selection and
review process.
The Plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of a proposed class
comprised as follows:
"All participants and beneficiaries of the Janus 401(k) and
Employee Stock Ownership Plan that were invested in the Janus
Henderson Funds at any time on or after September 9, 2016,
excluding persons with responsibility for the Plan’s
administrative
functions or investments."
Janus Henderson operates as an investment management company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kpdpjz at no extra
charge.[CC]
JERICO PICTURES: Geletko Files Fraud Suit in C.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jerico Pictures, Inc.
The case is captioned as CHARLES J. GELETKO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JERICO PICTURES, INC.,
Case No. 2:24-cv-08003-JLS-JC (C.D. Cal., September 18, 2024).
The suit is brought over the Defendant's alleged fraud violations.
Jerico Pictures, Inc., doing business as National Public Data, is a
background check company headquartered in Coral Springs, Florida.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq.
BRADLEY GROMBACHER LLP
31365 Oak Creek Drive, Suite 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (805) 270-7100
Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
Email: kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
JMC COMMUNITIES: Griffith Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as David Griffith, William Coleman, as Trustee of
the William Coleman Revocable Trust, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. JMC Communities Inc.; JMC Homes of
South Carolina LLC; Patrick Square LLC formerly known as: Digital
Development LLC; Alpha Omega Construction Group Inc.; Gorze Inc.;
Cothran Landscapes and Grading LLC; Gentry Services LLC also known
as: Gentry Brothers Services LLC; Tiny Bill Swaney doing business
as: Swaney Masonry; Solid Rock Construction Services LLC; H&H
Concrete LLC; Maria Construction Inc.; F&V Framing LLC; Five Star
Construction Inc.; Davis Framing LLC; Ashley Cothran doing business
as: Cothran Custom Homes LLC; UFP Mid-Atlantic LLC; Builders First
Source Inc., also known as: Builders FirstSource Atlantic Group LLC
also known as: Builders Firstsource Southeast Group LLC; RC Johnson
LLC; Gunter Heating & Air Conditioning of SC LLC; 84 Lumber Company
LP; Dogwood Exteriors LLC; H&R Drywall Inc.; Cristobal and Painters
LLC; Willow Tree Landscaping Inc.; Harbin Lumber Company Inc.; Soto
HVAC LLC; Riverside Landscaping LLC; International Construction
Services Inc.; Palmetto Grading and Drainage Inc.; Jane Doe #1-10;
John Doe #27-50; Case No. 2024--CP-39-00465 was removed from the
Pickens County Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court
for the District of South Carolina on Oct. 24, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:24-cv-06078-JDA to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract
Dispute.
JMC Communities -- https://jmccommunities.com/ -- is a property
developer in Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Carter R Massingill, Esq.
GALLIVAN WHITE BOYD (GRE)
PO Box 10589
Greenville, SC 29604
Phone: (864) 271-9580
Fax: (864) 271-7502
Email: cmassingill@gwblawfirm.com
- and -
Jesse Allen Kirchner, Esq.
Thomas Happel Scurry, Esq.
THURMOND KIRCHNER AND TIMBES PA
15 Middle Atlantic Wharf, Suite 101
Charleston, SC 29401
Phone: (843) 937-8000
Fax: (843) 937-4200
Email: jesse@tktlawyers.com
happel@tktlawyers.com
- and -
William Duffie Powers, Esq.
GALLIVAN WHITE BOYD (GRE)
55 Beattie Place, Suite 1200
Greenville, SC 29601
Phone: (864) 271-9580
Email: dpowers@gwblawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Ryan Lee Beaver, Esq.
BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS (CHA NC)
214 North Tryon Street, Suite 3700
Charlotte, NC 28202
Phone: (704) 338-6000
Email: rbeaver@bradley.com
JOHN WOOD: Court Stays Discovery & Vacates Deadlines
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTHA WALTHER, as
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on
behalf of The 80/20 Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, et al., v.
JOHN WOOD, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00294-GSL-SLC (N.D. Ind.), the
Hon. Judge Susan Collins entered an order granting the Parties'
joint motion to stay discovery and vacate case deadlines.
(1) Plaintiffs' forthcoming motion for reconsideration or leave
for
an interlocutory appeal;
(2) any motion for judgment on the pleadings that Defendant
Brian
Eagle determines to file; and
(3) Defendant John Wood's motion for judgment on the pleadings.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fP3iCs at no extra
charge.[CC]
JOHN WOOD: Walther Bid to Seal Class Cert Materials Partly OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTHA WALTHER, as
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on
behalf of The 80/20 Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, et al., v.
JOHN WOOD, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00294-GSL-SLC (N.D. Ind.), the
Hon. Judge Susan Collins entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to seal materials submitted
in support of motion for class certification, as follows:
(a) Exhibits 7-8, 14, 16-17, 21, 25-26, 29, 31, 33-43, and 46-49
to
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall remain
under
seal,
(b) The Preliminary Expert Report of Dana D. Messina shall
remain
under seal,
(c) The Court directs the clerk to unseal Exhibits 5-6, 9-13,
15,
18, 22-24, 27- 28, 30, 32, and 44 to Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification,
(d) Plaintiffs are ordered to file Exhibit 4 to their motion for
class certification, which is missing from the record, on
or before Nov. 5, 2024;
(e) Plaintiffs are ordered to file their memorandum in support
of
motion for class certification with only minimal redactions
on
or before Nov. 5, 2024; and
(f) Dismissed Defendants MPE Partners II, L.P., MPE Partners
III,
L.P., Pareto Efficient Solutions, LLC, Patrick Buesching,
Patrice Mauk, and Rodney Strack are ordered to file their
response brief (ECF 129) to Plaintiffs’ motion to seal
with
only minimal redactions on or before Nov. 5, 2024.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hrV0wo at no extra
charge.[CC]
JUDGE DENTAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Craig Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARSHENA DENISE CRAIG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUDGE DENTAL PC, Case No.
24CV017922 (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Sep. 10, 2024) is an
action against the Defendant for unpaid regular hours, overtime
hours, and minimum wages.
Plaintiff Craig was employed by the Defendant as a staff.
Judge Dental PC is in dental practice with locations in California
and Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bijan Mohseni, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP
1460 Westwood Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (323) 693-9751
JUSTPLAY GMBH: Disclose Private Data Without Consent, Brewer Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA BREWER individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUSTPLAY GMBH D/B/A JUSTPLAY; and GIMICA
GMBH D/B/A GIMICA GAMES, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02244-CSB-EIL
(C.D. Cal., Oct. 24, 2024) alleges violation of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint that the Defendants
collect, use, store, and profit from Illinois consumers' biometric
identifiers and biometric information1 without first obtaining
prior express written consent, as required under BIPA.
In violation of BIPA, the Defendants are actively collecting,
storing, and using -- without providing adequate notice or
obtaining written releases, the biometric identifiers and biometric
information of thousands of Illinois residents who have downloaded
the JustPlay application, says the suit.
Justplay GMBH d/b/a Justplay is a German based mobile entertainment
group that creates applications for both mobile phones and tablets.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
Alexander E. Wolf, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
awolf@milberg.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 332-4200
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
KASPI.KZ AO: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Joint Stock Company Kaspi.kz (NASDAQ: KSPI)
resulting from allegations that Kaspi.kz may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.
So What: If you purchased Kaspi.kz securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=29172 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
What is this about: On September 19, 2024, Culper Research issued a
report entitled "Kaspi.kz (KSPI): The NASDAQ-Listed Fintech Moving
Money for Criminals and Kleptocrats." In this report, Culper
announced it was "short Kaspi, the operator of the largest payment
network and second largest bank in Kazakhstan. We believe Kaspi has
systematically misled U.S. investors and regulators in its repeated
claims -- especially ahead of the Company's January 2024 [NASDAQ]
listing -- that the Company has zero exposure to Russia." Further,
Culper announced its "research exposes this grave deception: we
believe that not only do Kaspi's relationships with Russian
partners permeate every segment of its business, but that in the
wake of Russia's February 2022 invasion of Ukraine and into 2024,
Russia has contributed materially to Kaspi's reported growth.
Our research further unmasks Kaspi's history of shadowy dealmaking,
which raises not only related party and self-dealing concerns, but
also exposes the Company's vast, longstanding ties to bad actors
including sanctioned oligarchs and Russian mobsters. We believe
that Kaspi's premium valuation and US listing are at risk, and
shares are headed lower."
On this news, Kaspi.kz American Depositary Shares' ("ADS") fell
16.1% on September 19, 2024, and a further 2.7% on September 20,
2024.
Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
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]
KBI SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jones Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
KATERINA JONES; and BAILEY KILMER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KBI SERVICES, INC.;
FAHIMEH SASAN, D.O., P.C.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 24CV090942 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., Sept.
10, 2024) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and
rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as staffs.
KBI Services, Inc., doing business as Kindbody, provides health
care services. The Company offers men and women fertility and
wellness programs such as treatments, blood tests, consultation,
egg freezing, surrogacy, conception care, and other related
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
Nicholas J. De Blouw, Esq.
Victoria Rivapalacio, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUw LLPQ
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 9203 7
Telephone: (858) 551-1223
Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
Website: www.bamlawca.com
KENYON RANDLE: Lamar Class Certification Tossed w/o Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY D. LAMAR, v.
KENYON RANDLE, et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-00017-BSM-JTK (E.D. Ark.),
the Hon. Judge Brian Miller entered an order:
-- Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney's proposed findings and
recommendations is adopted and Anthony Lamar's motion for
appointment of class counsel and to certify this lawsuit as a
class action is denied without prejudice.
-- Class certification is unwarranted because Lamar has not met
all
the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZaD0wd at no extra
charge.[CC]
KONICA MINOLTA: Class Certification Filing Amended to Feb. 28, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES CEZUS, and other
similarly situated employees, v. KONICA MINOLTA, INC., et al., Case
No. 2:21-cv-00792-JXN-LDW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Leda Dunn Wettre
entered an amended scheduling order as follows:
1. The parties may serve Requests for Admission/additional
written
discovery requests on or before Nov. 1, 2024, to be responded
to
within 30 days of receipt.
2. Expert discovery, including the depositions of any expert
witnesses, shall be completed on or before Jan. 24, 2025.
3. Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be filed on
or
before Feb. 28, 2025.
4. Defendant's opposition to the Motion for Class Certification
shall be filed on or before Apr. 15, 2025.
5. Plaintiff's reply in further support of the Motion for Class
Certification shall be filed on or before May 13, 2025.
6. The parties shall appear for a telephonic status conference
before the undersigned on Jan. 27, 2025 at 2:30 p.m. The
parties
shall submit concise status letters to the Court no later
than
one week in advance of the conference. Dial-in information
for
the conference is (973) 437-5535, access code 258 744 207#.
Konica is a Japanese multinational technology company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QN9zWJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
KWH MERCHANDISING: Jury Trial in Sides Suit Set for Nov. 3, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sides v. KWH Merchandising
Inc., Case No. 9:24-cv-80916 (S.D. Fla., Filed July 29, 2024), the
Hon. Judge David S. Leibowitz entered an order setting jury trial
and class certification deadlines:
-- Jury Trial set for: Nov. 3, 2025
-- Calendar Call set for: Oct. 27, 2025
The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.[CC]
LA TROPICANA: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Klein of Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, writing for JDSupra,
reports that on September 10, 2024, La Tropicana Food L.P.
("Defendant") was sued in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California for allegedly violating the
Internal Do Not Call ("DNC") list compliance provisions of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). As our readers are
aware, the TCPA was signed into law in 1991 to restrict certain
telephone solicitations that may invade upon the privacy of United
States consumers. The TCPA requires that telemarketing companies
maintain a list of consumers that have requested not to receive any
further telemarketing calls/texts from, or on behalf of, said
companies. Failure to comply with internal DNC rules is a violation
of the TCPA and creates a private right of action for the aggrieved
to recover statutory damages.
In Hernandez v. La Tropicana Food L.P., Plaintiff alleged that he
received a text message promoting Defendant's grocery specials.
Plaintiff replied by texting "STOP." Plaintiff alleges that he
received sixteen text messages from Defendant after sending this
opt out request. The TCPA's Internal DNC compliance provisions
require, among other things, that companies institute procedures
for: 1) creating a list of consumers who elect to opt out of the
receipt of future communications; and 2) training their employees
on how to honor such opt out requests. Because Plaintiff requested
that his cell phone number be added to Defendant's internal DNC
list and Defendant continued to send him marketing messages, it
would appear that each of the sixteen subsequent text messages may
have been sent in violation of the TCPA's Internal DNC provisions.
Key Requirements and Exceptions to Internal DNC Regulations
As an initial matter, it is important to note that the TCPA's
Internal DNC requirements are different from its National DNC
registry provisions. Companies should also be aware that certain
states have their own DNC registries that should be scrubbed
against. With respect to internal DNC claims, once a consumer asks
to be added to an internal DNC list, companies are generally
prohibited from contacting the consumer again.
The internal DNC provisions of the TCPA further require that:
1. Companies must place the consumer's name, if provided, and
telephone number on their internal DNC lists at the time the
request is made;
2. Companies must honor a consumer's internal DNC request
within 30 days from the date of such request;
3. Companies engaged in placing artificial and/or prerecorded
voice calls must have a written policy, available upon demand, for
maintaining a DNC list; and
4. Companies must train their personnel concerning the
existence, and use, of their internal DNC lists.
5. Why is Hernandez Important to Your Business?
The Plaintiff in Hernandez alleges that he first requested that his
cell phone number be placed on Defendant's internal DNC list on
July 26, 2023. As detailed above, he further alleges that, over the
next year, he received sixteen additional text messages promoting
Defendant's grocery specials. Readers of this blog know that the
TCPA allows for class members to recover damages of $500 to $1,500
per violation. Because this is a putative class action, Defendant
is potentially liable for thousands of violations of the TCPA's
Internal DNC provisions. If the class is eventually certified, even
at the statutory minimum of $500 per violation, Defendant faces an
enormous judgment.
Against this backdrop, it is critical that companies maintain
proper internal DNC compliance procedures. Telemarketers must also
ensure that their personnel are well-trained in observing internal
DNC consumer protections. [GN]
LANDMARK ADMIN: Tanner Sues Over Failure to Protect Clients' Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD TANNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LANDMARK ADMIN, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
6:24-cv-00083-H (N.D. Tex., October 28, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, unjust enrichment, and breach
of third-party beneficiary contract.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its
computer network following a data breach from May 13, 2024, through
June 17, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach.
As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class
members was compromised and damaged through access by and
disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the
suit.
Landmark Admin, LLC is a third party administrator for insurance
carriers, with its principal place of business in Brownwood, Texas.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
A. Brooke Murphy, Esq.
MURPHY LAW FIRM
4116 Wills Rogers Pkwy., Suite 700
Oklahoma City, OK 73108
Telephone: (405) 389-4989
Email: abm@murphylegalfirm.com
LUMIO HX INC: Smith Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Shoshana Smith, Soraida Cordero, Christie
Alvarez, Briana Graybush, Richard Gayle, individually and behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Lumio HX, Inc., Fifth Third Bank,
National Association, Dividend Finance, Case No. 2:23-cv-00849 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. 23, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-03920-KMM-DTS to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Lumio -- https://www.lumio.com/ -- is a leader in the residential
solar industry providing high customer experience, quality, and
energy products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Louis Anthony Gonzalez, Esq.
VARGAS GONZALEZ HEVIA BALDWIN, LLP
2745 W. Fairbanks Ave., First Floor
Winter Park, FL 32789
Phone: (407) 603-7950
Fax: (407) 603-7943
Email: lgonzalez@vargasgonzalez.com
- and -
Amy Lynn Judkins, Esq.
William Carl Ourand, Esq.
NEWSOME MELTON
201 S. Orange Ave., Suite 1500
Orlando, FL 32801
Phone: (407) 603-6031
Fax: (407) 648-6282
Email: ajudkins@newsomelaw.com
ourand@newsomelaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
John Grugan, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP
1650 Market Street, Suite 3300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 252-9610
Email: John.Grugan@hklaw.com
- and -
Cory W. Eichhorn
Sydney Brooke Alexander
HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP
701 Brickel Ave, Ste 3300
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 374-8500
Fax: (305) 789-7799
Email: Cory.Eichhorn@hklaw.com
sydney.alexander@hklaw.com
MARYVILLE INC: Fails to Safeguard Patients' Info, Garrity Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP GARRITY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MARYVILLE, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-09967 (D.N.J., Oct.
21, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard sensitive information of its patients.
The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included the
Plaintiff's and Class Members' full names, Social Security numbers,
driver's license numbers or state identification numbers, dates of
birth, ("personally identifiable information" or "PII"), medical
information, and health insurance information, which is protected
health information ("PHI") as defined by the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), the Plaintiff
claims.
In October 2024, the Defendant began sending the Plaintiff and
other Data Breach victims a Notice of Security Incident letter,
informing them that: on May 6, 2024, Maryville identified
suspicious activity within its email environment.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members
have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and
identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the
future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against
identity theft, the suit contends.
The Plaintiff and Class Members may also incur out of pocket costs,
e.g., for purchasing credit monitoring services, credit freezes,
credit reports, or other protective measures to deter and detect
identity theft, the suit adds.
Through this Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms
on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals whose
Private Information was accessed during the Data Breach.
Plaintiff Phillip Garrity is a former patient who obtained services
from the Defendant for a short time, years ago. At the time of the
Data Breach—May 2, 2024 through May 6, 2024— the Defendant
maintained Plaintiff's Private Information in its system.
Maryville, Inc. provides healthcare services to treat substance
abuse and mental health disorders.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
65 Overhill Road
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com
ostrow@kolawyers.com
MDL 2873: Exposed Military Members to PFAS, Williams Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ETHAN WILLIAMS and TAYLOR WILLIAMS, his wife, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case
No. 2:24-cv-06075-RMG (D.S.C., October 24, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning,
design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of
express and implied warranties, wantonness, and per quod claim.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by
Plaintiff Ethan Williams as a result of his exposure to the
Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing
synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively
known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn
military and/or civilian firefighters, including Mr. Williams, who
they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF
products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a
danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, Mr. Williams was
exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with ulcerative
colitis and/or other medical related conditions, says the suit.
The Williams case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave., Bldg. 6, 2nd Fl., Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 224-9400
Facsimile: (732) 224-9494
MDL 2873: Faces Betak Suit Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
KIRSTEN BETAK and RODNEY TAYLOR, her husband, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case
No. 2:24-cv-06079-RMG (D.S.C., October 24, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning,
design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of
express and implied warranties, wantonness, and per quod claim.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by
Plaintiff Kirsten Betak as a result of her exposure to the
Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing
synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively
known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn
military and/or civilian firefighters, including Plaintiff Betak,
who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF
products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a
danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, Plaintiff Betak
was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with thyroid
cancer and/or other medical related conditions, says the suit.
The Betak case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave., Bldg. 6, 2nd Fl., Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 224-9400
Facsimile: (732) 224-9494
MDL 2873: Yancey Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
DON YANCEY and BETTY YANCEY, his wife, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-06071-RMG
(D.S.C., October 24, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, wantonness, and per quod claim.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by
Plaintiff Don Yancey as a result of his exposure to the Defendants'
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care
in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction,
training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their
PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military
and/or civilian firefighters, including Mr. Yancey, who they knew
would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that
use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, Mr. Yancey was exposed to toxic
chemicals and was diagnosed with thyroid cancer and/or other
medical related conditions, says the suit.
The Yancey case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave., Bldg. 6, 2nd Fl., Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 224-9400
Facsimile: (732) 224-9494
MEDIBASE GROUP: Court Stays Deadlines for Class Cert Bid Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robin Barbaria,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
MEDIBASE GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-03239-SDG (N.D. Ga.), the
Hon. Judge Steven Grimberg entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's motion to suspend or stay deadlines for filing motion
for class certification and memorandum of law.
The deadline for the Plaintiff to file their motion for class
certification is suspended pending the submission of a proposed
case management report and the Court's entry of a case management
order.
Medibase is a solution provider to the healthcare industry.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g17PpP at no extra
charge.[CC]
MIGOM GLOBAL: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Financial Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AXS LAW Group PLLC announces that it has filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or acquired the securities of Migom Global Corp.
("MIGOM") (OTC: MGOM), between December 6, 2019, and August 25,
2022, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The case is captioned AMJ Global Entertainment, LLC v. Migom Global
Corp. et al, Case No. 24-cv-06600-VSB, pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The complaint alleges that Migom Global, Migom Bank Ltd., and
certain senior officers, including Thomas A. Schaetti, Juergen
Blaha, Gregory Donahue, and others, engaged in fraudulent
activities by issuing materially false and misleading financial
statements, failing to disclose material information, and
misappropriating investor funds. The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for shareholders under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.
Investors who purchased or acquired MIGOM securities during the
Class Period have until 60 days from the date of this notice to
move the court to be appointed as the lead plaintiff.
For more information about the lawsuit and your rights as a class
member, or to join this action, please contact AXS LAW at
305.297.1878 or by email to shareholders@axslawgroup.com, or visit
AXS LAW's website at www.axslawgroup.com.
This notice is published pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.
About AXS LAW GROUP
With offices in Miami, Los Angeles and Washington DC, AXS LAW is
dedicated to providing practical and comprehensive solutions to
complex matters. After decades at Big Law, we created AXS LAW with
a view to disrupting the traditional law model to better address
the needs of the modern business law consumer. We do this first and
foremost by bringing our own expertise as entrepreneurs. Our
attorneys are encouraged to pursue entrepreneurship and this, in
turn, gives us the perspective and "guts" to help our clients
navigate, not avoid, risk. And, unlike most law firms, we have
personality. We are not tethered to our chairs and desks; we are
out there continually forging new and strengthening existing
relationships in the business and wider community. Our clients
enjoy working with us! For more information, please visit
www.axslawgroup.com.
Media Contact:
AXS LAW GROUP
shareholders@axslawgroup.com
(305) 297 1878 [GN]
MOBIS ALABAMA: Aquino Suit Seeks to Certify Two FLSA Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORGE OSWALDO AQUINO
MARTINEZ, ELVIS NAHUM CRUZ VASQUEZ, HEBER ALFONSO ZAPATA CONTRERAS,
ISIDRO ARELLANO CHIHUAHUA, JOSE MARIA RAMIREZ MORALES, LUIS ADRIAN
SALAZAR LOZANO, VERONICA OLAN CASTILLO, and AARON HERNAN PEREZ
SALAZAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. MOBIS ALABAMA, LLC d/b/a HYUNDAI MOBIS; KIA GEORGIA,
INC.; GB2G, INC. d/b/a ALLSWELL; SPJ CONNECT, INC.; YOUNGJIN LEE,
individually; JOB KNOWLEDGE, LLC; and TOTAL EMPLOYEE SOLUTION
SUPPORT, LLC; Case No. 3:22-cv-00145-TCB-RGV (N.D. Ga.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order that:
(1) authorizes them to proceed, on behalf of themselves
and two conditionally certified Classes, against the
Defendants
GB2G, INC. d/b/a Allswell, Mobis Alabama, LLC d/b/a Hyundai
Mobis, and Kia Georgia, Inc. for their failure to pay
overtime
premiums as mandated under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. section 207;
(2) directs these FLSA Defendants to promptly provide the
Plaintiffs' counsel with contact information for potential
members of the conditionally certified Classes so that
additional similarly situated current and former employees
can
be promptly notified of their right to participate in this
lawsuit; and
(3) approves the Plaintiffs' proposed forms for issuing notice
to
potential members of the proposed Classes.
Mobis is a Tier 1 supplier to Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama
and Kia Motor Manufacturing Georgia.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lIkZFe at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher B. Hall, Esq.
HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
400 Galleria Parkway, Suite 1150
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (404) 876-8100
Facsimile: (404) 876-3477
E-mail: chall@hallandlampros.com
- and -
Rachel Berlin Benjamin, Esq.
Brian J. Sutherland, Esq.
BEAL SUTHERLAND BERLIN & BROWN LLC
945 East Paces Ferry Rd. NE, Suite 2000
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone: (404) 476-5305
- and -
Daniel Werner, Esq.
James Radford, Esq.
RADFORD SCOTT, LLP
315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 1080
Decatur, GA 30030
Telephone: (678) 271-0300
E-mail: dwerner@radfordscott.com
jradford@radfordscott.com
MONEYGRAM PAYMENT: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Drake Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN DRAKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONEYGRAM PAYMENT SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:24-cv-02647-X (N.D. Tex., Oct. 22, 2024) is an action
against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard sensitive information of its customers.
According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of
the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect
consumers' personally identifiable information or "PII", from a
foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk
because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that
Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired
by data thieves.
MoneyGram Payment Systems, Inc. provides money transfer and payment
services. The Company offers account deposit, banking solutions,
international and domestic money transfer, bill payment, and money
order services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
MONSANTO COMPANY: Casey Suit Transferred to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Walker Casey, and others similarly situated
v. Monsanto Company, DOES 1-50, Case No. 5:24-cv-00515 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of North Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on Oct. 22, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-07370-VC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for
Product Liability.
The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an
American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation
founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Rhett Harris, Esq.
GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS
755 Front Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 237-3490
Fax: (619) 237-3496
Email: josh@thegomezfirm.com
- and -
Benjamin H. Whitley, Esq.
WHITLEY LAW FIRM
2424 GLENWOOD AVE., STE. 201
Raleigh, NC 27608
Phone: (800) 785-5000
Fax: (919) 645-5209
Email: ben@whitleylawfirm.com
MOTORSPORT.TV DIGITAL: Discloses Users' Info to Meta, Guereca Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALAN GUERECA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MOTORSPORT.TV DIGITAL, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-24066
(S.D. Fla., Oct. 21, 2024) alleges that the Defendant knowingly
discloses Plaintiff's and its other customers' identities, their
subscriptions, and the titles of the prerecorded video materials
that they purchased to Meta Platforms, Inc. , formerly known as
Facebook, Inc., in violation of the federal Video Privacy
Protection Act.
Over the past two years, the Defendant has systematically
transmitted (and continues to transmit today) its customers'
personally identifying subscription and video viewing information
to Meta using a snippet of programming code called the "Meta
Pixel," which Defendant chose to install on its website, the suit
says. The information the Defendant disclosed, and continues to
disclose, to Meta includes a user's Facebook ID ("FID") along with
his or her subscription and the title of each of the specific
videos that the consumer requested or obtained on Defendant's
website.
Plaintiff Guereca has never consented, agreed, authorized, or
otherwise permitted Defendant to disclose subscription or Personal
Viewing Information to Meta. In fact, the Defendant has never even
provided Plaintiff Guereca with written notice of its practices of
disclosing its customers' subscription and Personal Viewing
Information to third parties such as Meta, the suit contends.
Plaintiff Guereca is a consumer of the video products and services
offered on Defendant's motosport.tv website. He viewed on-demand
videos on Defendant's website after purchasing a subscription in
June 2023. In purchasing a subscription to view on-demand videos,
Plaintiff Guereca provided his name, email address, payment
information, and zip code.
Motorsport.Tv operates an online digital library of pre-recorded
video materials, where it is engaged in the business of selling a
wide variety of prerecorded video materials to consumers across the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arun Ravindran, Esq.
Julie E. Holt, Esq.
HEDIN LLP
1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 610
Miami, FL 33131-3302
Telephone: (305) 357-2107
Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
E-mail: aravindran@hedinllp.com
jholt@hedinllp.com
MYLAN INC: Takeda Appeals Class Cert. Order in Actos Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY LIMITED, et al. are taking an appeal
from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class
in In re Actos Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:13-cv-9244, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, beginning in
December 2013, Mylan, Takeda, and several other drug manufacturers
have been named as defendants in civil lawsuits consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by the
Plaintiffs which purport to represent indirect purchasers of
branded or generic Actos(R) and Actoplus Met(R). These actions
allege violations of state and federal competition laws in
connection with the Defendants' settlements of patent litigation in
2010 relating to Actos(R) and Actoplus Met(R).
On Jan. 17, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class.
On Aug. 9, 2024, Mag. Judge Stewart D. Aaron filed a report and
recommendation, which recommended granting of the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify class.
On Sept. 30, 2024, Judge Ronnie Abrams adopted Judge Aaron's report
and recommendation and granted the Plaintiffs' motion to certify
class. In sum, the Court agreed with Judge Aaron and found Takeda's
objections related to the Plaintiffs' motion meritless, and
otherwise found no clear error in the relevant portions of the
report.
The appellate case is captioned In Re: ACTOS Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. 24-2749, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, filed on October 18, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY LIMITED, et
al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:
R. Brendan Fee, Esq.
2222 Market Street, 12th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Plaintiffs-Respondents 199 SEIU-NATIONAL BENEFIT FUND, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Steve D. Shadowen, Esq.
HILLIARD SHADOWEN, LLP
1717 W. 6th Street, Suite 290
Austin, TX 78703
NATIONAL VISION: Maisnier Files Suit in California State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Vision Inc.,
et al. The case is captioned as PAUL F. MAISNIER, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NATIONAL VISION
INC., et al., Case No. 24CV018644 (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty.,
September 18, 2024).
The case type is stated as Other Employment Complaint Case.
A case management conference is set for October 10, 2025, before
Judge Jill H. Talley.
National Vision Inc. is an optical retail company based in Georgia.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Dr., Ste. 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 387-7200
NEIMAN MARCUS GROUP: Sherman Files Suit in D. Montana
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Neiman Marcus
Group, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jamillah Sherman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The
Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00152-BMM (D. Mont.,
Oct. 22, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Neiman Marcus -- https://www.neimanmarcusgroup.com/ -- is an
American department store chain founded in 1907 in Dallas, Texas by
Herbert Marcus, his sister Carrie Marcus Neiman, and her husband
Abraham Lincoln Neiman.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Esq.
Scott M. Tucker, Esq.
CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
2711 Centerville Road, Suite 201
Wilmington, DE 19808
Phone: (302) 656-2500
Fax: (302) 656-9053
Email: rjk@chimicles.com
scotttucker@chimicles.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Corinne Elise Amato, Esq.
Eric Joseph Juray, Esq.
PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, PA
1310 King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 888-6327
Email: ceamato@prickett.com
ejjuray@prickett.com
NEVADA GOLD MINES: Wieben Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Wieben and Austin Stockstill, Individually and On Behalf of
Others Similarly Situated v. NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-01975 (D. Nev., Oct. 22, 2024), is brought to recover
unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Nevada law.
The Plaintiffs and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more
than 40 hours a workweek. However, NGM does not pay Plaintiffs and
the other Hourly Employees for all their hours worked, including
overtime hours. Rather, NGM requires Plaintiffs and other Hourly
Employees to arrive at a designated location (a parking lot) and
ride a shuttle bus to their assigned mine each workday, "off the
clock," without compensation.
Likewise, NGM requires Plaintiffs and other Hourly Employees to
ride the shuttle bus to exit their assigned mine, back to the
designated parking lot, "off the clock," without compensation. This
"shuttle policy" imposed by NGM violates Nevada law by depriving
Plaintiffs and the other Hourly Employees of wages, including
overtime wages, for all hours worked, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the NGM as a Miner 4 in NGM's
Goldstrike Mine from January 2018 through October 2022.
NGM bills its Nevada mines as "the single largest gold-producing
complex in the world" with "measured and indicated gold resources
of 45 million ounces."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Esther C. Rodriguez, Esq.
RODRIGUEZ LAW OFFICES, P.C.
10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, NV 89145
Phone: (702) 320-8400
Fax: (702) 320-8401
Email: info@rodriguezlaw.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 877-8788
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap*
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
NEW EURO: Yoo Bok Son Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Cosmetologists
---------------------------------------------------------------
YOO BOK SON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEW EURO NAIL, INC., YAN XU CHUN aka Jessie,
and JOHN DOE aka Andy, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-07439
(E.D.N.Y., October 24, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure
to pay overtime wages, failure to provide accurate wage notices,
failure to provide wage statements, and failure to provide paid
sick leave.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cosmetologist at
New Euro Nail from approximately October 2016 to October 19, 2024.
New Euro Nail, Inc. is a nail salon owner and operator located at
3335 Park Avenue, Wantagh, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Kim, Esq.
RYAN KIM LAW, P.C.
222 Bruce Reynolds Blvd. Suite 490
Fort Lee, NJ 07024
Telephone: (718) 573-1111
Email: ryan@ryankimlaw.com
NEXA MORTGAGE: Appeals Remand Order in Diaz Labor Suit to 9th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
NEXA MORTGAGE, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order granting
plaintiff's motion to remand the lawsuit entitled Damian Diaz,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Nexa Mortgage, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00873-JES-BJC, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Diego to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California, is filed
against the Defendant for alleged violations of the California
Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code ("UCL"); and
the Private Attorney General Act of 2004 ("PAGA").
On June 27, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to stay.
On Aug. 7, 2024, the Plaintiff file a motion to remand to state
court, which Judge James E. Simmons, Jr. granted on Oct. 7, 2024.
The Defendant's motion to stay was denied as moot.
The Court did not find that the case, at the time of removal,
qualifies as a class action as required under the Class Action
Fairness Act (CAFA) and therefore, granted the motion to remand.
The appellate case is captioned Diaz v. Nexa Mortgage, LLC, Case
No. 24-6377, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, filed on October 18, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent DAMIAN DIAZ, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Brian Christopher Dawson, Esq.
DAWSON & OZANNE
5927 Balfour Ct., Suite 202
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Defendant-Petitioner NEXA MORTGAGE, LLC is represented by:
Arielle Stephenson, Esq.
MITCHELL SANDLER, PLLC
1120 20th Street, NW Suite 725
Washington, DC 20036
NFL PLAYER: Reply to Alford Class Cert Bid Due Nov. 18
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alford, et al., v. The NFL
Player Disability & Survivor Benefit Plan, et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-00358 (D. Md., Filed Feb. 9, 2023), The Hon. Judge Julie
Rebecca Rubin entered an order granting joint motion for extension
of time to file a response and reply as to Plaintiffs Motion for
Class Certification.
-- The Defendants response to Plaintiffs motion for class
certification shall be filed on or before Nov. 18, 2024.
-- The Plaintiffs reply in support of their Motion for Class
Certification shall be filed on or before Jan. 16, 2025.
The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA).[CC]
PAQ INC: La Vine Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paq Inc., et al. The
case is styled as Jonathan E. La Vine, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Paq Inc., Food 4 Less
of California, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0014380 (Cal. Super.
Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Oct. 24, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
PAQ, Inc. -- https://www.paqinc.org/ -- doing business as Food 4
Less, retails canned foods and dry goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP P.C.
1801 Century Park E, Ste. 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2346
Phone: 310-824-3828
Fax: 310-862-6851
Email: jm@melmedlaw.com
PAQ INC: Sibley Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PAQ, Inc. The case is
styled as Lorenzo Sibley, an individual, on behalf of himself and
on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. PAQ, Inc., Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2024-0014148 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Oct.
22, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
PAQ, Inc. -- https://www.paqinc.org/ -- doing business as Food 4
Less, retails canned foods and dry goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Victoria Bree Rivapalacio, Esq.
Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
Nicholas J. De Blouw, Esq.
Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
Kyle Roald Norde, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037-3107
Phone: 858-952-0352
Email: victoria@bamlawca.com
PASO ROBLES: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gonzalo Martinez, as an individual and on behalf of all other
aggrieved employees v. PASO ROBLES TANK, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV23717 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 13, 2024), is
brought for recovery of civil penalties under California Labor Code
for unpaid minimum and overtime wages.
As a result of Defendants' failure to pay all minimum and overtime
wages, as well as all meal and rest period premium wages,
Defendants maintained inaccurate payroll records and failed to
issue accurate, compliant, itemized wage statements. Moreover, the
wage statements issued by Respondents were facially deficient as
the wage statements did not reflect all hourly rates in effect
during the pay period in violation of Labor Code. As a further
result of Defendants' failure to pay all minimum and overtime
wages, as well as all meal and rest period premium wages,
Defendants failed to timely pay Plaintiff and other former
non-exempt employees all wages owed at the time of their respective
separations from employment, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt Field
Welder Helper from May 2021 through September 2023.
The Defendants did (and do) business by constructing large-scale
carbon steel welded tanks and stainless steel liquid storage tanks
in Los Angeles County.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul K. Haines, Esq.
Sean M. Blakely, Esq.
Joel M. Gordon, Esq.
HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180
El Segundo, CA 90245
Phone: (424) 292-2350
Fax: (424) 292-2
Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
sblakely@haineslawgroup.com
jgordon@haineslawgroup.com
PENTAIR RESIDENTIAL: Court of Appeals Reverses Class Cert. Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
George Christian, writing for Texas Civil Justice League, reports
that the Houston [1st] Court of Appeals has reversed a trial court
order certifying a class action against a manufacturer of
electronic valves for water filtration systems.
Background
The facts of Pentair Residential Filtration, LLC v. Paul Belsome,
et al. (No. 01-23-00422-CV; August 30, 2024) are as follows.
Pentair manufactures electronic valves that control the flow of
water into and out of mineral and brine tanks in water softening in
filtration systems. The two valves discussed in this case, the
Fleck 5810 and the Fleck 5812, aren't available to the public, but
distributors sell them to dealers who then sell and install them
for homeowners. In June 2020, dealer Paul Belsome sued Pentair
after several water treatment systems he installed for Houston-area
homeowners failed. After repeated attempts to repair the same
problem, he began referring his customers to his attorney. Seventy
of them joined. According to Belsome and the homeowners, the Fleck
valve relied on a defective piston that would inevitably fail.
Their engineering expert, Dr. A. Shabeer concluded that the piston
failed because of a manufacturing defect. Belsome and the
homeowners asserted claims for breach of express and implied
warranties and violation of the Magnuson-Moss 5 Warranty Act
(MMWA). The homeowners also pleaded causes of action for strict
liability; negligent design, manufacturing, and marketing; and
violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The
homeowners sought damages for repair costs, high water bills, and
mineral build up on their fixtures and appliances. Pentair served
and general denial and moved for dismissal under Rule 91a.
Two of the homeowners, Feroz Mohammed and Yaser Nabi, petitioned
for statewide class treatment of the warranty and MMWA claims.
Pentair objected, asserting that there was no agreement on who
warranted what to whom. Mohammed and Nabi produced two warranties
while Pentair produced a third. Nabi's warranty was a two-page
limited warranty from nonparty Fleck Controls, Inc/ for defects
within sixty months from the date of shipment (Pentair's expert
said that this warranty predated the Fleck valves discussed), while
Mohammed produced a two-page limited warranty from Pentair for
defects within five years from the manufacturing date. On the other
hand, Pentair's warranty was a five-page warranty to the original
purchaser for defects within five years from the manufacturing
date. Pentair also maintained that the statewide class treatment
was inappropriate because the issues were limited to Belsome's
customers in the Houston area. Pentair further asserted there were
several factors at play in each individual case that could not be
managed fairly as a class such as whether the class member's water
system was installed properly, whether the valve had caused or
manifested the 'defect', whether Pentair had cured the issue, and
more.
Nevertheless, the trial court certified the class with Mohammed and
Nabi as class representatives. The certification order defined the
class as all individual persons in Texas who purchased a Pentair
Fleck 5810 or 5812 valve. The trial court determined that common
issues predominated over individual factors affecting class members
because each class member purchased the same valve and received the
same Pentair warranty. The trial court stated that they would try
the case in a single jury trial, but didn't address how Pentair's
defenses would be managed. Pentair appealed.
Class Representatives' Standing under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act
In an opinion by Justice Landau, the court of appeals reversed and
remanded to the trial court. Pentair first argued that Mohammed and
Nabi lacked individual standing to bring a claim under the MMWA
because they did not make a warranty claim before they sued and did
not give Pentair an opportunity to cure any warranty issue. Since a
class representative needs individual standing to bring a claim on
behalf of a class, Pentair asserted that the MMWA claim must be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court
rejected this argument, observing that though the MMWA does
prohibit filing of individual action unless the defendant has been
given an opportunity to cure, it makes an exception for class
action cases. The statute's language granting an exception to class
actions, incidentially, is still debated by federal courts.
Pentair's appeal, however, doesn't address this exception and
instead asserts that Mohammed and Nabi lacked constitutional
standing to assert a class claim because they did not individually
comply with the cure before suing. The court likewise rejected this
argument, holding that "compliance with [MMWA's] cure provision
[is] a statutory requisite to relief, not a constitutional one"
(17). The concluded that class representatives Mohammed and Nabi
have standing in the true constitutional sense, because unlike the
class representative in Basham who didn't give Audiovox a chance to
cure by returning the defective radios for a refund, Mohammed and
Nabi had redressable injuries because Belsome fixed both their
water treatment systems to no effect. The appellate court overruled
Pentair's first standing challenge.
Class Certification
Pentair argued that the trial certification order did not comply
with TRCP Rule 42(c) (1) (D) because the trial court didn't explain
how the common issues predominate or how the individual issues and
Pentair's defenses can be handled in one trial. As the court
stated, "[i]t is "improper to certify a class without knowing how
the claims can and will likely be tried." Bernal, 22 S.W.3d at 435.
To that end, a certification order "must state," among other
things, (1) "the elements of each claim or defense asserted in the
pleadings"; (2) "why the issues common to the members of the class
do or do not predominate over individual issues"; and (3) "how the
class claims and any issues affecting only individual members,
raised by the claims or defenses asserted in the pleadings, will be
tried in a manageable, time efficient manner." TEX. R. CIV. P.
42(c)(1)(D)(i), (vi), (viii).
The homeowners claimed that the certification order addressed every
element required by Rule 42 and analyzed Pentair's defenses.
According to the court, however, although the trial court listed
Pentair's defenses, they didn't think the certification order
sufficiently answered Pentair's argument of individual issues
affecting the predominance of the class. For example, although
there were three different warranties produced, the trial court
suggested that they all obligated Pentair to provide free Fleck
valves because the Fleck valves had a common defect. However,
Pentair asserted defenses based on a lack of warranty coverage or
other explanations for why the valve didn't work that the trial
court didn't address, such as improper installation and exposure to
certain chemicals that Belsome did not check for in the water
before installation.
"In short," the court concluded, "there are warring factual
contentions that may affect individual warranty coverage,
causation, and whether the Fleck valves are problematic at large,
statewide, or primarily for Belsome's Houston-area customers. Based
on its pleaded defenses, Pentair has shared its intention to bring
individual challenges related to the installation and maintenance
of individual class member's water treatment systems. The
difficulty is we cannot tell whether these issues will be a factor
at trial -- particularly considering the expansion of the class
beyond Belsome's customers in the Houston area to the entire state
-- or can be dealt with efficiently and fairly [in a class action
lawsuit] (26)." The court thus found that the trial court abused
its discretion in granting class certification. [GN]
PICKLEBALL BELLA: Espina Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANGIE ESPINAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PICKLEBALL BELLA INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-08081 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://pickleballbella.com, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Pickleball Bella Inc. sells pickleball clothing label, offering
activewear skorts for the pickleball lifestyle. [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
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
PINNACLE PROPERTY: Faces Williams Suit Over Breach of Contract
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pinnacle Property
Management Services, LLC. The case is captioned as STEPHANY
WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PINNACLE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-08610 (N.D. Ill., September 18, 2024).
The suit is brought over the Defendant's alleged breach of
contract.
Pinnacle Property Management Services, LLC is a residential
property management agency in Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Leslie Pescia, Esq.
Lisa R. Considine, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (772) 783-8436
Facsimile: (646) 417-5967
Email: lconsidine@sirillp.com
PLBY GROUP INC: Fagnani Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
Mykayla Fagnani, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons v. PLBY GROUP, INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-08043 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 22, 2024), is brought this civil
rights action against the Defendant for their failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website,
https://us.honeybirdette.com, including all portions thereof or
accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's
Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen reading software to read website content using her
computer.
PLBY GROUP, INC., operates the US Honey Birdette online retail
store, as well as the US Honey Birdette 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.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
dana@gottlieb.legal
PLEASANT HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alarcon Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA VASCONEZ ALARCON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PLEASANT HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.
d/b/a CRAFT PIZZA & BEER; GREELEY PIZZA CORP. d/b/a PIZZA STATION;
DARNOV LLC d/b/a PIZZA STATION; TACO STREET BAR & KITCHEN INC.
d/b/a TACO STREET BAR & KITCHEN; MIHAILO DARMANOVIC a/k/a DAVID
DARMANOVIC; and RADOMAN BOJOVIC, Defendants, Case No. 7:24-cv-07914
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 17, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Plaintiff Alarcon was employed by the Defendants as a server.
Pleasant Hospitality Group, Inc. d/b/a Craft Pizza & Beer operates
as a restaurant, serving pizza, beer and wine. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Files Appeal in Mendoza Suit to 9th Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY is taking an appeal from a court order
in the lawsuit entitled Gabriela Mendoza, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Procter & Gamble
Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-01382-DMG-JPR, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendant for false and misleading
representations in violation of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and False
Advertising Law ("FAL").
On Apr. 20, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.
On May 11, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.
On May 12, 2023, the Court denied without prejudice the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint.
On June 2, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's first amended complaint, which Judge Dolly M. Gee
granted in part and denied in part on Dec. 20, 2023. It is granted,
without leave to amend, as to the negligent misrepresentation
claim, and the claims for equitable restitution under the UCL,
CLRA, and FAL. The motion to dismiss was otherwise denied.
On Jan. 24, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to certify for
interlocutory appeal.
The appellate case is captioned Mendoza v. The Procter & Gamble
Company, Case No. 24-6307, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 17, 2024. [BN]
PURPOSE FINANCIAL: Rayle Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purpose Financial
Inc. The case is styled as Laura Butler Rayle, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated v. Purpose Financial Inc. doing
business as: Advance America, Apex Recovery Services LLC, Case No.
0:24-cv-06050-MGL (D.S.C., Oct. 23, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Purpose Financial LP -- https://www.havepurpose.com/ -- operates as
an investment management company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dave Maxfield, Esq.
DAVE MAXFIELD, ATTORNEY, LLC
PO Box 11865
Columbia, SC 29211
Phone: (803) 509-6800
Fax: (855) 299-1656
Email: dave@consumerlawsc.com
ROBLOX CORP: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Roblox Corporation (NYSE: RBLX) resulting from
allegations that Roblox may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
So What: If you purchased Roblox securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=29667 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
What is this about: On October 8, 2024, Hindenburg Research issued
a report entitled "Roblox: Inflated Key Metrics For Wall Street And
a Pedophile Hellscape for Kids." In this report, Hindenburg stated
that its "research indicates that Roblox is lying to investors,
regulators, and advertisers about the number of 'people' on its
platform, inflating the key metric by 25-42%+." Further, "[b]eyond
inflated key user metrics, our in-game research revealed an X-rated
pedophile hellscape, exposing children to grooming, pornography,
violent content and extremely abusive speech."
On this news, Roblox's stock fell 2.1% on October 8, 2024.
Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
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]
ROCKET COMPANIES: Shupe Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 6th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
CARL SHUPE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying
their renewed motion for class certification in the lawsuit
entitled Carl Shupe, et al., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Rocket Companies, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-11528, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
brought a class action against Rocket Companies and some of its
officers and directors alleging that, between February 25 and May
5, 2021, the Defendants artificially inflated the price of Rocket
Class A common stock by publicly misrepresenting numerous adverse
facts, violating the Securities Exchange Act. The Plaintiffs also
allege that the CEO and controlling shareholder, Daniel Gilbert,
traded securities using insider information.
In June 2021, Zoya Qaiyum brought the case under 15 U.S.C. Section
78j(b), t(a) and 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5. The next month,
District Judge Paul D. Borman recused himself from the case, which
was then randomly reassigned to District Judge Judith E. Levy.
In August 2021, six plaintiffs from later-filed Case No.
5:21-CV-11618 filed five motions to consolidate that case with the
present case, as well as to be appointed as the lead or co-lead
Plaintiff under 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i), as amended by
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA).
In April 2022, Judge Levy consolidated the cases under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2) but did not determine the lead
plaintiff under the PSLRA. Two days later, the case was randomly
reassigned to Judge Thomas L. Ludington so that Judge Levy could
effectively manage the ongoing Flint water cases.
In May 2022, Qaiyum voluntarily dismissed her complaint and Carl
Shupe was appointed as Lead Plaintiff of the Rocket Class. A month
later, the Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint, alleging
that: Gilbert and RHI violated 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b) and 17
C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5 (Count I); Gilbert and RHI violated 15
U.S.C. Section 78t-1 (Count II); RCI, Farner, Booth, Walters, and
Gilbert violated 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R. Section
240.10b-5 (Count III); and RHI, Farner, Booth, Walters, and Gilbert
violated 15 U.S.C. Section 78t (Count IV).
Seventeen days later, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss,
which has been fully briefed. In response to the Motion to Dismiss,
the Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike the Defendants' reply or,
alternatively, to deny the Motion to Dismiss as a premature motion
for summary judgment because there has been no discovery in the
case.
On Feb. 12, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion to certify
class, which Judge Ludington denied on Sept. 30, 2024.
In sum, although the Plaintiffs have sufficiently shown commonality
and numerosity, the Plaintiffs have not shown that common questions
of reliance predominate. The Plaintiffs have not shown that a class
action is the superior method for adjudicating the claims of the
putative Class. The Plaintiffs have not provided an ascertainable
Subclass definition and have not shown that their proposed Class
and Subclass representatives would adequately protect the interests
of the putative Class and Subclass members. Therefore, the
Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification was denied.
The appellate case is captioned In re: Carl Shupe, et al., Case No.
24-0105, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit, filed on October 17, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners CARL SHUPE, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Christine M. Fox, Esq.
LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW
140 Broadway, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Defendants-Respondents ROCKET COMPANIES, INC., et al. are
represented by:
Nicholas B. Gorga, Esq.
HONIGMAN
660 Woodward Avenue, Suite 2290
Detroit, MI 48226
Telephone: (313) 465-7000
- and -
Jeffrey B. Morganroth, Esq.
MORGANROTH & MORGANROTH
344 N. Old Woodward Avenue, Suite 200
Birmingham, MI 48009
Telephone: (248) 864-4000
- and -
Jeffrey Thomas Scott, Esq.
Adam Brebner, Esq.
Jacob Eden Cohen, Esq.
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 558-4000
- and -
Adam Slutsky, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER
100 Northern Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (617) 570-1000
ROSENDIN ELECTRIC: Varble Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Varble, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ROSENDIN ELECTRIC, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-01265 (M.D.
Tenn., Oct. 22, 2024), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendant's failure to
pay overtime wages.
The Plaintiff, similarly situated employees and class members were
paid overtime wages when they worked hours in excess of 40 in a
workweek and a double-time overtime premium for hours worked on
Sundays; however, Defendant failed to properly calculate their
regular rate of pay when determining overtime and/or premium wages.
Specifically, Defendant failed to include bonus payments in its
computation of the regular rate for overtime and/or premium wages
to Plaintiff, similarly situated employees and class members,
thereby depriving them of their earned overtime and/or premium
wages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Rosendin as an electrician on the
Facebook project.
Rosendin is one of the country's largest electrical
contractors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Martin D. Holmes, Esq.
Autumn L. Gentry, Esq.
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
Fifth Third Center
424 Church Street, Suite 800
Nashville, TN 37219
Phone: (615) 244-6538
Email: mdholmes@dickinsonwright.com
agentry@dickinsonwright.com
ROYAL PETS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Supple Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------
HUNTER SUPPLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROYAL PETS MARKET & RESORT MIDTOWN, LLC; and
DENISE WOLIN, Defendants, Case No. 8:24-cv-02508-VMC-CPT (M.D.
Fla., Oct. 28, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid
wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Supple was employed by the Defendants as a store
manager.
Royal Pets Market & Resort Midtown, LLC offers pet resort, dog day
camp, and grooming in our pet salon to our full-service,
state-of-the-art veterinary center. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Troy Longman, II, Esq.
MIGUEL BOUZAS, ESQUIRE
16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
Lutz, FL 33558
Telephone: (727) 220-4000
Facsimile: (727) 483-7942
Email: TLongman@floringray.com
SA CONSUMER: Faces Austin Suit Over Defective Gun Safe Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
VINCINT AUSTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SA CONSUMER PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-10970 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 24, 2024) alleges that the
Defendant's gun safes known as Sports Afield Home Defense 4-Gun
Biometric Gun Safe, model SA-HDF-BIO, and Sports Afield Home
Defense 4-Gun Biometric Gun Safe, model SA-HDF-BIO, are defective,
and that customers who bought them did not get what they paid for.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant will not
give customers their money back for the defective products.
Instead, the Defendant implemented a deficient recall that allows
it to say it is doing the right thing, while protecting its bottom
line. First, any requests for refunds are denied. A consumer's only
option is to receive repair kit, regardless of whether they still
own the product, whether they trust the repair to solve the
problem, whether they are capable of reliably conducting the
repair, or whether they still want the product despite the defect.
The Plaintiff seeks all available relief to consumers, to raise
awareness that the Defendant's gun safes are a hazard, and to
encourage companies to take greater care in avoiding the production
and sale of hazardous products.
SA Consumer Products, Inc. develops and markets innovative products
including a full line of Sports Afield Gun Safes, and Firearms
Security Cases. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC
867 Boylston Street,
5th Floor, Ste. 1520
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 377-7404
Email: joel@skclassactions.com
- and -
Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC
166 Geary Street, Ste. 1500-1507
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 839-7000
Email: yeremey@skclassactions.com
SAM'S EAST: Wallace Consumer Suit Removed to S.D. Ill.
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LYNDSAY WALLACE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SAM'S EAST, INC. and SAM'S WEST, INC.,
Case No. 24-LA-1216, was removed from the Circuit Court for the
20th Judicial Circuit, County of St. Clair, State of Illinois, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on
October 24, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 3:24-cv-02361-SMY to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged false, deceptive and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of certain Member's
Mark Diced Peaches and Mandarin Oranges in four-ounce containers.
The Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (i) breach of express
warranty; (ii) violation of Illinois Consumer Fraud Act; (iii)
violation of unidentified consumer protection statutes of other
states and territories that are purportedly "similarly designed" to
provide consumer protection; and (iv) unjust enrichment.
Sam's East, Inc. is a retail company based in Bentonville,
Arkansas.
Sam's West, Inc. is a retail company based in Bentonville,
Arkansas. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Brian D. Straw, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
77 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 456-8400
Facsimile: (312) 456-8435
Email: brian.straw@gtlaw.com
dambi.kim@gtlaw.com
SELECT PORTFOLIO: DeSimone Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Select Portfolio
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Lisa DeSimone, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Select Portfolio
Services, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-07379-GRB-JMW (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 22,
2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. -- https://www.spservicing.com/ --
is a loan servicing company founded in 1989 as Fairbanks Capital
Corp. with operations in Salt Lake City, Utah and Jacksonville,
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Oren Giskan, Esq.
Catherine Elizabeth Anderson, Esq.
GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON, LLP
90 Broad Street, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (646) 964-9644
Email: ogiskan@gslawny.com
canderson@gslawny.com
SHIELDED BEAUTY: Miller Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Miller, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SHIELDED BEAUTY, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01025 (W.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 22, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for their failure
to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website,
https://shieldedbeauty.com, including all portions thereof or
accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's
Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
SHIELDED BEAUTY, LLC, operates the Shielded Beauty online retail
store, as well as the Shielded Beauty interactive Website and
advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and
throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
dana@gottlieb.legal
jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
SINOVAC BIOTECH: Notice of Appeal Filed in Gestion Case
-------------------------------------------------------
MW Gestion filed an appeal from a court decision in the case
captioned, MW Gestion v. Sinovac Biotech, Ltd., et al., Case No.
2023-0907-JTL (Del. Ch.). The appeal was filed on Oct. 22, 2024
before the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, and captioned as
MW GESTION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SINOVAC BIOTECH LTD.; WEIDONG YIN; NAN WANG;
SIMON ANDERSON; YUK LAM LO; KENNETH LEE; MENG MEI; SHAN FU; and
WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case No. 443-2024 (De.
Sup., Oct. 22, 2024).
Sinovac Biotech Ltd. researches, develops, manufactures, and
markets various vaccines, including flu vaccines and vaccines for
Hepatitis A. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
F. Troupe Mickler IV, Esq.
Tiffany Geyer Lydon, Esq.
ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A.
500 Delaware Avenue
P.O. Box 1150
Wilmington, DE 19899
Telephone: (302) 654-1888
Email: tmickler@ashbygeddes.com
tlydon@ashbygeddes.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
Michael Grunfeld, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
mgrunfeld@pomlaw.com
SMTC MANUFACTURING: Nguyen Suit Removed from Sup. Ct. to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MOMO NGUYEN, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. SMTC MANUFACTURING
CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Case No. 23CV025898 (Filed Jan.
18, 2023) was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Alameda, to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on Oct. 23, 2024.
The Northern California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:24-cv-07394-LB to the proceeding.
The suit alleges that both SMTC Manufacturing and CheckOne failed
to pay all overtime wages; failed to pay all sick time; failed to
provide proper meal periods; failed to provide proper rest periods;
failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failed to pay
timely final wages; failed to reimburse necessary business
expenses; and engaged in unfair competition.
SMTC operates as an electronics manufacturing company.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Julie A. Dunne, Esq.
Joseph J. Kim, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100
San Diego, CA 92121-2133
Telephone: (858) 677-1400
Facsimile: (858) 677-1401
E-mail: julie.dunne@us.dlapiper.com
joseph.kim@us.dlapiper.com
STAGE ONE: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Turner Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
TAVON TURNER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STAGE ONE CANNABIS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-08092 (S.D.N.Y., October 24, 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.stageonedispensary.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, contrast errors, suspicious alternative
text, skipped heading levels, and null alternative text.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Stage One Cannabis, 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
SUBWAY LLC: Sandwiches Have Less Meat Than Advertised, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Kesslen, writing for Quartz, reports that Subway is allegedly
being skimpy on meat -- and one customer is so mad that she's
suing.
A lawsuit filed Monday, October 25, in Brooklyn federal court
claims the chain is "grossly misleading" customers, showing
advertisements with at least 200% more meat than what actually
comes in the sandwiches, according to Reuters.
The proposed class action suit was brought by Anna Tollison of
Queens, who said when she paid $7.61 for a Steak & Cheese sandwich,
she got much less meat than advertised.
She is seeking damages against Subway for allegedly plating up more
bread than meat and wants to open up the suit to anyone in New York
who has bought a Subway sandwich in the past three years, Reuters
said.
The suit claims the alleged distortion is particularly damaging
amid inflation and high cost of living.
Similar suits have been brought against McDonald's and Wendy's and
were dismissed by a judge, Reuters reported.
Subway, which is based in Connecticut, has yet to comment on the
suit. [GN]
SUBWAY RESTAURANTS: Sandwich's Ads "Deceptive," Tollison Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANNA TOLLISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUBWAY RESTAURANTS, INC., FRANCHISE WORLD
HEADQUARTERS, LLC, SUBWAY FRANCHISEE ADVERTISING TRUST FUND LTD.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-07495-CBA-SJB (E.D.N.Y., October 28,
2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
New York Deceptive Acts and Practices Act and New York Deceptive
Acts and Practices Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of a Steak & Cheese
sandwich. Subway uses photographs in its advertisements that make
it appear that the Steak & Cheese sandwich contains at least 200
percent more meat than the actual sandwiches that customers
receive. Subway's advertisements for the product are unfair and
financially damaging to consumers as they are receiving a product
that is materially lower in value than what is being represented.
As a result of the Defendants' misrepresentations, the Plaintiff
and similarly situated consumers suffered damages, says the suit.
Subway Restaurants, Inc. is a restaurant company, with its
principal place of business at 325 Sub Way, Milford, Connecticut.
Franchise World Headquarters, LLC is a company that operates and
franchises subway restaurants based in Milford, Connecticut.
Subway Franchisee Advertising Trust Fund Ltd. is a provider of
restaurant services based in Milford, Connecticut. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James C. Kelly, Esq.
THE RUSSO FIRM
244 5th Avenue, Suite K-278
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 920-5042
Email: jkelly@therussofirm.com
- and -
Anthony Russo, Esq.
THE RUSSO FIRM
1001 Yamato Road, Suite 106
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (844) 847-8300
Email: anthony@therussofirm.com
SUMMIT PATHOLOGY: Donohoe Files Suit in D. Colorado
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Summit Pathology
Laboratories, Inc. The case is styled as Deidra Donohoe,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Summit Pathology Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-02962-NRN (D.
Colo., Oct. 24, 2024).
The nature of suit is state as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Summit Pathology -- https://www.summitpathology.com/ -- is an
independent pathology laboratory, owned by a practice of twenty-two
board certified pathologists.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laura Grace Van Note, Esq.
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th Street, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Phone: (510) 891-9800
Email: lvn@colevannote.com
SUMMIT PATHOLOGY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Richardson Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM RICHARDSON JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUMMIT PATHOLOGY and SUMMIT
PATHOLOGY LABORATORIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-03011
(D. Colo., Oct 28, 024) is an action arising from a cyberattack
occurring on or around April 18, 2024, resulting in a data breach
of sensitive information in the possession and custody and control
of Defendant (the "Data Breach").
The Data Breach resulted in unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration,
and theft of current and former patients' highly personal
information, including first and last names, Social Security
numbers, medical billing and insurance information, financial
information, date of birth ("personally identifying information" or
"PII"), and medical information including diagnoses ("protected
health information" or "PHI").
The Defendant's failure to timely detect and report the Data Breach
made its clients' patients, the Defendant's consumers, vulnerable
to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial
accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their
Sensitive Information. The Defendant knew or should have known that
each victim of the Data Breach deserved prompt and efficient notice
of the Data Breach and assistance in mitigating the effects of PII
and PHI misuse, says the suit.
Summit Pathology is an independent pathology laboratory that
provides services to hospital systems and physician offices in
Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
One Magnificent Mile
980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
Email: raina@straussborrelli.com
sam@straussborrelli.com
SUMMIT PATHOLOGY: Klarin Sues Over Failure to Secure Information
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Klarin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SUMMIT PATHOLOGY and SUMMIT PATHOLOGY LABORATORIES,
INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-02969-RMR-SBP (D. Colo., Oct. 24, 2024), is
brought against Defendants for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard sensitive information of their patients and their
clients' patients.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information
which they entrusted to Defendants on the mutual understanding that
Defendants would protect it against disclosure--was targeted,
compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. Summit
Pathology collected and maintained certain personally identifiable
information and protected health information of Plaintiff and the
putative Class Members, who are (or were) patients at Defendants
and/or Defendants' clients.
The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included
Plaintiff's and Class Members' full names, Social Security numbers,
financial information, addresses, and dates of birth ("personally
identifiable information" or "PII") and medical and health
insurance information, which is protected health information
("PHI", and collectively with PII, "Private Information") as
defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
of 1996 ("HIPAA"). The Private Information compromised in the Data
Breach was exfiltrated by cyber criminals and remains in the hands
of those cyber-criminals who target Private Information for its
value to identity thieves.
The Defendants disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class
Members by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or
negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized
intrusions; failing to take standard and reasonably available steps
to prevent the Data Breach; and failing to provide Plaintiff and
Class Members prompt and accurate notice of the Data Breach, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former patients at
Defendants and/or Defendants' clients.
The Defendants operate an independent pathology laboratory, owned
by a practice of twenty-two board certified pathologists, that
provides medical services to patients and healthcare
providers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.co
THIELMANN FAMILY: Turner Sues Over Disabled's Access to Property
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN TURNER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MARY ANN THIELMANN, in her individual
capacity and in her capacity as the trustee of the THIELMANN FAMILY
TRUST, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-09176 (C.D. Cal., October 24,
2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate her facilities to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
persons with disabilities. The Defendant has continued to
discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block
them from access and use of her property and business. The
Plaintiff and similarly situated disabled individuals encountered
architectural barriers in common areas such parking, entrance
access, and path of travel.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek injunctive relief to remove
the existing architectural barriers to the physically disabled when
such removal is readily achievable for the place of public
accommodation. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Pamela Tsao, Esq.
ASCENSION LAW GROUP
12341 Newport Ave., Suite B200
Tustin, CA 92705
Telephone: (714) 783-4220
Facsimile: (888) 505-1033
Email: Pamela.Tsao@ascensionlawgroup.com
TRUSPER INC: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid in Ramirez Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
TRUSPER INC., doing business as Musely, is taking an appeal from a
court order denying its motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit
entitled Elia Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Trusper Inc., doing business as
Musely, Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-02012-EJD, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
filed this complaint against the Defendant for alleged violation of
California's consumer privacy laws by disclosing to Meta
confidential information belonging to users and visitors of the
Defendant's website.
On May 24, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to compel individual
arbitration and stay litigation, which Judge Edward J. Davila
denied on Oct. 11, 2024. The Court ruled that the Defendant failed
to show that a certain participation agreement is a valid and
enforceable contract. Therefore, its motion to compel arbitration
is denied.
The appellate case is captioned Ramirez v. Trusper Inc., Case No.
24-6434, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, filed on October 21, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 28,
2024;
-- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on December 2, 2024;
and
-- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on December 30,
2024. [BN]
UNIGO LLC: McLee Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Andrea McLee, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. UNIGO LLC, Case No. 2024-22254-0 was
removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 24, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-05702.
The Plaintiff's Complaint seeks damages for herself and "each Class
Member" of "not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate
of $100/day or $1,000 for each violation, whichever is higher",
along with punitive damages.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark C. Atlee, Esq.
ATLEE HALL, LLP
415 North Duke Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
Email: mcatlee@atleehall.com
- and -
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Max. S. Roberts, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, PA
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd floor
New York, NY 10019
Phone: 646.837.7150
Fax: 212.989.9163
Email: ykopel@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Daniel A. Leister, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
1375 E. 9th Street, Suite 2250
Cleveland, OH 44114
Phone: 216.344.9422
Fax: 216.344.9421
Email: Dan.Leister@lewisbrisbois.com
VARSITY BRANDS: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Huntley Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
DEAN HUNTLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VARSITY BRANDS, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-02633-B (N.D.
Tex., Oct. 21, 2024) contends that the Defendant breached its duty
by failing to properly safeguard and protect Plaintiff and Class
members' personal information, thus enabling cybercriminals to
access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber,
exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view it.
On May 24, 2024, Varsity Brands detected suspicious activity on its
computer network, indicating a data breach. Based on a subsequent
forensic investigation, Varsity Brands determined that
cybercriminals infiltrated its computer environment and thereby
gained access to its data files. The investigation further
determined that, through this infiltration, cybercriminals
potentially accessed and acquired files containing the sensitive
personal information of 65,669 individuals.
The personally identifiable information ("PII") accessed by
cybercriminals included names, dates of birth, Social Security
numbers, financial account information, medical information, health
insurance information, credit card information, and Driver's
license numbers.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class members
have already suffered damages. For example, now that their Personal
Information has been released into the criminal cyber domains,
Plaintiff and Class members are at imminent and impending risk of
identity theft. This risk will continue for the rest of their
lives, as Plaintiff and Class members are now forced to deal with
the danger of identity thieves possessing and using their Personal
Information, the suit asserts.
Additionally, the Plaintiff and Class members have already lost
time and money responding to and mitigating the impact of the Data
Breach, which efforts are continuous and ongoing.
The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the
Class and seeks actual damages and restitution. The Plaintiff also
seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including significant
improvements to Defendant's data security systems and protocols,
future annual audits, Defendant-funded long-term credit monitoring
services, and other remedies as the Court sees necessary and
proper.
The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Marion County, Indiana.
Varsity Brands is a provider of cheerleading, dance, and performing
arts competitions, apparel, uniforms, footwear, training camps, and
yearbooks.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
A. Brooke Murphy, Esq.
MURPHY LAW FIRM
4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700
Oklahoma City, OK 73108
Telephone: (405) 389-4989
E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com
VARSITY BRANDS: Le Sues Over Failure to Protect Information
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tony Le, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Varsity Brands, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-02681-E (N.D.
Tex., Oct. 24, 2024), is brought seeks to redress Defendant's
unlawful, willful and wanton failure to protect the personal
identifiable information of likely thousands of individuals that
was exposed in a major data breach of Defendant's network in
violation of its legal obligations.
Between May 24, 2024, an unknown actor gained access to Defendant's
inadequately protected computer systems. As a result, over 65,000
individuals, including Plaintiff and the Class Members, have had
their personal identifiable information ("PII") exposed (the "Data
Breach").
In carrying out its business, Defendant obtains, collects, uses,
and derives a benefit
from the PII of Plaintiff and the Class. As such, Defendant assumed
the legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and
safeguard that information from unauthorized access and
intrusion.
On May 24, 2024, Defendant discovered that an unauthorized third
party obtained access and exfiltrated data from its servers
containing PII. In response, Defendant sent out notices to
potential victims of the Data Breach. According to the Defendant,
the PII exposed in the breach included names, dates of birth,
Social Security numbers, financial account information, medical
information, health insurance information, credit card information,
and Drivers' licenses numbers (collectively, "Personal
Information").
It wasn't until October 14, 2024, that Defendant began notifying
Plaintiff and class members of the data breach. Due to the
Defendant's negligence, cybercriminals obtained everything they
needed to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial
and personal lives of thousands of individuals, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff and members of the class are current or former
employees of Varsity.
Varsity Brands, Inc. is an American apparel company with offices
across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William B. Federman, Esq.
Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Phone: (405) 235-1560
Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com
jaw@federmanlaw.com
VEROGEN INC: Hutcheson Sues Over Illegal Disclosure of Information
------------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Hutcheson; Sara Lafler; Alucard Taylor; Kama Delk; Erin
Radcliffe; Mikhaila Diekmann; Chelsea Gardner; Andrew Starin; and
Sharyl Yeisley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VEROGEN, INC. D/B/A GEDMATCH, Case No.
3:24-cv-01977-JES-MMP (S.D. Cal., Oct. 24, 2024), is brought
involving the Defendant's illegal disclosure of nearly two million
individuals' genetic information to multiple unauthorized third
parties.
The Defendant has violated each of the State Genetics Statutes on a
massive scale, having disclosed the genetic information of nearly
two million individuals to multiple third parties without any of
these persons' informed, written consent. In some cases, Verogen
disclosed individuals' genetic information to a group of third
parties even after those individuals had expressly instructed
Verogen not to disclose their genetic information to that very
group of third parties.
To use the services, a person must obtain a DNA analysis from
another company, download the results of that test to a DNA file,
and upload the DNA file into the GEDmatch database. The DNA file
contains the individual's genetic information, specifically the
results of the DNA analysis.
First, in January 2023, Verogen disclosed the genetic information
of approximately 1.8 million of its users when it sold its
GEDmatch.com database to Qiagen N.V. ("Qiagen"), along with the
rest of Verogen's business, for $150 million. Qiagen is a foreign
company, operating under Dutch law with its registered office in
Venlo, The Netherlands. This sale required Verogen to provide its
entire database of user uploaded DNA files, along with all the
personal information connected to each DNA file, to Qiagen. Verogen
failed to notify its users, let alone obtain any form of consent
from its users, prior to disclosing their DNA files and associated
personal information to Qiagen.
Second, Verogen has routinely disclosed to various law enforcement
entities the genetic information of its users—also without
notifying, or obtaining any form of consent from, any of these
individuals. Notably, many of the users whose DNA files were
disclosed by Verogen to law enforcement entities had expressly
instructed Verogen not to disclose their genetic information to law
enforcement entities.
Finally, Verogen has disclosed the identities of its users who
underwent genetic testing and who maintained Facebook accounts to
Meta via the Meta Pixel technology installed by Defendant on its
website also without notifying, or obtaining any form of consent
from, any of these persons. By disclosing its users' genetic
information to Qiagen, law enforcement entities, and Meta--without
first obtaining its users' informed written consent--Defendant
violated the State Genetics Statutes, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff created a GEDmatch.com account and uploaded her DNA
file on GEDmatch.com in 2018.
Verogen operates the website www.GEDmatch.com, where it provides
in-depth DNA comparison tools and services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
HEDIN LLP
357 Mission Street, 14th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (305) 357-2107
Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
Email: fhedin@hedinllp.com
WALMART INC: R. C. Files Personal Injury Claims in C.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Walmart Inc. The case
is captioned as R. C. et al., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WALMART INC., Case No.
5:24-cv-02003-JGB-DTB (C.D. Cal., September 18, 2024).
The suit is brought against the Defendant for personal injury
claims.
Walmart Inc. is a multinational retail company headquartered in
Bentonville, Arkansas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew John Langley, Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
849 West Webster Avenue
Chicago, IL 60614
Telephone: (954) 579-0027
Email: matt@almeidalawgroup.com
- and -
Andrew Ready Tate, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY AND WISE LLP
235 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 400
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (404) 282-4806
Facsimile: (504) 608-1465
Email: atate@peifferwolf.com
- and -
Brandon Michael Wise, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY AND WISE LLP
One US Bank Plaza, Suite 1950
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 833-4827
Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com
- and -
Melisa Rosadini-Knott, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY AND WISE LLP
3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (323) 982-4109
Email: mrosadini@peifferwolf.com
WALMART INC: Timmins Sues Over Petroleum Jelly's Hypoallergenic Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LACEY TIMMINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-02960-DJC-JDP (E.D. Cal., October 28, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, and
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, breach of implied
warranty, breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, and fraud
by omission/intentional misrepresentation.
The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Parent's Choice
brand Baby Petroleum Jelly Skin Protectant. The product's front
label prominently represents to consumers that it is
"Hypoallergenic." On the Defendant's website, in addition to the
representation that the product is "hypoallergenic," the Defendant
also claims the product "works as a skin protectant," "protects
tender skin," "helps treat and prevent diaper rash," and "helps
protect chafed skin." However, these representations are false. The
truth is the product is not hypoallergenic because it contains
fragrance chemicals. As a result of the Defendant's
misrepresentations, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers
suffered damages, says the suit.
Walmart Inc. is a retailer with its principal place of business in
Little Rock, Arkansas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC
166 Geary Str., Ste. 1500
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 839-7077
Facsimile: (888) 410-0415
Email: yeremey@skclassactions.com
- and -
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC
867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor #1520
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 377-4704
Facsimile: (888) 410-0415
Email: joel@skclassactions.com
WELLLIFE NETWORK: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Dudek Says
----------------------------------------------------------
DAMIAN DUDEK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WELLLIFE NETWORK, INC., Defendant, Case No.
616088/2024 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., Sept. 10, 2024) is a class
action arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly
sensitive data.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, cybercriminals were
able to breach the Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to
adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to
maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the
Class's highly sensitive personal identifiable information and
Protected Health Information. In short, Defendant's failures placed
the Class's PII/PHI in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy
targets for cybercriminals.
Welllife Network, INC. operates as a non-profit organization. The
Organization offers human services such as disability, mental
health, clinical, and advocacy services. PSCH serves communities in
the State of New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Bilsborrow, Esq.
WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC
700 Broadway
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 558-5500
Email: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com
XPO INC: Faces Hill ERISA Suit Over Illegal Tobacco Surcharge
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES RICHARD HILL, III, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, and on behalf of the Plan, v. XPO, INC. and GXO
LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-01697 (D. Conn., Oct. 23, 2024)
alleges that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by
assessing and collecting tobacco surcharges, in violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
The Plaintiff and all others similarly situated were required to
pay an additional "premium or contribution" of $100 per month, or
$1,200 per year, based on a "health status-related factor," that
being their use of tobacco products, the suit says.
The Defendants' tobacco surcharges are not and were not permissible
wellness programs, because they did not provide for a reasonable
alternative standard, in that a tobacco user who completed the
designated tobacco cessation program would not be reimbursed for
surcharge payments already made during that plan year, and thus
would not be eligible to receive the "full reward" of the tobacco
surcharge program, that being a $1,200 reduction in premium costs
to maintain medical coverage, the Plaintiff avers.
Further, the Defendants' tobacco surcharge has discriminated
against, and continues to discriminate against, participant and
beneficiaries enrolled in their group health plans based on a
health status-related factor is assessing premiums or
contributions, in violation of 29 U.S.C. section 1182(b).
The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated plan participants and beneficiaries, seeking to
have these unlawful fees returned, and for plan-wide relief under
29 U.S.C. section 1109.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants' enterprise for 16
years until March 2021 in the State of Tennessee.
XPO, Inc. provides a wide range of transportation services,
warehousing, and third-party logistics services worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William G. Madsen, Esq.
MADSEN PRESLEY & PARENTEAU, LLC
402 Asylum Street
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: 860-246-2466
Facsimile: 860-246-1794
E-mail: wmadsen@mppjustice.com
- and -
George A. Hanson, Esq.
Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
Caleb J. Wagner, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
ricke@stuevesiegel.com
wagner@steuvesiegel.com
- and -
Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
McCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
The Flagship Building
200 Westwoods Drive
Liberty, MO 64068-1170
Telephone: (816) 781-0002
Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com
YSA ARM: Unlawfully Obtains Drivers' Personal Info, Magden Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
Oguz F. Magden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. YSA ARM LLC d/b/a OXYGENXL, Case No. 7:24-cv-08065
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 23, 2024) alleges that OxygenXL violates the
Driver's Privacy Protection Act because it knowingly uses and/or
obtains Plaintiff's and Class Members' personal information,
including names and home addresses, from non-publicly accessible
motor vehicle state records stored by the respective Department of
Motor Vehicles.
In August 2024, Plaintiff Magden received a document in the mail
from PPM purporting to be a Fine issued by PPM, which demanded
payment in connection to an alleged violation by Plaintiff Magden
of PPM9s parking facility rules. In September 2024, the Plaintiff
received a collection Notice, this time from OxygenXL, demanding
payment in connection to the August 2024 PPM Fine.
At no time did Plaintiff Magden provide his name or address to PPM
or OxygenXL, nor did Plaintiff Magden ever consent to PPM or
OxygenXL obtaining his address through his vehicle records. The
Plaintiff has never publicly disclosed or made publicly available
the personal motor vehicle record information acquired by OxygenXL,
the suit says.
OxygenXL harassed and invaded Plaintiff's privacy and solitude by
obtaining, disclosing, and using Plaintiff's personal and private
motor vehicle record information, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of himself and each member of the
proposed Class, statutory damages under the DPPA in the amount of
$2,500, reasonable attorney's fees, litigation costs reasonably
incurred, and such other equitable relief as the court deems
appropriate, including injunctive relief in the form of a
prohibition on OxygenXL from obtaining, using and disclosing
personal information obtained from any DMV to send collection
Notices through the mail to consumers' residences.
Ysa Arm is a privately owned company that operates as a debt
collector for Professional Parking Management.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adrian Gucovschi, Esq.
Benjamin Rozenshteyn, Esq.
Nathaniel Haim Sari, Esq.
GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC
140 Broadway, FL 46
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 884-4230
E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com
ben@gr-firm.com
nsari@gr-firm.com
ZANMAI LABS: May Face Class Action Suit Following $235-Mil. Hack
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of victims is preparing a lawsuit against crypto exchange
WazirX following the $235 million hack.
Thirty victims of the July 18 hack on WazirX, which saw roughly 45%
of user funds drained from the platform's hot wallet, are preparing
to file a class-action lawsuit with the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission in India, according to a local media report.
The victims seeking to recover crypto assets worth over INR 5
crores (around $600,000) argue that the exchange acted outside its
legal boundaries.
The $235 million hack impacted roughly 4 million users, compelling
the exchange to seek a Scheme of Arrangement in Singapore, a
restructuring process under local insolvency laws. WazirX managed
to secure a four-month moratorium, temporarily halting any legal
claims against it.
The lawsuit, set to be filed by mid-November, hinges on the claim
that WazirX's agreement with its users was through its Indian
entity, Zanmai Labs Pvt. Ltd.
Victims weren't informed of frozen cash balances
Supreme Court lawyer Aman Rehaan Khan is representing the victims.
Khan argues that the exchange's decision to file for asset
restructuring in Singapore through its parent company, Zettai Pte
Ltd, was not legally justified.
"Zettai was never a party to the user agreement," said Khan.
Singapore-based Zettai, oversees the exchange's cryptocurrency
assets, while Zanmai Labs handles cash deposits for Indian users.
Initially, Zanmai was in charge of WazirX's operations in India,
but it's now fully owned by Zettai. According to WazirX's website,
Zettai took over the platform's assets following an ownership
dispute with Binance.
Nearly a month after the attack, WazirX announced that it would
allow users to withdraw 55% of their cryptocurrency holdings and
66% of their cash deposits. However, it was the first time the
exchange revealed that one-third of users' cash balances had been
frozen due to separate legal disputes and ongoing investigations by
law enforcement.
Khan added that users were not informed about cash balances being
frozen by a third-party entity, which he claims is another
violation warranting compensation and penalties.
Khan expects more victims to join by the time the lawsuit is
filed.
WazirX under fire
WazirX, one of India's largest cryptocurrency exchanges, has faced
significant scrutiny and legal challenges in recent years.
Besides the upcoming lawsuit, the report noted that two other cases
have been filed against the exchange in the Delhi High Court. On
Aug. 28, CoinSwitch co-founder Ashish Singhal accused the exchange
of security lapses. Another investor, Jaivir Bains, filed a
petition on Oct. 18, calling for an investigation into the hack.
WazirX filed for a moratorium in September as part of a
restructuring process in Singapore where the current owner is
based. The company won the moratorium and now has four months of
immunity from any legal proceedings against it.
Further, a separate group of 11 users plan to pursue legal action
once the moratorium has expired.
India's Financial Intelligence Unit -- an agency tasked with
analyzing and disseminating financial information related to money
laundering and terrorist financing activities -- is reportedly
probing WazirX.
The exchange has shared server logs, transaction records, and
blockchain addresses related to the stolen funds with authorities.
On Oct. 25, the exchange announced it was looking for a new
custodian partner that could provide insurance for user funds in a
bid to enhance platform security.
WazirX was founded by former CEO Nischal Shetty and CTO Sameer
Mhatre. [GN]
ZUMBA FITNESS: Discloses Customers' Viewing Info to Meta, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CATHERINE KUEPPERS; and KATHLEEN SUMMY, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. ZUMBA FITNESS, LLC, Case No.
0:24-cv-61983 (S.D. Fla., Oct. 23, 2024) contends that the
Defendant discloses the Plaintiffs' and its other customers'
identities and the identities of the prerecorded video materials to
which they purchased access on Defendant's www.zumba.com website to
third parties in violation of the federal Video Privacy Protection
Act.
Over the past two years, the Defendant has systematically
transmitted (and continues to transmit today) its customers'
personally identifying video viewing information to at least two
companies using snippets of code called tracking pixels, the suit
says.
The Defendant knowingly and intentionally transmitted this
personally identifying video viewing information to: (i) Meta
Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc. and (ii)
Pinterest, Inc., the Plaintiffs allege.
The Defendant disclosed and continues to disclose its customers'
Private Video Information to these third parties without asking
for, let alone obtaining, its customers' consent to these
practices, the suit adds.
Plaintiff Kueppers purchased a video on-demand Zumba Instructor
Training Course from Defendant's Website, which provided her access
to prerecorded video materials.
The Defendant operates the Website www.zumba.com, which offers for
sale access to various prerecorded videos concerning Defendant's
trademarked dance-oriented workout program.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Elliot O. Jackson, Esq.
Tyler K. Somes, Esq.
HEDIN LLP
1395 Brickell Ave, Suite 610
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 357-2107
Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
E-mail: ejackson@hedinllp.com
tsomes@hedinllp.com
[*] Court Rejects Bid to Add Maple Leaf to Price Fixing Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that an Ontario Superior Court judge has
dismissed an attempt to add Maple Leaf Foods to a class-action
lawsuit related to the bread-price fixing scandal.
When the class-action lawsuit was originally certified in an
Ontario court in 2021 against several grocery retailers and other
food companies, Maple Leaf was not included.
Plaintiffs, supported by Canada Bread Co., argued last month that
Maple Leaf should be added as a defendant in the lawsuit because of
its past ownership of the company.
Canada Bread was fined by the bureau in 2023 after admitting to
four counts of price-fixing, but has argued as part of the
class-action lawsuit that Maple Leaf, which was its majority owner
at the time, should shoulder the blame instead.
Maple Leaf sold Canada Bread to Mexico's Grupo Bimbo for
$1.8-billion in February.
The class-action lawsuit is one of two launched in the wake of an
ongoing Competition Bureau investigation into an alleged
industry-wide conspiracy to fix the price of bread.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 25,
2024. [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 ***