/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241105.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, November 5, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 222
Headlines
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Mullins Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: Beerwart Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Conner Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Corbin Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Cummins Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Cunningham Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Fox Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Hoversten Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
A&A SERVICES: Appointment of Class Counsel in Sutherlin OK'd
A&A SERVICES: Appointment of Interim Class Counsel Granted
A&A SERVICES: Appointment of Interim Class Counsel in Brown Granted
A&A SERVICES: Appointment of Interim Class Counsel in Doherty OK'd
A&A SERVICES: Appointment of Interim Class Counsel in Hill OK'd
AGELESS SCIENCES: Espinal Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
ALL PRO PLUMBING: Fails to Pay Laborers' OT Wages, Ochoa Says
AMAZON.COM: Court Narrows Claims in Miller SAC
AMPAM PARKS: Court Tosses Ramirez Bid to Extend Class Cert Deadline
ANGEL HERBERT: Bids for Summary Judgment Due Sept. 8, 2026
APPLE INC: Must Oppose Lopez Class Cert Bid by June 6, 2025
BANNER HEALTH: Court OK's Bid to Bifurcate Discovery in Kelly
BIGOS MANAGEMENT: Matthews Sues Over Breach of Contract
BOULDER COMMUNITY: Patton Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
C.C. FILSON: Mackey Sues Over Unlawful Telephonic Calls
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Murillo Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
CAMPBELL SOUP: Court Narrows Claims in Squeo Lawsuit
CENTRAL GARDEN: Flodin Bid for Class Certification Tossed
CHALET DESSERTS: Mackel Files Labor Suit in California State Court
CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces Morris Suit Over Bank Sweep Program
COPART INC: Must Oppose Arik Class Cert Bid by Dec. 9
DELAWARE NORTH: Parties Directed to Fully Integrate Joint Brief
DEREK FINKBEINER: Discovery in Bailey Suit Due May 25, 2025
DESERT ROCK CAPITAL: Christensen Files TCPA Suit in D. Utah
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Wiretaps Customers' Calls, Padilla Suit Alleges
ELEVANCE HEALTH: Holland Sues Over Disability Discrimination
EPIC GAMES: Appeals Arbitration Order in S.T.G. Suit to 9th Cir.
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Figueredo Seeks Personal Trainers' Unpaid Wages
FEDERAL BUREAU: Love Sues Over Bias Criminal History Scoring Rule
FISHER-PRICE INC: Shahbaz Sues Over Snuga Swings Deceptive Ads
FOREST RIVER: Bid to Dismiss Nelson Class Action Tossed
GREEN SOLUTIONS: Sends Unsolicited Marketing Calls, Sancruzado Says
HUMANA INC: Court Overrules Objection to Discovery Motion Ruling
INFORMATION.COM LLC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Mannacio Lawsuit
J & J ROOFING: Taft Files Employment Suit in Cal. State Court
JP MORGAN: Class Certification Deadlines Vacated in Turner Suit
KHIMS MARKET: Fails to Pay Chefs' Minimum & OT Wages, Park Alleges
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Hagins Seeks to Certify Class Action
LAURA HOWARD: Glendening Class Cert Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice
MIDWEST TRANSPORT: Ballog Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Notice
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Settlement Deal in Sanchez Suit Gets Initial Nod
NC STATE UNIVERSITY: Katti Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit
NCAA: Parties Must File Detailed Joint Status Report
NEBRASKA: Seeks to Dismiss State Defendants as Parties
NEW ENGLAND: Fails to Pay Regular Wages, Hanley Suit Says
NFL PLAYER: Parties Seek to Modify Briefing Deadlines
NIGHTJAR HOLDINGS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Turner Says
NIKE INC: Plaintiffs Lose Bid to Modify Discrimination Suit Ruling
NORTHVIEW VILLAGE: Order on Filing Bid for Default Judgment Stayed
NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert Schedule
PAC HOUSING: Class Expert Disclosure in Hills Due Nov. 15
PAC HOUSING: Hills Seeks More Time to File Class Expert Disclosure
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Hialeah Retirement Appeals Suit Dismissal
PEOPLECONNECT INC: Jackson Suit Removed to N.D. West Virginia
PREMIER FINANCIAL: Holland Files Civil Suit to Ky. Ct. App.
PRIME HYDRATION: Heaven Personal Injury Suit Removed to E.D. Pa.
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Pretrial Disclosures in Franco Due Nov. 22
QUEBEC INC: Class Settlement Deal in Natale Suit Gets Final Nod
RELX PLC: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid
RENTOKIL NORTH AMERICA: Appeals Remand Order in Rodriguez Suit
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Buffalo Suit Seeks Class Cert Briefing Schedule
ROADPULSE LOGISTICS: Pierce Sues Over Unpaid Wages
ROMEO'S PIZZA: Branning Suit Seeks to Certify Delivery Driver Class
ROUNDPOINT MORTGAGE: Edge Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling
SAFEWAY INC: Products Release Asbestos Fibers, Suit Alleges
SCOOTERS 4 U: Navarro Seeks Unpaid Regular and OT Wages Under FLSA
SETHI MANAGEMENT: Faces Martin Class Action Lawsuit in Cal. Super.
SHARKNINJA INC: Faces Zamani Suit Over Blenders' Defective Design
SHARON, MA: Bishay Appeals Suit Dismissal to 1st Circuit
SOLIDQUOTE LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 13, 2025
SOUTHWEST SPECIALTY: Fuentes Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
STAR MARKETS: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Augusr 20, 2025
STARCO BRANDS: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to July 18, 2025
STUDENT LOAN: Dawson Must File Class Cert Bid by Jan. 15, 2025
SUN ENERGY: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 25, 2025
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: FWK Seeks to Seal Portions of Memo
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: FWK Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Premera Seeks to Certify Two Classes
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Premera Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Memo
TITAN TACTICAL: Farr Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
TRANSDEV SERVICES: Hill Suit Removed from State Ct. to W.D. Wash.
UNITED GROUND: Faces Abbas Employment Suit in Cal. State Court
UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO: Sealing of Class Cert Document Sought
VIRGIN GALACTIC: Parties Seeks to Modify Class Cert Briefing
VK SERVICES: Alexander Files Suit in Tenn. Judicial Ct.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Class Settlement in Fiscina Suit Gets Final Nod
WCC EVERGREEN: Hubbard Sues Over Refusal to Include Wage Scale
WESCO DISTRIBUTION: Faces Wright Class Suit Over Job Postings
WESTFIELD, MA: Clark Files Contract Suit in Mass. State Court
WIRELESS VISION: Court Remands Cruz Labor Class Action
ZURICH AMERICAN: Hale Suit Removed to E.D. California
*********
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Mullins Class Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT MULLINS v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; et al., Case
No. 2:24-cv-06080-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 24, 2024) is a class action
seeking 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").
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio-persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the
Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting, the suit contends.
PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to
proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains
and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique
chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of
exposed individuals.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of his training and
firefighting activities.
Mr. Mullins regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his career as a
firefighter. He was diagnosed with liver cancer and/or other
medical related conditions as a result of exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants include 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),
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]
The Plaintiff is 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
3M COMPANY: Beerwart Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Beerwart, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S.
INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; 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.; and, W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC., Case No.
2:24-cv-05208-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 20, 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
3M COMPANY: Conner Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
James Conner, 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-05061-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 Navy.
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: Corbin Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Corbin, 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-05056-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: Cummins Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Cummins, 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-05063-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: Cunningham Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Cunningham, 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-05088-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 Coast Guard.
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: Fox Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leo Fox, 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-05067-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 Navy.
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: Hoversten Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
-----------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Hoversten and Jaret Hoversten, her husband, 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-06083-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 24,
2024), is brought for damages for personal injuries resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
and was diagnosed with thyroid disease and/or other medical related
conditions as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave, Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-224-9400
Facsimile: 732-224-9494
A&A SERVICES: Appointment of Class Counsel in Sutherlin OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sutherlin, v. A&A
Services, LLC (Re: SAV-RX Data Breach Litigation), Case No.
8:24-CV-00216 (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=nKNvlQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
A&A SERVICES: Appointment of Interim Class Counsel Granted
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as D. v. A&A Services, LLC
(Re: SAV-RX Data Breach Litigation), Case No. 8:24-CV-00264 (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=xCZ6Eu at no extra
charge.[CC]
A&A SERVICES: Appointment of Interim Class Counsel in Brown Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brown v. A&A Services, LLC
(Re: SAV-RX Data Breach Litigation), Case No. 8:24-CV-00214 (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=IJwu3f at no extra
charge.[CC]
A&A SERVICES: Appointment of Interim Class Counsel in Doherty OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doherty v. A&A Services
(Re: SAV-RX Data Breach Litigation), Case No. 8:24-CV-00218 (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=bxFFfq at no extra
charge.[CC]
A&A SERVICES: Appointment of Interim Class Counsel in Hill OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hill, v. A&A Services, LLC
(Re: SAV-RX Data Breach Litigation), Case No. 8:24-CV-00205 (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=DBPRnT at no extra
charge.[CC]
AGELESS SCIENCES: Espinal Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frangie Espinal, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons v. AGELESS SCIENCES INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-08195 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 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://novoslabs.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.
AGELESS SCIENCES INC., operates the NOVOS Labs online retail store,
as well as the NOVOS Labs 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
ALL PRO PLUMBING: Fails to Pay Laborers' OT Wages, Ochoa Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO OCHOA, ROGELIO MATA VAZQUEZ, and WILMER BENJAMIN ICAL LOPEZ,
individually on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. ALL PRO PLUMBING AND HVAC LLC, GM PLUMBING SERVICES
INC., COMFORT SYSTEMS USA, INC., AND COMFORT SYSTEMS USA
(MIDATLANTIC), LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00047-JPJ-PMS (W.D. Va., Oct.
24, 2024) sues the Defendants for failing to pay their employees in
accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act, Virginia Overtime
Wage Act, and misclassifying their employees as independent
contractors in violation of Virginia's employee misclassification
law.
Despite working more than 40 hours per week, the Plaintiffs and
other similarly situated laborers did not get paid overtime at a
time and a half rate for hours worked over forty (40). Throughout
their employment, the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
laborers worked 18 hours of overtime each week, the suit says.
The Plaintiffs bring their FLSA claim as a collective action on
behalf of themselves and those similarly situated ("Putative
Collective Members") against the Defendants. Class Representatives
ask that if this case is not certified as a collective action that
they be permitted to proceed individually with their claims. The
Plaintiffs also bring their VOWA claims as a class action pursuant
to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated ("Putative Class Members")
against the Defendants.
The Plaintiffs were hired in Virginia to work on the Hard Rock
Casino in Bristol, Virginia.
All Pro Plumbing is a construction company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
Samantha R. Galina, Esq.
BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 648-4848
Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
E-mail: craig@butlercurwood.com
zev@butlercurwood.com
samantha@butlercurwood.com
AMAZON.COM: Court Narrows Claims in Miller SAC
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER MILLER, et al.,
v. AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00204-BJR (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein entered an order
that:
1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended
Complaint, is granted in part and denied in part:
a. Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claim for
restitution as moot under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) is denied;
b. Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Washington
Consumer
Protection Act claims (Counts I and II) under Federal Rule
of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is denied;
c. Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' state law claims
pleaded in the alternative (Counts III-XIV) is granted;
2. Counts VIII, XII, and XIII in Plaintiffs' Second Amended
Complaint are dismissed with prejudice as unopposed;
3. Counts III, IV, V, VI, VII, IX, X, XI, and XIV in
Plaintiffs'
Second Amended Complaint are dismissed without prejudice; and
4. Count I and II, Plaintiffs' WCPA claims, remain and the
parties
shall proceed pursuant to the Court's scheduling order for
class
certification.
The Court finds that no choice-of-law analysis is necessary because
there is no conflict of laws issue presented. Amazon does not
challenge the application of the WCPA to a nationwide class.
Therefore, Washington law applies. The Supreme Court of Washington
has clarified that the WCPA allows claims from out-of-state
plaintiffs against entities that engage in unfair or deceptive acts
affecting Washington residents, even when the conduct is directed
outside of Washington.
Accordingly, Counts VIII, XII, and XIII will be dismissed with
prejudice as unopposed, and Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims,
pleaded in the alternative, will be dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiffs served as delivery drivers for Defendants Amazon.com and
Amazon. In this putative class action, Plaintiffs claim that Amazon
unlawfully withheld portions of their drivers' tips, in violation
of the Washington Consumer Protection Act.
Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nFMxEw at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMPAM PARKS: Court Tosses Ramirez Bid to Extend Class Cert Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alfredo Ramirez, Ramón
Santos Castro and Ivan Fernandez, individually and as
representatives of a class of all others similarly situated and on
behalf of the AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership
Plan (the "AMPAM ESOP" or the "ESOP"), v. AMPAM Parks Mechanical,
Inc., Charles E. Parks III, John D. Parks, John G. Mavredakis,
Kushal B. Kapadia, the AMPAM Board of Directors, Neil Brozen,
Ventura Trust Company, James C. Wright III, Kevin Dow, James Ellis,
Steve Grosslight, and Mike Matkins, Case No. 5:24-cv-01038-KK-DTB
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kenly Kiya Kato entered an order
denying first joint stipulation extending the Plaintiffs' deadline
to file motion for class certification and setting briefing
schedule for Defendants' anticipated motions to dismiss.
AMPAM provides mechanical contracting services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SD8brN at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shaun P. Martin, Esq.
5998 Alcala Park, Warren Hall
San Diego, CA 92110
Telephone: (619) 260-2347
Facsimile: (619) 260-7933
E-mail: smartin@sandiego.edu
- and -
Eleanor Frisch, Esq.
Jacob T. Schutz, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
400 South 4th Street # 401-27
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: efrisch@cohenmilstein.com
jschutz@cohenmilstein.com
ANGEL HERBERT: Bids for Summary Judgment Due Sept. 8, 2026
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH PITTS, as
Administrator for the Estate of Kelly Holloway, v. ANGEL HERBERT,
et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00295-RAH-KFP (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge
R. Austin Huffaker, Jr. entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- A pretrial conference is scheduled for: Jan. 5, 2026
-- Motions for summary judgment, shall be filed no later than
Sept.
8, 2026.
-- The plaintiff, on or before Dec. 7, 2024. For the defendants,
on
or before Dec. 21, 2024.
-- Class Certification. Neither party has alleged that this is a
class action. No motion for class certification may be filed
without prior leave of the Court.
-- Responses to Motions. The failure to file a response to any
motion—either dispositive or non-dispositive—within the
time
allowed by the Court shall indicate that there is no opposition
to
the motion.
-- All discovery shall be completed on or before Aug. 8, 2025.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MDjbWA at no extra
charge.[CC]
APPLE INC: Must Oppose Lopez Class Cert Bid by June 6, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FUMIKO LOPEZ, as guardian
of A.L., a minor, LISHOMWA HENRY, JOSEPH HARMS, JOHN TROY PAPPAS,
and DAVID YACUBIAN individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. APPLE INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-04577-JSW (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey White entered a case management order
as follows:
Event Current Proposed
Deadlines
Deadlines
Motion for Class Certification Nov. 22, 2024 March 7,
2024
Apple's Deadline to Serve Expert Feb. 21, 2025 June 6,
2025
Reports in Opposition to Class
Certification:
Opposition to Motion for Class Feb. 21, 2025 June 6,
2025
Certification
Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Apr. 18, 2025 Aug. 1,
2025
Class Certification and Deadline
to Serve Rebuttal Expert Reports,
if any
Hearing regarding Class To be scheduled Aug. 22,
2025
Certification for a date no at 9:00
a.m.
earlier than 3
weeks after the
brief is due
Apple is an American multinational corporation and technology
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4xYky9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Erin Green Comite, Esq.
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
Hal D. Cunningham, Esq.
Sean C. Russell, Esq.
Victoria L. Burke, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169-1820
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
E-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com
jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
hcunningham@scott-scott.com
srussell@scott-scott.com
vburke@scott-scott.com
- and -
Vincent Briganti, Esq.
Christian Levis, Esq.
Margaret MacLean, Esq.
Andrea Farah, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com
clevis@lowey.com
afarah@lowey.com
mmaclean@lowey.com
- and -
Mark N. Todzo, Esq.
Patrick Carey, Esq.
LEXINGTON LAW GROUP
503 Divisadero Street
San Francisco, CA 94117
Telephone: (415) 913-7800
Facsimile: (415) 759-4112
E-mail: mtodzo@lexlawgroup.com
pcarey@lexlawgroup.com
- and -
E. Kirk Wood, Esq.
WOOD LAW FIRM
Birmingham, AL 35238
Telephone: (205) 612-0243
E-mail: kirk@woodlawfirmllc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Arturo J. Gonzalez, Esq.
Alexis A. Amezcua, Esq.
Purvi G. Patel, Esq.
Katie Viggiani, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
Telephone: (415) 268-7000
Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
E-mail: agonzalez@mofo.com
AAmezcua@mofo.com
ppatel@mofo.com
kviggiani@mofo.com
BANNER HEALTH: Court OK's Bid to Bifurcate Discovery in Kelly
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VINCENT KELLY, v. BANNER
HEALTH, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00920-DJC-DMC (E.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Daniel Calabretta entered an order granting Defendant's
Motion to bifurcate discovery.
The Court will issue a schedule for the case shortly based on the
Parties' status reports.
The Defendants argue bifurcation of discovery will promote
efficiency and fairness because it will prevent Defendants from
having to engage in costly class-wide merits-based discovery when
Plaintiff's case may never get past the class-certification stage,
will expedite class certification, and will promote judicial
economy.
The Court agrees and will grant bifurcation of discovery for the
reasons set forth in Defendants’ Motion.
The Plaintiff Vincent Kelly, a Security Guard Manager employed by
Defendants Banner Health and BH Corporate Office, filed this
putative class action on Feb. 16, 2024, alleging several California
Labor Code violations on behalf of himself and similarly situated
employees.
On March 25, 2024, the Court entered its Initial Case Management
Order, instructing the Parties to confer and prepare a joint status
report that included a discovery plan.
The Parties filed a Joint Status Report on May 21, 2024, in which
Defendants proposed bifurcating discovery into two phases: a class
certification phase and a merits phase.
Banner is a nonprofit health care system.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aZNNER at no extra
charge.[CC]
BIGOS MANAGEMENT: Matthews Sues Over Breach of Contract
-------------------------------------------------------
Antione Matthews, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Bigos Management Inc., and Ted Bigos, Case No.
27-CV-24-14226 (Minn. 4th Judicial Dist. Ct., Hennepin Cty., Sept.
20, 2024), is brought arising under various state laws relating to
employment and wages, breach of contract, and Minnesota's common
law.
The Plaintiff was scheduled to work approximately 40 hours per
week. The Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff the minimum wage or
the contract wage for each hour worked. By failing to pay a minimum
wage as defined by the Legislature or the wage established by the
employment contract, the Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff and
class members for the full amount of the wages less any amount the
Defendants are able to establish was actually paid to the employee
and for an additional equal amount of such unpaid wages as
liquidated damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a maintenance
technician.
Bigos Management, LLC, is a Minnesota entity with its principal
place of business in Hennepin County, Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
A. L. Brown, Esq.
CAPITOL CITY LAW GROUP, LLC
287 East Sixth Street, Suite 20
Saint Paul, MN 55101
Phone: (651) 705-8580
Email: AL.Brown@CCLAWG.COM
BOULDER COMMUNITY: Patton Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW PATTON, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BOULDER COMMUNITY HEALTH, Case No. 1:24-cv-02971-KAS
(D. Colo., Oct. 24, 2024) seeks to recover overtime wages and
liquidated damages brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 and unpaid straight time and overtime wages pursuant to
Colorado Wage Claim Act.
Although the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members
have routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours
per workweek, the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class
Members were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their
regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek, the suit asserts.
Likewise, the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members
worked under 40 hours per workweek on occasion and were not fully
compensated at their regular rate of pay for all hours worked.
The Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members are those
similarly situated persons who worked for BCH at any time during
the respective statute of limitations, through the final
disposition of this matter, and have not been paid for all hours
worked nor the correct amount of overtime in violation of state and
federal law.
Plaintiff Patton was employed by BCH in Boulder, Colorado from 2009
through February 2024.
BCH operates several healthcare facilities providing healthcare
services to its patients throughout the State of Colorado.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
101 North Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
lauren@a2xlaw.com
C.C. FILSON: Mackey Sues Over Unlawful Telephonic Calls
-------------------------------------------------------
Hunter Mackey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. C.C. FILSON, CO., Case No. CACE-24-013591 (Fla. 17th
Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Sept. 21, 2024), is brought for
injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations Of
the Caller ID Rules, Fla. Stat. Of the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act ("FTSA").
In direct contravention of the Caller ID Rules, however, many
callers, such as Defendant, make Telephonic Sales Calls a central
part of their marketing strategy, and in doing so, intentionally
transmit telephone numbers to recipient's Caller ID services that
are not capable of receiving telephone calls.
As such, Plaintiff, brings this action alleging that Defendant
violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number
that was not capable of receiving phone calls when it made
Telephonic Sales Calls by text message ("Text Message Sales
Calls").
Specifically, Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that promoted
Charming Charlie ("Filson Text Message Sales Calls") and violated
the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller
identification services a telephone number that was not capable of
receiving telephone calls, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is the regular user of a cellular telephone number
that receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls.
The Defendant which sells various goods to persons throughout the
country through its online store.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Phone: (202) 709-5744
Fax: (866) 893-0416
Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com
shawn@sjlawcollective.com
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Murillo Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandra Murillo, on behalf of herself, on behalf of her minor
child "W.A.", on behalf of her minor child "H.A.", and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. California Physicians' Service
d/b/a Blue Shield of California, Case No. 4:24-cv-06633-DMR (N.D.
Cal., Sept. 20, 2024), is brought against Defendant brought on
behalf of current and former Blue Shield subscribers whose
personally identifying information ("PII") and personal health
information ("PHI") was stolen from a contractor Blue Shield hired
and supplied with the PII and PHI.
At least as early as April 2024, the contractor hired by Defendant,
was breached and had subscriber data stolen in a ransomware attack.
No subscriber was informed of the breach until late August 2024.
The Defendant had a duty to protect and secure sensitive subscriber
data, including data provided to third parties, to sufficiently
inform subscribers as soon as practicable of any data breach, and
to abide by its own stated and agreed data security policies and
procedures.
The Defendant Blue Shield required healthcare subscribers,
including Plaintiff, to provide highly sensitive PII and PHI to
Defendant as a precondition for receiving healthcare services. The
Defendant collects, stores, and maintains significant PII and PHI
on its current and former subscribers.
The Defendant knew at least as early as June 28, 2024 that
subscriber information was breached when it was informed by Young
Consulting. The Defendant then further, inexplicably, failed to
notify substantially any of their current or former subscribers of
the breach and indeed did not even post a generalized announcement
of the breach until August 26, 2024. That is the same day Young
Consulting purports to have mailed data breach notifications to
impacted subscribers, including Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff and class members have been harmed because they are
at immediate risk of having their personal information used against
them, including by means of fraud and identity theft. Indeed, they
have been at risk well before Defendant even notified Plaintiff of
the breach. Plaintiff also suffered harm in the loss of her and her
children's private medical and personal information and the extreme
risk of sale of this data to criminals over the dark web, which may
have already occurred, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs' personal information was exposed as a result of the
Young Consulting data breach.
California Physicians' Service d/b/a Blue Shield of California is a
major California health care insurer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
Amber L. Schubert, Esq.
Daniel L.M. Pulgram, Esq.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
2001 Union St, Ste 200
San Francisco, CA 94123
Phone: (415) 788-4220
Fax: (415) 788-0161
Email: rschubert@sjk.law
aschubert@sjk.law
dpulgram@sjk.law
CAMPBELL SOUP: Court Narrows Claims in Squeo Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
Judge Susan Van Keulen of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part
Campbell Soup Company's motion to dismiss the case captioned as JOE
SQUEO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-02235-SVK (N.D. Calif.) without leave to
amend.
Plaintiffs Joe Squeo and Tiffany Taylor allege that Defendants
Campbell Soup Company and Snyder's-Lance, Inc. deceived them by
including the artificial preservative citric acid among the
ingredients in chips that Defendants advertised as containing no
artificial preservatives. Defendants now move to dismiss.
Plaintiffs oppose the Motion.
Defendants move to dismiss under both Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Plaintiffs bring five claims under California and New York law:
* Violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
* Violation of the California Unfair Competition Law .
* Breach of express warranty under California law.
* Violation of Section 349 of the New York General Business
Law.
* Violation of Section 350 of the New York General Business
Law.
They seek to obtain, inter alia, damages and equitable relief on a
classwide basis. Plaintiffs' five claims survive the Motion, but
their request for injunctive relief does not.
Defendants raise three arguments in requesting dismissal of these
claims for failure to state a claim:
(1) Plaintiffs do not sufficiently allege that the citric acid
included in the chips is artificial;
(2) Plaintiffs do not sufficiently allege that the citric acid
included in the chips functions as a preservative; and
(3) Plaintiffs do not sufficiently allege that a reasonable
consumer would be deceived by the labeling on the chips' packaging.
The Court rejects all three arguments.
Defendants essentially counter that Plaintiffs speculate that the
chips contain artificially produced citric acid based on "citric
acid production generally." The Court disagrees that either of
Rules 12(b)(6) or 9(b) imposes such a stringent burden on a
plaintiff at the pleading stage. The Court notes Plaintiffs do not
simply assume that the citric acid in the chips was artificially
produced but provide a supported, factual basis for that
conclusion.
Defendants counter that the mere presence of citric acid in the
chips does not indicate that the citric acid actually functioned as
a preservative or that Defendants added citric acid to the chips
for the purpose of preserving them. Defendants also note that they
do not include citric acid in certain "unflavored varieties" of
Cape Cod chips not at issue in this action but do include citric
acid in the flavored varieties identified by Plaintiffs, thereby
"demonstrating that the citric acid is in the chips to enhance
flavor, not for preservation." The Court, however, cannot consider
these assertions concerning unflavored varieties of Cape Cod chips
in its evaluation under Rule 12(b)(6), as those assertions do not
appear in the FAC.
To state a claim under the four consumer-protection statutes at
issue, a plaintiff must allege that a defendant's conduct would
mislead a reasonable consumer. Plaintiffs satisfy that standard in
this case -- they allege that the chips' packaging represents that
the chips do not contain artificial preservatives and that the
chips nevertheless do, in direct contravention of that
representation, contain an artificial preservative. At the pleading
stage, those allegations suffice. Plaintiffs sufficiently allege
that the citric acid in the chips functions as a preservative,
thereby requiring consumers to read the package label as meaning
precisely what it says -- that the chips contain no artificial
preservatives -- which is eminently reasonable.
In sum, the Court will not dismiss Plaintiffs' four
consumer-protection claims as insufficiently pled.
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the injury
requirement such that they cannot pursue their claims or injunctive
relief. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs may not pursue their
claims because they did not suffer the requisite injury as they
received exactly what they bargained for. However, Plaintiffs
sufficiently allege that they did not receive chips that conformed
to the no-artificial-preservatives representation included on their
packaging.
Defendants also assert that any "idiosyncratic and subjective
disappointment" suffered by Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the injury
requirement. Plaintiffs argue that they satisfy the injury
requirement because they "are unable to rely on the Products'
labeling when deciding in the future whether to purchase the
Products."
The Court disagrees. Plaintiffs were allegedly deceived by the
no-artificial-preservatives representation because they did not
expect the chips to contain citric acid in light of that
representation. In the future, if they see a similar representation
on the chips' packaging, they now know to check the ingredients
list on the packaging to determine if Defendants added citric acid
to the chips. Armed with the ability to easily determine whether
the chips contain citric acid, there is simply no threat that
Plaintiffs will be deceived in the same way again.
The Court will therefore dismiss Plaintiffs' request for injunctive
relief and will do so without leave to amend because Plaintiffs
cannot plead around their inability to be deceived again without
fundamentally changing their allegations.
A copy of the Court's Order dated October 22, 2024, is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=n59UtJ
CENTRAL GARDEN: Flodin Bid for Class Certification Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN FLODIN, et al., v.
CENTRAL GARDEN & PET COMPANY, et al. Case No. 4:21-cv-01631-JST
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order denying the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The Court sets a further case management conference on Nov. 19,
2024 at 2:00 p.m. An updated joint case management statement is due
Nov. 12, 2024.
Because the Court has found that Plaintiffs' proposed model fails,
the Court does not reach Defendants' other arguments for why
Plaintiff's proposed damages methodology fails.
The Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiffs have not advanced
a class-wide method of calculating damages tied to their theory of
liability.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' marketing
materials—including its logo, advertising, and product
labels—mislead consumers into believing that avocado is a main
ingredient and/or is present in significant quantities in the
AvoDerm products, when there are actually only negligible amounts,
if any, of avocado.
The Plaintiffs now seek to certify a class with regard to Counts
1–3 and 5 of the third amended complaint. They propose a class
comprising
"all persons who fall within at least one of the following
Subclasses who purchased the Products for household use and not
for resale or distribution:"
(1) California Subclass:
"All residents of California who purchased the Products
from
March 8, 2017 through Dec. 1, 2020"; and
(2) Washington Subclass:
"All residents of Washington who purchased the Products
from
March 8, 2017 through Dec. 1, 2020."
Central Garden is a marketer and producer of quality branded
products for the lawn & garden and pet supplies markets.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aPsOrQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
CHALET DESSERTS: Mackel Files Labor Suit in California State Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chalet Desserts, LLC,
et al. The case is captioned as GEORGE MACKEL, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHALET DESSERTS, LLC, et
al., Case No. 24CV017887 (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., September
9, 2024).
The suit is brought over the Defendants' alleged employment
violation.
A case management conference is set for June 13, 2025, and October
3, 2025, before Judge Lauri A. Damrell.
Chalet Desserts, LLC is a manufacturer of cake pops based in
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
751 N. Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101
Pasadena, CA 91103
Telephone: (818) 230-7502
Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces Morris Suit Over Bank Sweep Program
---------------------------------------------------------
DAVID M. MORRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATIONS and CHARLES SCHWAB &
CO., INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00985-SPC-NPM (M.D. Fla., Oct. 24,
2024) arises from Defendants' exploitative and unfair
implementation of Bank Sweep Program, resulting in the breach of
Defendants' fiduciary duties owed to the Plaintiff and similarly
situated retirement account investors as their investment advisors
and their contractual obligation pay a "reasonable rate" of
interest for "retirement and other benefit plan accounts consistent
with applicable legal and regulatory requirements."
According to the complaint, when acting as their customers' agents
and fiduciaries, defendant CS&Co "sweeps" uninvested cash balances
in its customers' accounts and deposits that cash into accounts
located at its Affiliated Banks—wholly owned subsidiaries of
Charles Schwab, as well as TB Bank, N.A. and T.D. Bank USA, NA.
Because the Affiliated Banks' accounts pay far below market rates
of interest, the Plaintiff and other Class members have lost
significant amounts of interest they would have otherwise earned
had CS&Co swept their uninvested cash into bank accounts that pay a
reasonable market interest rate, the suit contends.
CS&Co breached its fiduciary duties when it placed its customers'
cash in low interest-bearing accounts held by its own Affiliated
Banks and then pocketed the unpaid interest as additional profit.
CS&Co failed to adequately disclose to its customers that, as to
the Program, it was essentially providing a kickback to its own
affiliates at its customers' expense. Specifically, the Defendants
shortchanged their customers for their and their affiliates'
benefit by negotiating with the Affiliated Banks one-sided
transactions that swept cash into exceedingly low-interest
accounts. CS&Co further failed to disclose and discuss these
conflicted transactions, much less obtain informed consent from its
customers and principals, says the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a
Class of similarly situated individuals for breach of fiduciary
duty, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment and violation of
California’s Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), to recover damages
arising out of Defendants' violations of the law, and for such
other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
The Plaintiff is a customer of CS&Co and is a resident and citizen
of Port Charlotte, Florida. The Plaintiff maintained a Roth
Contributory IRA in a brokerage account with Defendants in which
cash was held over the course of the life of the account.
Charles Schwab is a financial services firm based in the U.S. with
operations worldwide, including in Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq.
Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave Suit 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
adam@edelsberglaw.com
- and -
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
COPART INC: Must Oppose Arik Class Cert Bid by Dec. 9
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Arik Cohen v. Copart,
Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-03268-JAK-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
John Kronstadt entered an order setting pretrial deadlines:
Dec. 9, 2024 Deadline to file Opposition to Motion for Class
Certification
Dec. 23, 2024 Deadline to file Reply in Support of Motion for
Class Certification
Jan. 27, 2025 Hearing on Motion for Class Certification
May 9, 2025 Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off
June 6, 2025 Initial Expert Disclosures
July 11, 2025 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures
Aug. 8, 2025 Expert Discovery Cut-Off
Aug. 25, 2025 Last day to file all motions
Copart provides vehicle suppliers, primarily insurance companies,
with a variety of services to process and sell salvage vehicles
through auctions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2FHUxV at no extra
charge.[CC]
DELAWARE NORTH: Parties Directed to Fully Integrate Joint Brief
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON MICO HOOKANO, v.
DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES, INCORPORATED, et al., Case No.
2:24-cv-07880-FMO-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Olguin
entered an order on motions for class certification:
1. Joint Brief
The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single,
fully
integrated joint brief covering each party's position, in
which
each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a party is immediately
followed by the opposing party's/parties' response.
2. Citation to Evidence
All citation to evidence in the joint brief shall be directly
to
the exhibit and page number(s) of the evidentiary appendix,
or
page and line number(s) of a deposition.
3. Unnecessary Sections
The parties need not include a "procedural history" section,
since the court will be familiar with the procedural history.
The court is also familiar with the general standard for
class
certification, so that need not be argued.
4. Schedule for Preparation and Filing of Joint Brief:
A. Meet and Confer
In order for a motion for class certification to be filed
in
a timely manner, the meet and confer must take place no
later
than 35 days before the deadline for class certification
motions set forth in the Court’s Case Management and
Scheduling Order.
B. No later than seven days after the meet and confer, the
moving party shall personally deliver or e-mail to the
opposing party an electronic copy of the moving party's
portion of the joint brief, together with the moving
party's
portion of the evidentiary appendix.
C. No later than fourteen days after receiving the moving
party's papers, the opposing party shall personally
deliver
or e-mail to the moving party an electronic copy of the
integrated motion, which shall include the opposing
party's
portion of the joint brief, together with the opposing
party's portion of the evidentiary appendix.
Delaware North is an American multinational food service and
hospitality company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zVszAg at no extra
charge.[CC]
DEREK FINKBEINER: Discovery in Bailey Suit Due May 25, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFF BAILEY, V. DEREK
SCOTT FINKBEINER, et al., Case No. 6:24-cv-06095-SOH-BAB (W.D.
Ark.), the Hon. Judge Susan Hickey entered a final scheduling order
as follows:
-- Discovery must be completed May 25, 2025
no later than:
-- Motions for Class Certification must be filed no later than
90
days after the Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) Conference.
-- Motions to amend pleadings or to join other parties must be
filed no later than 60 days before the close of discovery,
unless good cause is shown for delay.
-- Pretrial disclosures must be filed no later than 45 days
before
trial, and should follow the outline contained in Local Rule
26.2, which may be found on the Court's website at
www.arwd.uscourts.gov. Objections must be filed within 14
days
of the file date of the pretrial disclosures. Consult
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(3) for the type of objections which may be
made and the type of objections which will be deemed waived
if
not raised.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AgqkUN at no extra
charge.[CC]
DESERT ROCK CAPITAL: Christensen Files TCPA Suit in D. Utah
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Desert Rock Capital,
Inc. The case is styled as Dane Christensen, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Desert Rock Capital, Inc.,
Case No. 2:24-cv-00808-JCB (E.D. Cal., Oct. 28, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Desert Rock Capital -- https://desertrockcapital.com/ --
specializes in signature loans for people that have bad credit, no
credit, and past bankruptcy.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer F. Parrish, Esq.
Yevgen Kovalov, Esq.
MAGLEBY CATAXINOS PC
141 W Pierpont Ave.
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Phone: (801) 359-9000
Fax: (801) 359-9011
Email: parrish@mcpc.law
kovalov@mcpc.law
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Wiretaps Customers' Calls, Padilla Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL PADILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DOMINO'S PIZZA, INC. and CONVERSENOW TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-12812-SJM-EAS (E.D. Mich., Oct. 24, 2024) is
a putative class action against the Defendants arising from
Domino's aiding, agreeing with, employing, procuring, or otherwise
enabling the wiretapping by ConverseNow of California customers'
calls to Domino's restaurants in real time.
Specifically, when customers call Domino's restaurants in
California, an automated system records, takes, and routes
customers' orders. However, unbeknownst to customers, their
communications are routed through the servers of ConverseNow to
assist Domino's with fulfilling orders and upselling its customers,
and to improve the capabilities of ConverseNow's own technology,
the suit alleges.
The nature of Defendants' licensing agreements with each other are
such that Domino's "aids, agrees with, employs, or conspires" to
permit Defendant ConverseNow to read, attempt to read, learn,
and/or use the communications of Domino's customers without prior
consent, thus violating the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the
Plaintiff says.
On Aug. 30, 2024, the Plaintiff Padilla placed an order for
delivery pizza with the Domino's Pizza store located in Delano,
California.
The automated voice Plaintiff Padilla spoke to was that of
ConverseNow's Voice AI technology enabled by Domino's to process
Plaintiff's order. ConverseNow wiretapped Plaintiff's conversation
with Domino's. The Plaintiff was not on notice of any wiretapping
when he called Domino's, nor did he provide prior consent to the
same, asserts the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons in
California whose communications were intercepted and recorded by
ConverseNow. The Plaintiff also brings this action on behalf of a
subclass of all persons in California who called Domino's, and
whose communications were intercepted and recorded by ConverseNow.
Domino's is the largest pizza company in the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
- and -
Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
Caroline C. Donovan, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
cdonovan@bursor.com
ELEVANCE HEALTH: Holland Sues Over Disability Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Holland, on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. ELEVANCE HEALTH, INC., f/k/a ANTHEM, INC., Case No.
2:24-cv-00332-LEW (D. Me., Sept. 20, 2024), is brought against the
Defendant's disability discrimination in the provision of
healthcare coverage.
Specifically, this case is about a health insurance company's
categorical exclusion of prescription medication for the treatment
of obesity and the resultant discrimination against people with the
disability of obesity. This type of discrimination is not new;
rather, it follows from a long history of prejudice, exclusion, and
stigmatization of people with disabilities in general and of people
diagnosed with obesity, in particular.
The Defendant ("Anthem") discriminates on the basis of disability
when it designs, insures, and administers health plans that exclude
all coverage for prescription medications to treat obesity, a
medical condition that is also a disability. Specifically,
semaglutide 1 (marketed under the brand names of Ozempic and
Wegovy), tirzepatide (marketed under the brand name Zepbound), and
other prescription medications have been shown to be remarkably
effective at treating obesity. Their medical efficacy, demonstrated
through multiple random controlled, double-blind studies
(considered the "gold standard" for evidence-based medicine), is
well-established.
Yet, Anthem designs, insures, and administers health plans that
exclude coverage of these medications whenever they are sought to
treat obesity (hereinafter the "Obesity Exclusion"), but not when
they are sought to treat other health conditions. Anthem does not
claim that such medicines are excluded because they are not
medically necessary to treat obesity. Indeed, Anthem covers the
medications as medically necessary for obesity in some health
plans. Thus, Anthem excludes these medications without any medical
or scientific basis.
Anthem breached its duty of non-discrimination when it
intentionally designed and administered health plans that
discriminate on the basis of disability. Specifically, Anthem has
discriminated and continues to discriminate against the Plaintiff
and other Anthem plan enrollees diagnosed with obesity by denying
coverage of the prescription medications that they require based
solely on the fact that the medications are required to treat the
disability of obesity, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an enrollee in an Anthem-insured health plan who
was subjected to disability discrimination by Anthem because she is
diagnosed with obesity.
Elevance Health, Inc. f/k/a Anthem is a health insurance
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shelby Leighton, Esq.
PUBLIC JUSTICE
1620 L St. NW, Suite 630
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 797-8600
Fax: (202) 232-7203
Email: sleighton@publicjustice.net
- and -
Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350
Seattle, WA 98121
Phone: (206) 223-0303
Fax: (206) 223-0246
Email: ehamburger@sylaw.com
rspoonemore@sylaw.com
EPIC GAMES: Appeals Arbitration Order in S.T.G. Suit to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
EPIC GAMES, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order granting in
part and denying in part its motion to compel arbitration in the
lawsuit entitled S.T.G., et al., minors, by and through their
guardians, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Epic Games, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00517-RSH-AHG, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
filed this putative class action on March 18, 2024, against the
maker of the popular videogame Fortnite. They are seven minors, who
played Fortnite while under the age of 13, who claim that without
their parents' consent, the videogame unlawfully collected
sensitive data protected under the Children's Online Privacy
Protection Act ("COPPA"), which the Defendant exploited for
commercial gain.
On May 20, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration
or, in the alternative, to transfer to the Eastern District of
North Carolina.
On Aug. 9, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion for leave to file
supplemental authority.
On Oct. 2, 2024, Judge Robert S. Huie granted in part and denied in
part the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and denied its
motion to file supplemental authority. The Court concluded that the
End User License Agreement ("EULA") clearly and unmistakably
delegates to the arbitrator questions of the "validity,
enforceability, or scope" of the EULA; and that the Plaintiffs'
claims, as well as their disaffirmance defense, fall within the
scope of the EULA's arbitration agreement. Accordingly, the claims
of S.T.G., S.B.G., S.J.G., I.H., E.H., and M.A. are referred to
arbitration.
Apart from the disaffirmance question, the Plaintiffs contended
that E.V.A. is not bound by the arbitration provision in the EULA
because she never created an Epic Games account and, therefore, is
not a party to the EULA. The Plaintiffs submitted a declaration
from E.V.A.'s mother and guardian ad litem, Stephanie Allen, who
stated that her child E.V.A. has played Fortnite using an account
that she set up with her email address. For these reasons, the
Court granted the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration as to
Plaintiffs S.T.G., S.B.G., S.J.G., I.H., E.H., and M.A., and denied
without prejudice as to Plaintiff E.V.A.
Based on its disposition, the Court denied as moot the Defendant's
motion for leave to file supplemental authority. In ordering
S.T.G., S.B.G., S.J.G., I.H., E.H., and M.A. to proceed to
arbitration, the Court does not rely on the Defendant's
supplemental authority. Nor would that supplemental authority, even
if relied upon by the Court, warrant compelling E.V.A. to arbitrate
at this time.
The appellate case is captioned E.V.A., et al. v. Epic Games, Inc.,
Case No. 24-6443, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, filed on October 22, 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 January 2, 2025.
[BN]
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Figueredo Seeks Personal Trainers' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN CAMILO FIGUEREDO and KAROLY MAYER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EQUINOX HOLDINGS,
INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 24STCV23259 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
September 9, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and
Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to
pay wages and overtime, meal period liability, rest-break
liability, failure to maintain records, failure to reimburse
expenses, and unfair business practices.
The Plaintiffs worked as personal trainers at the Defendants'
facilities in Los Angeles, California.
Equinox Holdings, Inc. is an American luxury fitness company and
health club headquartered in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Emil Davtyan, Esq.
David Yeremian, Esq.
Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq.
Jean Hopkins Power, Esq.
D.LAW, INC.
880 E Broadway
Glendale, CA 91205
Telephone: (818) 962-6465
Facsimile: (818) 962-6469
Email: emil@d.law
d.yeremian@d.law
a.lindsay@d.law
j.power@d.law
FEDERAL BUREAU: Love Sues Over Bias Criminal History Scoring Rule
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ARTAVIOUS LOVE and DIAMANTE BUTLER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF
PRISONS and COLETTE PETERS, in her official capacity as Director of
the Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-02571-APM (D.D.C., September 9, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Administrative
Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment.
The case arises from the Federal Bureau of Prisons' application of
a different criminal history scoring rule to the group of
individuals that are sentenced by the Superior Court for the
District of Columbia and transferred to BOP custody to serve their
sentences. According to the complaint, the BOP established two
separate criminal history scoring systems which are applied
arbitrarily and unequally to BOP residents based on the court from
which they were sentenced. As a result of the BOP's arbitrary and
unequal criminal history scoring system, the Plaintiffs and
proposed Class members are more likely to be incarcerated in
higher-security facilities, where they are subjected to greater
violence and offered fewer programming opportunities, and are more
likely to be denied opportunities for post-conviction relief that
might otherwise be available to them, says the suit.
Federal Bureau of Prisons is a government agency headquartered in
Washington, D.C. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Megan Yan, Esq.
Safa Ansari-Bayegan, Esq.
Kavya R. Naini, Esq.
PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
633 3rd Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 824-2201
Email: myan@pdsdc.org
sansaribayegan@pdsdc.org
knaini@pdsdc.org
FISHER-PRICE INC: Shahbaz Sues Over Snuga Swings Deceptive Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
RABIA SHAHBAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FISHER-PRICE, INC. and MATTEL, INC., Case No.
2:24-cv-09174 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 24, 2024) contends that the
Defendants engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive
acts or practices in violation of Cal. Civil Code section
1770(a)(5), (a)(7), (a)(9), (a)(14), and (a)(16) when they
manufactured, supplied, distributed, and/or sold the Fisher-Price
Snuga Swings which was advertised and/or warranted as safe and
suitable for infant sleep, but otherwise concealed a known Defect
rendering the Product unsafe and unsuitable for infant sleep.
The Safety Representations and Omissions explicitly show consumers
that the Products are safe for sleep. For example, Defendants'
official YouTube videos state that the Products are "designed for
soothing or for short naps." Before their recall, the Safety
Representations and Omissions also included images on Defendants'
authorized third-party retailer websites showing infants sleeping
in the Products, the suit says.
However, despite its public commitment to the safety of consumers,
the Products at issue suffer from a defect wherein they fail to
hold and maintain an appropriately level or flat sleeping surface
that is safe and consistent with industry standards and guidance
regarding infant sleep, the suit adds.
Further, the Defendants failed to adequately warn the Plaintiff and
Class Members that the Product contained the Defect, was not safe
or suitable for infant sleep, and could and has caused infants to
be placed in dangerous sleep positions, suffocate, and die. As a
result of Defendants' misrepresentations and omissions, the
Plaintiff and California Class Members purchased and paid for
products that did not conform to Defendants' promises that the
Product would provide a safe infant sleep space, and they were
deprived of the benefit of their bargain and spent money on
products they would not have purchased had they known the true
facts regarding the Defect, asserts the suit.
Ms. Shahbaz purchased a Sweet Snugapuppy (TM) Swing in or around
2021 from Amazon.com for approximately $170.00. She was forced to
completely discontinue her use of the Product shortly after her
purchase when the Defect was discovered due to the ongoing safety
risk of placing her infant in an unsafe sleeping environment.
Fisher-Price designs, manufactures, distributes, markets,
advertises, labels, and sells products for the care of infants and
preschool children to consumers throughout the United States,
including in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alex Straus, Esq.
Rachel Soffin, Esq.
Harper T. Segui, Esq.
Erin Ruben, Esq.
Thomas Pacheco, Esq.
Kelsey Gatlin Davies, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
280 S. Beverly Drive, PH Suite
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
E-mail: astraus@milberg.com
rsoffin@milberg.com
hsegui@milberg.com
eruben@milberg.com
tpacheco@milberg.com
kdavies@milberg.com
- and -
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
954 Avenida Ponce De Leon
Suite 205, #10518
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (215) 789-4462
E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
FOREST RIVER: Bid to Dismiss Nelson Class Action Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAY NELSON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FOREST RIVER,
INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-00049-BMM (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Brian
Morris entered an order denying Forest River's motion to dismiss.
Forest River has not shown that the Recall forestalls any occasion
for meaningful relief because Nelson alleges a different Defect and
different bases of relief from the Wiring Problem repair covered by
the Recall. The Court will deny Forest River's Motion to Dismiss
Nelson's claims for prudential mootness.
Nelson alleges that Forest River manufactures Subject RVs with a
wiring system that violates industry safety standards in several
ways. Nelson alleges that the Defect caused Nelson's 2019 Puma RV
to catch fire, that he had to repair the same Defect in the 2020
Puma RV he purchased, and that the Defect creates a safety hazard
and misleads consumers of Subject RVs.
Forest River is an American manufacturer of recreational vehicles,
cargo trailers, utility trailers, pontoon boats, and buses.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=606bLV at no extra
charge.[CC]
GREEN SOLUTIONS: Sends Unsolicited Marketing Calls, Sancruzado Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD SANCRUZADO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREEN SOLUTIONS SOLAR &
RENOVATIONS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-23472-JB (S.D. Fla.,
September 9, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the regulations promulgated
thereunder.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in the
practice of calling thousands of consumers using an automated
system in an attempt to promote and sell its products or services
without prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct,
the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered damages,
including invasion of their privacy, says the suit.
Green Solutions Solar & Renovations LLC is a contractor based in
Miami, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI
7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
Davie, FL 33314
Telephone: (954) 889-3359
Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
Email: MPascucci@JusticeEarned.com
JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com
SGizzie@JusticeEarned.com
HUMANA INC: Court Overrules Objection to Discovery Motion Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as DAVID ELLIOT, Plaintiff v. Civil Action
No. 3:22-cv-329-RGJ HUMANA INC, Defendant, Civil Action No.
3:22-cv-329-RGJ (W.D. Ky.), Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings of the
United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
overruled the objection of Humana to the Magistrate Judge's order
granting a motion to compel discovery.
Plaintiff David Elliot sued Humana for allegedly violating the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff alleges Human
contacted Plaintiff on his telephone numerous times despite not
being a Humana customer. Plaintiff seeks to certify his claims as a
class action, alleging other individuals have been similarly
affected by repetitive robocalls sent by Humana over a period of
four years.
Plaintiff requested that Humana produce all databases that show
wrong person, wrong number, bad number, and similar notifications.
Humana responded that it maintained invalid numbers by manually
editing member profiles in the CGX system, and that such files were
not available in a searchable form, and that it did not have a
feasible method for gathering the information in a manner
proportional to the needs of the case. Several corporate
representatives of Humana were deposed under Rule 30(b)(6), the
last of which occurred after the close of discovery.
As a result of the most recent deposition, Plaintiff filed a motion
to compel an additional Rule 30(b)(6) deposition and discovery of
the CGX files, as well as for sanctions for allegedly failing to
prepare the corporate representative adequately. Humana opposed the
motion to compel and for sanctions. The Magistrate Judge granted
the motion to compel an additional Rule 30(b)(6) witness and
production of electronically stored information from the CGX system
but denied the motion as to sanctions. Humana timely objected to
the Order. Humana also sought a stay of the Magistrate Judge's
order as to the CGX production, which the court granted.
In his order, the Magistrate Judge determined that the information
from CGX is relevant to "to establishing the numerosity and
commonality requirements of class certification and proportional to
the needs of the case," rejecting Humana's argument that the
producing the information was not proportional to the case.
Humana presents four objections to the Magistrate Judge's order:
(1) it was error to even consider the motion to
compel due to its timing,
(2) the Magistrate Judge did not consider and weigh all elements
of proportionality,
(3) it was based on allegations of Plaintiff not supported by
the record, and
(4) it unreasonably extended discovery severely prejudicing
Humana.
Humana argues that granting the motion to compel was contrary to
law because it was "without any meet and confer and without a
single discovery conference with the Court." The Magistrate Judge
found the Plaintiff had good cause for not seeking the CGX
discovery earlier in the process to avoid duplicating discovery
given the belief the discovery could be obtained by less burdensome
means. The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge and overrules
Humana's objection that it was an error to consider the motion to
compel.
Humana argues the Magistrate Judge failed to weigh and consider all
the elements of proportionality under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) in
determining whether production of the information from CGX is
proportional to the needs of the case. The Magistrate Judge
disagreed with Humana that the burden outweighed the likely benefit
and undertook an appropriate analysis of proportionality. Moreover,
Humana neither explained nor does it do so in its objection, how
much time it would need to reasonably search and produce the
information. Hence, this objection is overruled.
Humana objects to the Magistrate Judge's determination that special
circumstances exist to warrant compelling discovery after the close
of discovery. Again, Humana argues that Plaintiff should have
sought a production of CGX earlier in the case after Humana
objected to producing it in response to written discovery and that
Humana told Plaintiff the information was only stored in CGX. The
parties dispute whether Humana first corporate representative
testified in a way to lead Plaintiff to reasonably believe the
information from CGX was also in hCAT. The Court finds the
Magistrate Judge did not err in finding special circumstances
existed to allow the discovery after the deadline. This objection
is overruled.
Humana objects that the order unreasonably extends discovery to
severely prejudice Humana because it was given five days to produce
the information. Humana argues the Magistrate Judge did not
consider the prejudice to Humana and Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4)'s
"good cause" factors for reopening discovery: (1) when the moving
party learned of the issue, (2) how the discovery would affect the
ruling, (3) the length of the discovery period, (4) whether the
moving part was dilatory, and (5) whether the adverse party was
responsive to prior discovery requests.
According to the Court, the Magistrate Judge's order expressly or
implicitly addressed all these factors, including the prejudice to
Humana. Tellingly, Human objects to the timeframe ordered to
produce the information but provides no alternative timeframe for
the Court to consider. Humana also argues the order will force
Humana to produce documents that are irrelevant, but Humana does
not explain how the CGX production is irrelevant other than making
the bare bones objection. This objection is overruled, the Court
holds.
In sum, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's decision to
grant the motion to compel discovery of CGX was not "clearly
erroneous or contrary to law." The Court finds no basis under its
"limited standard of review" to disturb any of the Magistrate
Judge's legal conclusions as "contrary to law" or factual
conclusions as "clearly erroneous."
Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the stay. Plaintiff's motion
for reconsideration of the stay is denied as moot.
A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated October
22, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sGdv1a
INFORMATION.COM LLC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Mannacio Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jeffrey S. White of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California denied Information.com LLC's motion
to dismiss the case captioned as EUGENE MANNACIO, Plaintiff, v.
INFORMATION.COM LLC, Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-01717-JSW (N.D.
Calif.).
Eugene Mannacio alleges Defendant owns and operates a website that
is a "self-described 'People Search Engine.'" "Defendant provides
a variety of free search tools with which prospective subscribers
may search for and locate an individual in whom they are
interested." Plaintiff alleges, on information and belief, that
Defendant obtains the information available on its website by
paying third-party data brokers. Plaintiff has not used or visited
Defendant's website.
When a visitor to Defendant's website searches for an individual,
Defendant publishes a "teaser profile" that includes "information
sufficient to uniquely identify the searched-for individual." If a
user wants to go beyond the teaser profile to obtain additional
information, they must pay to do so. Plaintiff alleges Defendant
knowingly uses the teaser profiles, including his own, to advertise
and solicit subscriptions.
Plaintiff alleges, on information and belief, that third-parties
have searched for him, viewed his teaser profile, and subsequently
subscribed to Defendant's website. Plaintiff did not give Defendant
his consent to do so and would not have provided consent if
Defendant asked for it. According to Plaintiff, Defendant's
nonconsensual use of his name and other information "offends his
dignity and disturbs his peace of mind." For a variety of reasons,
Plaintiff "does not wish to have his name and persona used to
promote" Defendant's product. He also alleges that he suffered
"monetary harm in the amount he should have been paid as a
reasonable royalty in exchange for the use of his persona."
Defendant's conduct also left Plaintiff "worried and uncertain
about his inability to control how his name and personal are
used."
Plaintiff brings claims for violations of California's Right of
Publicity Act, Civil Code section 3344, common law misappropriation
of his name and likeness, and violations of the unlawful and unfair
prongs of California's Unfair Competition Law, Business and
Professions Code section 17200, et seq. (the "UCL Claim).
Defendant moves to dismiss for lack of Article III standing under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). It also moves to dismiss
for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Defendant relies, in part, on Ridgeway v. Spokeo, Inc. That case
involved similar allegations to Plaintiff's allegations here, but
the plaintiffs alleged the defendant violated Alabama's Right to
Privacy Act. The Ridgeway court concluded the plaintiff lacked
standing because the defendant could not have "used" or "published"
information contained in its database "until a user searche[d] for
an individual."
The Court finds Defendant's reliance on Ridgeway unpersuasive. It
relied heavily on the reasoning in TransUnion but did not examine
whether the harms associated with the plaintiff's claims are the
same type of harm caused by defamation.
In contrast, courts within this District have found that the types
of harm Plaintiff alleges he suffered as a result of Defendant's
conduct are traditionally recognized at common law and found them
sufficiently concrete for standing purposes. The Court finds the
reasoning of these cases more persuasive than the reasoning in
Ridgeway and concludes Plaintiff has plausibly alleged he has
standing under Article III.
Defendant argues Plaintiff fails to allege that it used his
identity for commercial purposes. The court in Nolen considered and
rejected a similar argument, which it characterized as a "de facto
requirement of third-party viewership for certain Sec. 3344
claims."
In this case, Plaintiff alleges that his name and identifying
information are accessible on Defendant's website and alleges his
teaser profile offers a trial subscription that gives users access
to all of Defendant's website, not just to his own information. The
Nolen court also analyzed the text and purpose of Section 3344,
noting that the plain meaning of the term "use" was "to make use
of, to convert to one's service, to avail one's self of, to
employ." Using that definition, the court reasoned that, whether or
not the defendant succeeded in its efforts, "the image was used for
the purpose of increasing Defendant's sales." It also reasoned that
requiring third-party viewership would not serve Section 3344's
purpose of remedying the harm to the plaintiff's peace of mind.
The Court finds Nolen's reasoning persuasive. It concludes
Plaintiff's allegations are sufficient to state claims under common
law and under Section 3344.
Because the Court concludes Plaintiff states a claim under Section
3344, he has stated a claim under the unlawful prong of the UCL.
Defendant also argues Plaintiff fails to state a claim under the
unfair prong because he does not allege Defendant commercially
used his name and information. The Court finds that argument
unpersuasive. Accordingly, the Court concludes Plaintiff alleges
sufficient facts to state his UCL claim.
A copy of the Court's Order dated October 22, 2024, is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1W7RXg
J & J ROOFING: Taft Files Employment Suit in Cal. State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against J & J Roofing, Inc.
The case is captioned as MARK TAFT, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. J & J ROOFING, INC., Case No.
CU24-06918 (Cal. Super., Solano Cty., September 9, 2024).
The suit is brought over the Defendant's alleged employment
violation.
A case management conference is set for Mar 10, 2025, before Judge
Christine N. Donovan.
J & J Roofing, Inc. is a roofing company based in California. [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
Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
JP MORGAN: Class Certification Deadlines Vacated in Turner Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Turner v. JPMorgan Chase &
Co., et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-05827 (N.D. Cal., Filed Oct 6, 2022),
the Hon. Judge Donna M. Ryu entered an order directing the parties
to submit either a stipulated protective order or a joint letter
brief outlining the remaining areas of disagreement on the
protective order.
-- All other class certification deadlines are vacated. The
parties
shall file a new stipulated proposed class certification
schedule
within one week after entry of the protective order.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other
Personal Injury.
JPMorganChase is an American multinational financial services firm
headquartered in New York City.[CC]
KHIMS MARKET: Fails to Pay Chefs' Minimum & OT Wages, Park Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
MYOUNG SU PARK, on behalf of himself and a collective of similarly
situated individuals v. KHIMS MARKET INC, THE MILEU MARKET INC and
SANG KYU KHIM, Case No. 1:24-cv-07437 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2024)
alleges that the Defendants failed to pay minimum wages and
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 10 hours per day and 60
hours per week. He was paid $1,200 per week when he worked 5 days,
and $1,440 per week when he worked 6 days. From April 20, 2024,
until Aug. 30, 2024, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and
the FLSA collective members, resulting in Plaintiff's unpaid wages
accumulating during that period, the Plaintiff contends.
Further, the Defendants failed to provide accurate wage notices in
violation of NYLL sections 195(1) and (2); failed to provide wage
statements in violation of NYLL sections 195(3); and failed to
provide Paid Sick Leave under NYLL.
The Plaintiff's claims under the FLSA are brought as a collective
action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), on behalf of himself
and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons who were
employed by the Defendants as "sushi chef, cashier, deli clerk,
produce clerk, butcher/meat cutter, bakery clerk" during the
applicable limitations period (the "FLSA Collective Period").
Plaintiff Park is an adult resident of the state of New York and
was employed by the Defendants as a sushi chef at KMM from Sept.
10, 2022, to Aug. 30, 2024.
Khim's is a grocery store located at 536 Myrtle Avenue, Brooklyn NY
11205.[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
E-mail: ryan@ryankimlaw.com
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Hagins Seeks to Certify Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Hagins and Tommie
Woodard, individually and on behalf of the Knight-Swift
Transportation Retirement Plan, v. Knight-Swift Transportation
Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-01835-ROS (D. Ariz.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
(i) certifying all of Plaintiffs' claims as a class action
under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1), or alternatively under Rule
3(b)(2),
consisting of:
"All persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of
the
Plan, at any time between October 26, 2016 and the
present";
(ii) appointing as class representatives Plaintiffs Robert
Hagins
and Tommie Woodard, and
(iii) appointing McKay Law LLC, Morgan & Morgan, P.A., and Wenzel
Fenton Cabasa, P.A.
The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant breached ERISA's strict
fiduciary duties by causing the Plan to select and retain
underperforming and excessively expensive investment options rather
than prudent investments for the Plan's investment menu and by also
failing to monitor and control excessive compensation paid by all
Plan participants to the Plan's recordkeeper.
Knight Transportation provides multiple truckload services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 23, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UAsey9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael C. McKay, Esq.
MCKAY LAW, LLC
5635 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 117
Scottsdale, AZ 85250
Telephone: (480) 681-7000
Facsimile: (480) 348-3999
E-mail: mmckay@mckaylaw.us
- and -
Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com
- and -
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 224-0431
E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
lcabassa@wfclaw.com
LAURA HOWARD: Glendening Class Cert Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA GLENDENING, ET
AL., v. LAURA HOWARD, ET AL. Case No. 5:22-cv-04032-TC-ADM (D.
Kan.), the Hon. Judge Toby Crouse entered an order denying without
prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The Plaintiffs sue as next friends of Kansas state court criminal
defendants detained pending competency evaluations or treatment.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants—three Kansas officials
associated with Larned State Hospital—violate detainees' federal
and state constitutional and statutory rights by keeping them on a
waitlist and denying them community-based treatment.
After filing their Complaint, the Plaintiffs sought a preliminary
injunction based only on their federal constitutional claims "to
enjoin Defendants from forcing Plaintiffs and others similarly
situated to remain incarcerated in Kansas county jails for an
unconstitutional amount of time as they wait to receive competency
evaluation or competency restoration treatment at Larned State
Hospital before they can stand trial."
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XIJpq9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
MIDWEST TRANSPORT: Ballog Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Notice
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY BALLOG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MIDWEST TRANSPORT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-01016-MN (D. Del., September 9, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act of 1988.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to provide the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated former employees at least 60
days' advance written notice of termination as a result of a mass
layoff and/or plant closing on or about September 9, 2024.
Midwest Transport, Inc. is a trucking company, headquartered in
Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Huggett, Esq.
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 888-1112
Facsimile: (302) 888-1119
- and -
Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
100 Church Street, 8th Fl.
New York, NY 10078
Telephone: (212) 581-5005
Facsimile: (212) 581-2122
- and -
Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
THE GARDNER FIRM, PC
182 St. Francis Street, Suite 103
Mobile, AL 36602
Telephone: (251) 433-8100
Facsimile: (251) 433-8181
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Settlement Deal in Sanchez Suit Gets Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICO CRUZ SANCHEZ,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, v. MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC.; DALTILE SERVICE,
INC.; DAL-TILE SERVICES, INC.; DAL-TILE CORPORATION, Case No.
1:20-cv-01510-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer Thurston
entered an order granting motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement:
1. Plaintiff's request for provisional certification of the
Settlement Class is granted, and the class is defined as
follows:
"All current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees
who
worked for any of the Defendants within the State of
California
at any time during the period from Sept. 15, 2016, through
April
11, 2024, and who reside in California."
2. Preliminary approval of the parties' proposed settlement
agreement—with the modifications identified above to ¶¶
4.5.6,
4.6.7, 4.6.9, 4.9 and 4.11.4—is GRANTED.
3. Preliminary approval of the PAGA payment is GRANTED.
4. The proposed notice plan and deadlines are APPROVED.
5. Nico Cruz Sanchez is APPOINTED the Class Representative for
the
Settlement Class.
6. Arby Aiwazian, Joanna Ghosh, Brian St. John, and LippSmith
LLP
are appointed as Class Counsel.
7. Simpluris, Inc. is appointed as the Settlement Administrator,
with responsibilities pursuant to the terms set forth in the
Settlement Agreement.
8. The class representative service payment for Plaintiff is
granted preliminarily up to the amount of $10,000, subject to
a
petition and review at the Final Approval and Fairness
Hearing.
Class members and their counsel may support or oppose this
request, if they so desire, at the Final Approval and
Fairness
Hearing.
9. Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees not to exceed
$665,000 and litigation expenses up to $23,000 is granted
preliminarily, subject to review of the petition for fees and
costs at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing. Class
members
and their counsel may support or oppose this request, if they
so
desire, at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing.
10. The petition for attorneys' fees and for class representative
service payment shall be filed no later than February 26,
2025.
11. Costs of settlement administration shall not exceed $9,000.
12. The proposed Notice is preliminarily APPROVED, and the
parties
shall file a finalized Notice with the required revisions for
the Court's approval within seven days of the date of service
of
this order.
13. Defendants shall provide the Settlement Administrator with
the
Class Member Information no later than October 6, 2024.
14. The Settlement Administrator SHALL mail the approved Notice
no
later than November 18, 2024.
15. A class member who wishes to be excluded from settlement
shall
postmark a written request for exclusion no later than
December
31, 2024.
16. Any objections to or comments on the Settlement Agreement
must
be submitted to the Settlement Administrator no later than
December 31, 2024.
Nico Cruz Sanchez was employed as a warehouse associate from
approximately September 2016 to December 2018. He alleges that
"Defendants, jointly and severally, employed [him] as an
hourly-paid, non-exempt employee."
Mohawk is an American flooring manufacturer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CAItED at no extra
charge.[CC]
NC STATE UNIVERSITY: Katti Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
MADHUSUDAN KATTI is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
his lawsuit entitled Madhusudan Katti, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NC State
University, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-00233-M-BM, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
filed a complaint against the Defendants for employment
discrimination.
On Sept. 8, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim and for lack of jurisdiction.
On Sept. 19, 2024, Judge Richard E. Myers II granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss.
The appellate case is captioned Madhusudan Katti v. Warwick Arden,
Case No. 24-2054, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit, filed on October 22, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant MADHUSUDAN KATTI, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
June K. Allison, Esq.
Valerie Bateman, Esq.
NEW SOUTH LAW FIRM
209 Lloyd Street
Carrboro, NC 27510
Telephone: (704) 277-0113
Defendants-Appellees WARWICK A. ARDEN, in his individual and
official capacity, et al. are represented by:
Jeremy David Lindsley, Esq.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
P.O. Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602
Telephone: (919) 716-6851
- and –
Leslie Lane Mize, Esq.
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP
301 Hillsborough Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 877-3808
NCAA: Parties Must File Detailed Joint Status Report
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brantmeier v. NATIONAL
COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-00238 (M.D.N.C.,
Filed March 18, 2024), the Hon. Judge Catherine C. Eagles entered
an order that Parties must meet and confer no later than Nov. 8,
2024, to file a detailed joint status report as to:
1) how the withdrawal of the motion for class certification
affects the issues, claims, and defenses in the pleadings;
2) what discovery has been sought, obtained, and otherwise
arranged, and
3) the best way to modify the scheduling order, with proposed
revised deadlines.
The nature of suit states antitrust litigation.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a nonprofit
organization that regulates student athletics among about 1,100
schools in the United States, and one in Canada.[CC]
NEBRASKA: Seeks to Dismiss State Defendants as Parties
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW NICHOLAS, v. KAREN
JENNINGS, NEBRASKA STATE PATROL, and STATE OF NEBRASKA, Case No.
8:23-cv-00126-RFR-JMD (D. Neb.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order dismissing the State Defendants as parties.
The State Defendants are parties to this action solely for purposes
of protecting their subrogation interest pursuant to Neb. Rev.
Stat. section 48-118, et seq.
The Plaintiff Nicholas filed a separate suit against the Nebraska
State Patrol in the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Court.
The Nebraska Workers' Compensation Court has since entered an Order
Approving the Application for Approval of Lump Sum Settlement.
Because the workers' compensation settlement has been approved and
included a full waiver of the State Defendants' subrogation
interest, the State Defendants have no further interest in this
suit and accordingly request to be dismissed as parties.
Counsel for the State Defendants has circulated this motion to
counsel for all other parties, who have indicated they have no
objection to the State Defendants’ motion and requested relief.
Nebraska State is Nebraska's only statewide full-service law
enforcement agency.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nyAQ5F at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin High, Esq.
Alberto P. Hernandez Jr., Esq.
HIGH & YOUNES
6919 Dodge Street
Omaha, NE 68132
E-mail: justin@hyattorneys.com
aj@hyattorneys.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael T. Hilgers, Esq.
Phoebe L. Lurz, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
2115 State Capitol
Lincoln, NE 68509-8920
Telephone: (402) 471-2682
Facsimile: (402) 471-4725
E-mail: phoebe.lurz@nebraska.gov
- and -
Kyle Wallor, Esq.
LAMSON DUGAN & MURRAY LLP
10306 Regency Parkway Drive
Omaha, NE 68114
E-mail: kwallor@ldmlaw.com
NEW ENGLAND: Fails to Pay Regular Wages, Hanley Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL HANLEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NEW ENGLAND AUTO MAX, INC., NEW ENGLAND AUTOMAX, INC.,
and HOWARD WILNER, Case No. 2482CV00925 (Mass. Super., Sept. 17,
2024) alleges that Defendants failed to pay putative class members
regular pay for all hours worked during each seven day workweek
pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws and Wage Act.
The suit contends that the Defendants had a practice and policy to
deduct Mr. Hanley and Class Members' Regular Pay from their future
earned commissions and bonus.
The Defendants also failed to provide complaint pay slips to him
and putative class members resulting in lost wages pursuant to the
Wage Act, the suit adds.
Mr. Hanley and Class Members seek all damages available under
Commonwealth law, including treble damages, as liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, pre-judgment interest,
post-judgment interest, and injunctive relief. These employees are
similarly situated under the class action provisions of R23.
Mr. Hanley worked for Defendants from 2015 to May 2020.
New England operates retail vehicle dealership.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward C. Cumbo, Esq.
Robert Richardson, Esq.
RICHARDSON & CUMBO, LLP
101 Federal Street, Suite 1900
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617)217-2779
E-mail: e.cumbo@rc-llp.com
r.richardson@rc-llp.com
NFL PLAYER: Parties Seek to Modify Briefing Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON ALFORD et al., v.
THE NFL PLAYER DISABILITY & SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-00358-JRR (D. Md.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an
order modifying the briefing deadlines set forth in the Court's
June 3, 2024 Amended Scheduling Order, as follows:
1. Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiff' motion for class
certification shall be filed no later than Nov. 18, 2024; and
2. Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion for class
certification shall be filed no later than Jan. 16, 2025.
The Parties seek this two-week extension to accommodate lead
counsel for the Defendants' unexpected medical leave.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uEQkSo at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com
nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
- and -
Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
Diogenes P. Kekatos, Esq.
Hillary R. Fidler, Esq.
Benjamin R. Barnett, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
Telephone: (973) 639-9100
E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
dkekatos@seegereiss.com
hfidler@seegerweiss.com
bbarnett@seegerweiss.com
- and -
Samuel L. Katz, Esq.
Julia M. Damron, Esq.
ATHLAW LLP
8383 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (818) 454-3652
E-mail: samkatz@athlawllp.com
julia@athlawllp.com
- and -
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
D. Nicole Guntner, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS, & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 E. Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 202-1010
E-mail: BAylstock@awkolaw.com
JWitkin@awkolaw.com
DKreis@awkolaw.com
NGuntner@awkolaw.com
- and -
Robert K. Scott, Esq.
Gerry H. Goldsholle, Esq.
ADVOCATE LAW GROUP P.C.
2330 Marinship Way, Suite 260
Sausalito, CA 94965
Telephone: (949) 753-4950
E-mail: bob@advocatelawgroup.com
gerry@advocatelawgroup.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Gregory F. Jacob, Esq.
Meredith N. Garagiola, Esq.
Elizabeth L. McKeen, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
1625 Eye Street, N.W., 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 383-5300
Facsimile: (202) 383-5414
E-mail: gjacob@omm.com
mgaragiola@omm.com
emckeen@omm.com
NIGHTJAR HOLDINGS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Turner Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TAVON TURNER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NIGHTJAR HOLDINGS LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-08106
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2024) sues the Defendant for their failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website,
www.nightjarcannabis.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The Plaintiff was allegedly injured when attempting to access
Defendant's Website, www.nightjarnj.com on Oct. 17, 2024, from his
home in Bronx County, New York, in an effort to search for and
purchase Defendant's products and services, including their premium
hybrid edible, "High-Dose Gummies | Mega Pearls | Mystery."
When attempting to discover crucial medical information about this
product and others with similar properties from the Website,
including any potential contraindications, the Plaintiff was unable
to discern any further information other than what was contained
within the Product Tile, as a result of "Redundant Alternative
Text," "Linked Images Missing Alternative Text," and "Missing Form
Labels," the suit says.
Due to the access barriers, which prevented the Plaintiff from
discerning crucial information about the desired goods and
services, the Plaintiff was unable to complete his search and
purchase those desired products and services, the suit adds.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Mr. Turner is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content while
using his computer.
Nightjar is an independently operated cannabis dispensary.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
NIKE INC: Plaintiffs Lose Bid to Modify Discrimination Suit Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Amy M. Baggio of the United States District Court for the
District of Oregon denied plaintiffs' request to modify Judge Jolie
Russo's order in the case captioned as KELLY CAHILL, SARA JOHNSTON,
LINDSAY ELIZABETH, and HEATHER HENDER, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NIKE, INC., an Oregon
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01477-AB (D. Ore.).
This case arises from Defendant Nike's alleged discrimination
against women. In 2018, Plaintiffs Kelly Cahill, Sara Johnston,
Lindsay Elizabeth, and Heather Hender filed a putative
sex-discrimination class action on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated women at Nike alleging, in part, that Nike
pays and promotes women less than men at Nike's headquarters. Since
the case was filed, the parties have engaged in what is generously
described as a contentious discovery process, which required the
Court's involvement in multiple disagreements. On August 26, 2024,
Judge Russo issued an Order that, among other things, denied
Plaintiffs' motions to compel discovery and to appoint a special
master to oversee continued discovery related to Project Starfish
-- an informal initiative led by executive women at Nike related to
gender discrimination within the company.
Judge Russo's order concluded that a second extension of the
discovery deadline for further discovery related to Starfish would
not be proportional to the needs of this case. Plaintiffs object on
the grounds that Judge Russo's conclusion is contrary to law.
The Court finds Judge Russo's order denying Plaintiffs' motions to
compel and to appoint a special master is not contrary to law.
Judge Russo's order applied the correct legal standard under Rule
26 and did not make any clearly erroneous factual findings, the
Court concludes.
A copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated October 22, 2024, is
available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NNuD8h
NORTHVIEW VILLAGE: Order on Filing Bid for Default Judgment Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hawthorne v. Northview
Village, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-01711 (E.D. Mo., Filed Dec.
22, 2023), The Hon. Judge Stephen R. Welby entered an order
granting in part motion for extension of time:
-- The Court's order requiring Plaintiff to file a motion for
default
judgment is stayed pending resolution of Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.
The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.[CC]
Northview is a Senior Living provider in Saint Louis, Missouri that
offers residents Nursing Homes services.
NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert Schedule
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANA TURNER, DANIEL SMITH,
and AARON YOUSHEI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 4:22-cv-05827-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Parties
ask the Court to enter an order extending the class certification
schedule as follows:
Event Current Proposed
Deadline Deadline
Class certification expert Oct. 24, 2024 Three months
disclosure deadline after entry of a
protective order
Class certification expert Dec. 5, 2024 Six weeks after
rebuttal disclosure deadline expert disclosure
deadline
Deadline to file motion Jan. 16, 2025 Six weeks after
for class certification rebuttal
deadline
and Daubert motions
related to class
certification experts
Deadline to file opposition Feb. 27, 2025 Six weeks after
to class certification motions filed
motion/Daubert motions
Deadline to file reply re March 20, 2025 Three weeks after
class certification oppositions
filed
motion/Daubert motions
Subject to the Court’s schedule and if necessary, the Parties
further propose setting a hearing on the motion for class
certification on July 23, 2025.
The Defendant anticipates moving as soon as practicable for summary
judgment on all of Plaintiffs’ claims based on evidence squarely
contradicting key allegations in Plaintiffs' amended complaint and
reserves the right to move for a stay of expert discovery and/or
class certification briefing pending resolution of that motion.
Though unable to make any statements on the substance of
Defendant’s anticipated motion as Plaintiffs have not yet seen
any discovery responses or document productions, Plaintiffs have
advised Defendant of the rule on one-way intervention and the
impact of filing a dispositive motion prior to class certification
Nuance is an American multinational computer software technology
corporation
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Eu3efC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
John Aaron Lawson, Esq.
Theo Benjamin, Esq.
Emily Penkowski Perez, Esq.
EDELSON PC
150 California Street, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 212-9300
Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
alawson@edelson.com
tbenjamin@edelson.com
epenkowski@edelson.com
- and -
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kate T. Spelman, Esq.
David C. Layden, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
515 Flower Street Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-5100
Facsimile: (213) 239-5199
E-mail: kspelman@jenner.com
dlayden@jenner.com
PAC HOUSING: Class Expert Disclosure in Hills Due Nov. 15
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALVIN HILLS, et al., V.
PAC HOUSING GROUP, LLC, et al. Case No. 2:23-cv-05740-BWA-KWR (E.D.
La.), the Hon. Judge Barry Ashe entered an order extending and
setting certain class certification deadlines as follows:
Item Deadline
Fact Deposition and Class Expert Disclosure Cutoff: Nov. 15,
2024
Class Expert Deposition Cutoff: Dec. 13,
2024
PAC Housing Group is a real estate company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XtzLcj at no extra
charge.[CC]
PAC HOUSING: Hills Seeks More Time to File Class Expert Disclosure
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALVIN HILLS, Individually
and on Behalf of All others Similarly Situated, v. PAC HOUSING
GROUP, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-05740-BWA-KWR (E.D. La.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order amending its recent
order extending and setting certain class certification deadlines
as follows:
Item Requested Deadline
Fact Deposition & Class Expert Disclosure Nov. 15, 2024
Cutoff
Class Expert Deposition Cutoff Dec. 13, 2024
On Oct. 17, 2024, the Parties filed a consent motion asking this
Court to extend and set certain class certification deadlines.
That consent motion set forth the Parties' extended, good-faith
negotiations regarding certain class certification deadlines.
On Oct. 21, 2024, the Court granted the Parties' consent motion.
However, although the consent motion stated: "Despite all these
efforts, due to scheduling availability for the named Defendants
within the current deadlines, and the estimated duration of those
depositions, the Parties seek an additional extension for the
deposition cutoff, as set forth below," this deadline was omitted
from the final, proposed deadline chart that the Parties filed with
the Court.
PAC Housing Group LLC is a real estate company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5ILzPR at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Casey C. DeReus, Esq.
BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 308-5858
Facsimile: (212) 486-0462
E-mail: dereus@bespc.com
- and -
DeVonn Jarrett, Esq.
JARRETT LAW GROUP, LLC
643 Magazine Street, Suite 301A
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (833) 554-6653
E-mail: djarrett@jarrettlawgroup.com
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Hialeah Retirement Appeals Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF HIALEAH EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, et al. are taking an
appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled City of
Hialeah Employees Retirement System, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Peloton
Interactive, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-9582, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
On November 18, 2021, the City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement
System filed a putative securities class action lawsuit against the
Company and certain of its officers in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned City of
Hialeah Employees' Retirement System v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.,
Case No. 21-cv-09582-ALC (the "Hialeah Action").
On December 2, 2021, Anastasia Deulina filed a related putative
securities class action against the same defendants also in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
captioned Deulina v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., Case No.
21-cv-10266-ALC (the "Deulina Action").
On May 5, 2022, the Court consolidated the Hialeah and Deulina
Actions and appointed Robeco Capital Growth Funds SICAV -- Robeco
Global Consumer Trends as lead plaintiff.
The lead plaintiff filed its amended complaint on June 25, 2022,
purportedly on behalf of a class of individuals who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 5,
2021, and November 4, 2021, alleging that the Company and certain
of its officers made false or misleading statements about demand
for the Company's products and engaged in improper trading in
violation of Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Exchange Act.
The Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the amended complaint
on August 22, 2022, which Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted on
Mar. 30, 2023.
On May 5, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which the Defendants moved to dismiss on June 16, 2023.
On Sept. 30, 2024, Judge Carter granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint. The Court held that the
Plaintiffs have not articulated sufficient factual allegations to
carry their assertions beyond the speculative level: many of the
Defendants' alleged misstatements are statements of non-actionable
corporate optimism or are protected by the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA) safe harbor, and the
Plaintiffs have not asserted sufficient facts demonstrating
Defendants' statements were materially false when made.
Accordingly, the case was dismissed with prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned City of Hialeah Employees
Retirement System v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., Case No. 24-2803,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed
on October 23, 2024. [BN]
Defendants-Appellees PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC., et al. are
represented by:
Andrew Brian Clubok, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
555 Eleventh Street, NW Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004
PEOPLECONNECT INC: Jackson Suit Removed to N.D. West Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael Jackson, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. PEOPLECONNECT, INC., INTELIUS LLC,
PUBREC, LLC, THE CONTROL GROUP MEDIA COMPANY LLC, INSTANT
CHECKMATE, LLC, and TRUTHFINDER, LLC, Case No. 24-C-43 was removed
from the Circuit Court of Braxton County, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, on Oct.
28, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00102-TSK.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants violated West Virginia's
Daniel's Law ("Daniel's Law"). According to the Complaint,
Defendants allegedly "disclosed, redisclosed, or otherwise made
available the home addresses and unpublished home or personal
telephone numbers of thousands of West Virginia's active, formerly
active, or retired judicial officers, prosecutors, federal or state
public defenders, federal or state assistant public defenders, and
law-enforcement officers," including Plaintiff.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Patricia M. Bello, Esq.
Zachary B. Metz, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
707 Virginia Street E., Suite 1400
Charleston, WV 25301
Phone: (304) 553-0107
Email: patricia.bello@lewisbrisbois.com
zachary.metz@lewisbrisbois.com
- and -
Robert C. Collins III, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS, LLC
330 N. Wabash Ave
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: (312) 876-7700
Email: robert.collins@lw.com
- and -
Jennifer Archie, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS, LLC
555 Eleventh Street NW Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20004
Phone: (202)-637-2205
Email: jennifer.archie@lw.com
PREMIER FINANCIAL: Holland Files Civil Suit to Ky. Ct. App.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Premier Financial
Bancorp, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as INEZ HOLLAND,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PREMIER FINANCIAL BANCORP, INC., et al., Case No. 2024-CA-1093 (Ky.
Ct. App., September 9, 2024).
The Plaintiff filed a civil action case against the Defendants.
Premier Financial Bancorp, Inc. is a financial services company
headquartered in West Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Evan Mize, Esq.
STRANCH JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Email: amize@stranchlaw.com
PRIME HYDRATION: Heaven Personal Injury Suit Removed to E.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SHANTAY HEAVEN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PRIME HYDRATION LLC, Case No.
240801237, was removed from the Superior Court of Philadelphia
County to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on September 9, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-04754-NIQA to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff brings a personal injury claims against the
Defendant.
Prime Hydration LLC is a manufacturer of energy drinks based in
Kentucky. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Tara Rice, Esq.
FROST BROWN TODD LLP
501 Grant Street, Suite 800
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 513-4300
Email: trice@fbtlaw.com
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Pretrial Disclosures in Franco Due Nov. 22
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Franco v. PROGRESSIVE
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00225
(M.D.N.C., Filed March 13, 2024), The Hon. Judge Catherine C.
Eagles entered an order that:
-- Each side is authorized to serve up to ten requests for
document
production and five interrogatories directed to class
certification issues now.
-- Each side shall serve initial pretrial disclosures required by
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(A) no later than Nov. 22, 2024.
The nature of suit states breach of insurance contract.
The Defendant is an auto insurance company.[CC]
QUEBEC INC: Class Settlement Deal in Natale Suit Gets Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEGANNE NATALE and CHELSEA
CHENG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. QUEBEC INC., d/b/a EARTH RATED, Case No. 2:21-cv-06775-JS-SIL
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Joanna Seybert entered a final order
granting final approval of class action settlement agreement and
entering judgment:
-- The Court finally certifies the Settlement Class, as identified
in
the Settlement Agreement:
"All persons in the United States who purchased one or more
units
of Earth Rated Certified Compostable Poop Bags during the class
period which extends from Oct. 28, 2015, through June 12,
2024."
Persons meeting this definition are referenced collectively as
the
"Settlement Class," and individually as "Settlement Class
Members." Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Settlement Class
specifically excludes:
(a) all persons who purchased for the purpose of resale or for
purposes other than personal use;
(b) Defendant and its employees, principals, affiliated
entities,
legal representatives, successors and assigns;
(c) any person who makes a valid, timely opt-out request;
(d) federal, state, and local governments (including all
agencies
and subdivisions thereof but excluding employees thereof),
and
(e) the judges to whom this action is assigned and any members
of
their immediate families.
-- The Court finally appoints, for settlement purposes, the law
firm
Of Bursor & Fisher, P.A. as Class Counsel for the Settlement
Class.
-- The Court finally appoints, for settlement purposes, Meganne
Natale and Chelsea Cheng as Class Representatives.
-- The Court approves Class Counsel's request for Attorneys' Fees
and
Expenses in the amount of $279,240.04.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5ZJcb7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
RELX PLC: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEGAN TRAMA, MATTHEW
HARTZ, and RAFAEL ROBLES on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. RELX PLC, RELX GROUP PLC, RELX (HOLDINGS)
LIMITED, RELX OVERSEAS HOLDINGS LIMITED, and RELX INC., Case No.
2:24-cv-03174-DSF-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale Fischer
entered an order approving stipulated request for extension of time
to file class certification motion.
RELX is a British multinational information and analytics company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5U5IG2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
RENTOKIL NORTH AMERICA: Appeals Remand Order in Rodriguez Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
RENTOKIL NORTH AMERICA, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order
remanding the lawsuit entitled Lazaro Rodriguez, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rentokil
North America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-1356, from the
U.S. District Court for the Central 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 in and for the County of Orange to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, is brought
against the Defendant for alleged violations of the California
Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code.
On July 18, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case
to state court, which Judge David O. Carter granted on Oct. 10,
2024. The case was remanded to Orange County Superior Court. All
proceedings were vacated and removed from calendar.
The appellate case is captioned Rodriguez v. Rentokil North
America, Inc., Case No. 24-6437, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 22, 2024. [BN]
Defendant-Petitioner RENTOKIL NORTH AMERICA, INC. is represented
by:
Tanja L. Darrow, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
633 W. 5th Street, 63rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Buffalo Suit Seeks Class Cert Briefing Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BUFFALO SEAFOOD HOUSE LLC,
BUDGET INNS OF PENSACOLA, INC. d.b.a. PALM COURT INN, and GARIBIAN
& ASSOCIATES ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION, v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC.,
et al., Case No. 7:22-cv-01242-RMG (D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order setting a briefing schedule allowing:
(a) Plaintiffs until Nov. 30 (45 days from the last hearing) to
file an amended motion for class certification for a South
Carolina only class along with a South Carolina only expert
report and potentially move to add additional class
representative(s),
(b) the Defendants until Jan. 21 (51 days) to file a responsive
brief and any responsive expert report, and
(c) the Plaintiffs until Jan. 28 (7 days) to file a reply
brief.
Republic is a North American waste disposal company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HfPPZu at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian C. Duffy, Esq.
Patrick C. Wooten, Esq.
DUFFY & YOUNG, LLC
96 Broad Street
Charleston, SC 29401
Telephone: (843) 720-2044
E-mail: bduffy@duffyandyoung.com
pwooten@duffyandyoung.com
- and -
Oscar M. Price, IV, Esq.
Nicholas W. Armstrong, Esq.
T. Graham Cotten, Esq.
PRICE ARMSTRONG, LLC
1919 Cahaba Road
Birmingham, AL 35223
Telephone: (205) 208-9588
E-mail: oscar@pricearmstrong.com
nick@pricearmstrong.com
graham@pricearmstrong.com
- and -
T. Ryan Langley, Esq.
THE LANGLEY LAW FIRM
229 Magnolia Street
Spartanburg, SC 29306
Telephone: (864) 774-4662
E-mail: rlangley@hodgelawfirm.com
- and -
H. Ryan Lutz, Esq.
CORY WATSON PC
2131 Magnolia Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-2200
E-mail: rlutz@corywatson.com
ROADPULSE LOGISTICS: Pierce Sues Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------
Tyrus Pierce, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ROADPULSE LOGISTICS LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-08720 (N.D.
Ill., Sept. 23, 2024), is brought against the Defendants' violation
of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (the "IWPCA") and
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the unpaid
wages.
The Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff an hourly rate that was equal
to or exceeding minimum wage for the services he performed because
his transportation services did not generate more than $8,000 for
the company and/or it took deductions from his compensation in
amounts that equaled or exceeded the total amount of compensation
he had earned, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a truck driver.
The Defendant is a trucking company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James B. Zouras, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC
222 W. Adams St, Suite 2020
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Phone: (312) 233-1550
Fax: (3120 233-1560
Email: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
- and -
Brook S. Lane, Esq.
FAIR WORK, P.C.
192 South Street, Suite 450
Boston, MA 02111
Phone: (617) 607-3260
Fax: (617) 488-2261
Email: brook@fairworklaw.com
ROMEO'S PIZZA: Branning Suit Seeks to Certify Delivery Driver Class
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Matthew Branning, et al.,
On behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. Romeo's
Pizza, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02092-SO (N.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying this action
as a class action, and designating Plaintiff Dietrich as the
representative of the following class:
"All current and former delivery drivers employed by the
Defendants at the Defendants' Romeo's Pizza stores in the State
of
Ohio between the date three years prior to the filing of the
original Complaint and Dec. 31, 2019 ("Rule 23 Class")."
In connection with this certification, the Plaintiff moves this
Court to affirm his selection of counsel by appointing Biller &
Kimble, LLC as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g).
The Plaintiff also asks that he be permitted to send notice of this
lawsuit to putative class members pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2).
Additionally, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), the Plaintiff moves
this Court for an Order authorizing him to send notice of the
pendency of this action to his similarly-situated co-workers.
Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks to notify the following
employees:
All current and former delivery drivers employed at Defendants'
Romeo's Pizza stores between the date three years prior to the
filing of the original complaint and Dec. 31, 2019 ("FLSA
Collective").
Mr. Dietrich alleges that Defendants required him and his fellow
delivery drivers to provide their own vehicles for Defendants, but
the Defendants did not cover the drivers' costs to do so.
Romeo's Pizza is a company that operates several pizza chain
restaurants.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OH21T5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
Laura E. Farmwald, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515
Cincinnati, OH 45236
Telephone: (513) 202-0710
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
akimble@billerkimble.com
lfarmwald@billerkimble.com
www.billerkimble.com
ROUNDPOINT MORTGAGE: Edge Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA EDGE is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit
entitled Patricia Edge, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Roundpoint Mortgage Servicing
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00122-TSK, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Circuit Court of Harrison County, West
Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
West Virginia, was brought against Roundpoint Mortgage for alleged
contract violation.
On September 27, 2024, Chief District Judge Thomas S. Kleeh entered
a memorandum opinion and order granting a motion for summary
judgment filed by the Defendant, and denying a partial motion for
summary judgment filed by the plaintiff.
The action was, thus, stricken from the Court's active docket and
the Clerk was directed to enter judgment in favor of RoundPoint
Mortgage.
The appellate case is captioned Patricia Edge v. RoundPoint
Mortgage Servicing LLC, Case No. 24-2064, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on October 23, 2024.
[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant PATRICIA EDGE, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Jason Edward Causey, Esq.
BORDAS & BORDAS, PLLC
1358 National Road
Wheeling, WV 26003
Telephone: (304) 242-8410
- and –
Denali S. Hedrick, Esq.
Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
209 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 940-9809
(304) 345-6555
- and –
Patricia Mulvoy Kipnis, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
923 Haddonfield Road
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
Telephone: (304) 345-6555
Defendant-Appellee ROUNDPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING LLC is represented
by:
Cheryl Stepanie Chang, Esq.
BLANK ROME LLC
2029 Century Park East
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (424) 239-3400
- and –
Edward Win-Teh Chang, Esq.
BLANK ROME LLP
1 Logan Square
130 North 18th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 569-5342
- and –
Carrie Goodwin Fenwick, Esq.
GOODWIN & GOODWIN, LLP
300 Summers Street
Charleston, WV 25301
SAFEWAY INC: Products Release Asbestos Fibers, Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
CLAUDIA DE LA ROSA and ENRIQUE DE LA ROSA v. SAFEWAY, INC.; SEPHORA
USA, INC.; THE VONS COMPANIES INC., a subsidiary of ALBERTSONS
COMPANIES, INC.; et al., Case No. 24STCV24093 (Cal. Super., Sept.
17, 2024) alleges that Defendants' Products were unreasonably
dangerous because they released respirable asbestos fibers which
resulted in personal injuries to users, consumers, bystanders, and
others, including Plaintiff De La Rosa.
According to the complaint, the Defendants' Products were used at
all times in a manner that was reasonably foreseeable to
Defendants, their "alternate entities," and each of them, thereby
rendering Defendants' Products unsafe and dangerous for use by
"exposed persons."
The Plaintiffs allege that Ms. DE LA ROSA's exposures to
Defendants' Products were a substantial contributing factor in the
development of her mesothelioma and therefore proximately caused
her illnesses, injuries, disabilities, and damages.
The Defendants are engaged in the business of researching,
manufacturing, fabricating, designing, modifying, labeling,
assembling, distributing, leasing, buying, offering for sale,
supplying, selling, inspecting, servicing, installing, contracting
for installation, repairing, renting, marketing, warranting,
re-branding, manufacturing for others, packaging, and advertising
raw asbestos fibers of various kinds and grades, and/or
asbestos-containing products, and/or equipment requiring and/or
calling for the use of asbestos and/or asbestos-containing
products, and/or asbestos-containing talc and/or chalk, and/or
other finished and unfinished asbestos-containing talcum powder
products, and/or any other powder-like product, and/or
asbestos-containing cosmetics.
As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendants,
the Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer pain,
discomfort, loss of weight, loss of appetite, fatigue, somnolence,
lethargy, dyspnea, dysphagia, and other physical symptoms, and the
mental and emotional distress attendant thereto, as the Plaintiff
De La Rosa's malignant mesothelioma progresses, all to her general
damage in a sum in excess of the jurisdictional limits of a limited
civil case, the suit alleges.
The Defendants include BRENNTAG SPECIALTIES LLC; COTY INC.; IMI
FABI (DIANA) LLC; INTERCOS AMERICA INC.; L'OREAL USA, INC., sued
individually and as successor-in-interest to MAYBELLINE LLC and
d/b/a L'OREAL, MAYBELLINE, and MAYBELLINE NEW YORK; MARY KAY INC.;
NOXELL CORPORATION, a subsidiary of COTY INC. and f/k/a NOXZEMA
CHEMICAL COMPANY; PFIZER INC.; THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, sued
individually and as successor-in-interest to THE SHULTON GROUP
and/or SHULTON INC.; PUIG USA, INC., sued individually and as
successor-in-interest to MYRURGIA; SUMITOMO CORPORATION OF
AMERICAS; and DOES 1-450.
Safeway is an American supermarket chain.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stuart J. Purdy, Esq.
Erica L. Falkner, Esq.
SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER, PC
3760 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite 680
Long Beach, CA 90806
Telephone (562) 590-3400
Facsimile (562) 590-3412
SCOOTERS 4 U: Navarro Seeks Unpaid Regular and OT Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Navarro, and other similarly situated individuals v. Scooters
4 U Inc., and Ursula Delgado, individually, Case No. 0:24-cv-61988
(S.D. Fla., Oct. 24, 2024) seeks to recover monetary damages for
unpaid regular and overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
During the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants, the
Plaintiff worked 57 hours weekly, and he was paid $600.00 weekly.
The amount paid to the Plaintiff divided by the number of hours
worked resulted in a rate of $10.52 an hour, which is below the
higher state minimum wage for 2023-2024 of $12.00, to be applied as
established by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the suit contends.
Moreover, the Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours weekly but was
not paid for overtime hours, as required by law.
On July 12, 2024, the Plaintiff complained about unpaid overtime
hours and about working too many hours and not even getting paid
minimum wages. The Defendants ignored Plaintiff's complaints.
However, on Aug. 11, 2024, the Defendants fired the Plaintiff, the
suit alleges.
Defendants Scooters 4 U and Ursula Delgado employed the Plaintiff
Navarro from March 27, 2024, to Aug. 15, 2024.
Scooters 4 U is a dealer and shop repair for motorcycles and
scooters.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
SETHI MANAGEMENT: Faces Martin Class Action Lawsuit in Cal. Super.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sethi Management,
Inc. The case is captioned as Andres Martin v. Sethi Management,
Inc., a California corporation, Case No. 24CECG04028 (Cal. Super.,
Sept. 17, 2024).
The suit alleges violation employment related laws.
Sethi specializes in managing hospitality and retail
businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff Martin, Andres Vial AKA: and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, is represented
by:
Molly A. DeSario, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
www.wilshirelawfirm.com
475 14th St, Ste 700
Oakland, CA 94612-1945
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: molly.desario@wilshirelawfirm.com
SHARKNINJA INC: Faces Zamani Suit Over Blenders' Defective Design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALI ZAMANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHARKNINJA INC. and SHARKNINJA OPERATING
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-12313-ADB (D. Mass., September 9,
2024) is a class action against the Defendants for strict
liability, negligence, common law fraud, and violations of
Massachusetts Consumer Protection Law, New York Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, and New York False Advertising Law.
The case arises from the Defendants' design and production of
defective blenders whereby their blades do not lock into the bases
of the blenders, allowing the blades to fall out. As a result of
the product's defective designs, the Plaintiff suffered severe
laceration, and members of the Class have purchased a product that
is worth less than they were led to believe through the marketing
of the product.
SharkNinja Inc. is a manufacturer of consumer products
headquartered in Needham, Massachusetts.
SharkNinja Operating LLC is a manufacturer of consumer products
headquartered in Needham, Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
SHARON, MA: Bishay Appeals Suit Dismissal to 1st Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------
BAHIG F. BISHAY is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
his lawsuit entitled Bahig F. Bishay, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Town of Sharon, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-11848-FDS, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.
On July 26, 2024, plaintiff Bahig Bishay initiated this action by
filing a self-prepared complaint against the Town of Sharon, its
town administrator and finance director, and an attorney that
represented the Town of Sharon.
The Court's records indicate that plaintiff has filed more than a
dozen actions in thd district, all of which have been dismissed for
lack of merit. On April 5, 2023, plaintiff was enjoined in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia "from
filing any civil action in this or any other federal court without
first obtaining leave of that court."
Despite the Injunction, Bishay filed the present complaint without
complying with the court order. Furthermore, the claims against the
defendants in his complaint are time-barred, Chief Judge F. Dennis
Saylor ruled on Sept. 16, 2024.
Accordingly, the action was dismissed for failure to comply with
the terms of the order dated April 5, 2023, issued by the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia, and as
frivolous.
The appellate case is captioned Bishay v. Town of Sharon, et al.,
Case No. 24-1928, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit, filed on October 21, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant BAHIG F. BISHAY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, appears pro se.
SOLIDQUOTE LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 13, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONDA KLASSEN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SOLIDQUOTE LLC, and DIGITAL MEDIA SOLUTIONS, LLC f/k/a UNDERGROUND
ELEPHANT, Case No. 1:23-cv-00318-GPG-NRN (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge
entered an order amending scheduling order as follows:
Fact discovery cut-off: Feb. 25, 2025
Disclosure of affirmative experts: March 19, 2025
Disclosure of rebuttal experts: April 22, 2025
Expert discovery cut-off: May 23, 2025
Motion for class certification: June 13, 2025
Dispositive motions: 45 days after ruling on Plaintiff's motion
for class certification or, if no such motion is filed, by July
10, 2025.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DhQqHY at no extra
charge.[CC]
SOUTHWEST SPECIALTY: Fuentes Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jose Velasquez Fuentes, an individual v. SOUTHWEST SPECIALTY
CONTRACTORS LLC, a limited liability company; ARMANDO FLORES, an
individual; DOES I through 100 Inclusive, Case No. 24STCV24583
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 20, 2024), is brought
against the Defendant Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public
Policy, Disability Discrimination in Violation of Govt Code,
Harassment in Violation of Govt Code; Failure to Engage in
Interactive Process, Failure to Reasonably Accommodate Disability;
Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation; Unlawful
Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; Unlawful Retaliation in Violation
of Labor Code; Violation of California Family Rights Act ("CFRA");
all in violation of Labor Code.
The Defendant failed to pay minimum wage for all hours worked,
failure to pay overtime, and failed to furnish accurate itemized
wage statements. The Plaintiff worked in excess of 8 hours in a
workday and/or 40 hours in a workweek but was not always paid
overtime or double time for additional hours worked, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Employer as carpenter.
SOUTHWEST SPECIALTY CONTRACTORS LLC, a limited liability
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian I. Vogel, Esq
VOGEL LAW, APC
572 E. Green Street, Suite 305
Pasadena, CA 91101
Phone: (626) 796-7470
STAR MARKETS: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Augusr 20, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Menin v. Star Markets
Company, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-11918 (D. Mass., Filed Aug. 22,
2023), The Hon. Judge Denise J. Casper entered an initial
scheduling order as follows:
-- Amendments to the Pleadings by: Nov. 15, 2024
-- All Fact Discovery (as both to May 15, 2025
class certification & merits) to
be completed by:
-- Status conference set for: May 27, 2025
-- Plaintiff's expert disclosures by: May 20, 2025
-- Defendant' s expert disclosures by: June 20, 2025
-- Expert depositions complete by: July 21, 2025
-- Class certification motion to be Aug. 20, 2025
filed by:
-- Opposition to class certification Sept. 10, 2025
motion to be filed by:
-- Hearing on Class certification Oct. 23, 2025
Motion:
The nature of suit states Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).
Star Markets owns and operates supermarkets.[CC]
STARCO BRANDS: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to July 18, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARREN RYAN an individual
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. STARCO
BRANDS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
5:24-cv-00642-SVK (N.D. Cal.), The Hon. Judge Susan Van Keulen
entered an order extending class certification deadlines:
1. Further Status Conference for remote appearance by all
counsel
currently set for Jan. 14, 2025 is continued to May 13, 2025
at
9:30 a.m.
2. Joint CMC Statement currently due by Jan. 7, 2025 is
extended
to May 6, 2025.
3. Motion for Class Certification currently due by March 21,
2025
is extended to July 18, 2025.
4. Oppositions to Motion for Class Certification, currently due
by
April 18, 2024 is extended to Aug. 15, 2025.
5. Replies re: Motion for Class Certification, currently due by
May 9, 2025 is extended to Sept. 4, 2025.
6. Motion for Class Certification Hearing currently set for June
24, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. is continued to Oct. 21, 2025 at
10:00
a.m.
Starco distributes consumer products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=etW9oo at no extra
charge.[CC]
STUDENT LOAN: Dawson Must File Class Cert Bid by Jan. 15, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROXANNE DAWSON, v. STUDENT
LOAN SOLUTIONS, LLC and ROACH & MURTHA ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.C., Case
No. 1:23-cv-09690-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil
entered an order as follows:
1. Plaintiff shall file a cover letter attaching the two pages
of
the document over which there is a privilege dispute and the
portion of the deposition transcript reflecting questions on
the
document by Oct. 25, 2024.
2. Defendant is permitted to file a letter regarding the above-
mentioned privilege dispute; however, it must be limited to
arguments that Defendant did not already make in prior
letters
to the Court or during the Oct. 22, 2024 conference.
3. Plaintiff shall propound the class discovery requests
outlined
in plaintiff's Nov. 27, 2024 motion to compel and discussed
during the conference today by Oct. 31, 2024.
4. Defendant shall produce answers and documents responsive to
Plaintiff's class-related requests by Nov. 29, 2024.
5. Plaintiff shall file its motion for summary judgment and
class
certification by Jan. 15, 2025.
6. Defendants shall file an opposition to Plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment and class certification and any affirmative
motion for summary judgment by Feb. 28, 2025.
7. Plaintiffs shall file a reply with respect to its own
affirmative motion for summary judgment and an opposition to
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment by March 19, 2025.
8. Defendant may file a reply only with respect to its own
affirmative motion for summary judgment by April 4, 2025.
Student Loan Solutions is a debt buying company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2Z2NRC at no extra
charge.[CC]
SUN ENERGY: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 25, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE v. SUN ENERGY
SERVICES LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-02155 (W.D. Pa., Filed Dec. 28,
2023), the Hon. Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand entered an order
-- The Defendant shall provide Plaintiff with Oct. 31, 2024
any remaining contact information for
putative Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
collective members on or before:
-- The deadline for Plaintiff to distribute Nov. 18, 2024
Court-approved notice and consent forms to
putative FLSA collective members is:
-- Phase 2 Discovery due by: April 7, 2025
-- Motion for Final Certification of FLSA April 25, 2025
Collective and Rule 23 Class Certification,
if any, due by:
Responses due by: May 16, 2025
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Sun Energy provides oilfield services.[CC]
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: FWK Seeks to Seal Portions of Memo
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FWK Holdings LLC et al.,
v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd., et al. (re Amitiza Antitrust
Litigation), Case No. 1:21-cv-11057-MJJ (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for leave to
file under seal portions of its Memorandum of Law in Support of its
Motion for Class Certification and the Declaration of Charles
Kopel.
Premera proposes that the order sealing the Memorandum of Law in
Support be lifted only upon further order of the Court, and that
the Memorandum of Law in Support be kept in the Clerk's non-public
information file during any post-impoundment period.
Takeda's counsel has assented to this motion.
On March 23, 2023, the Court entered the Stipulated Protective
Order
Takeda is a Japanese multinational pharmaceutical company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nAgsNe at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott J. Tucker, Esq.
William J. Fidurko, Esq.
TUCKER, O'CONNELL & FIDURKO, LLP
199 Wells Avenue
Newton, MA 02459
Telephone: (617) 986-6226
- and -
Peter D. St. Phillip, Esq.
Uriel Rabinovitz, Esq.
Renee Nolan, Esq.
Charles Kopel, Esq
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
E-mail: PStPhillip@lowey.com
URabinovitz@lowey.com
RNolan@lowey.com
CKopel@lowey.com
- and -
Courtney Finerty-Stelzner, Esq.
GETNICK & GETNICK LLP
521 Fifth Avenue, 33rd Floor
New York, NY 10175
Telephone: (212) 376-5666
E-mail: cfinertystelzner@getnicklaw.com
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: FWK Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FWK Holdings LLC et al.,
v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd. et al. (RE AMITIZA ANTITRUST
LITIGATION), Case No. 1:21-cv-11057-MJJ (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order:
(1) certifying a Damages Class and an Unjust Enrichment Class;
(2) appointing Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. as Lead Class Counsel;
(3) designating Premera Blue Cross as Class Representative; and
(4) granting such other and further relief as the Court deems
just
and proper.
Takeda is a Japanese multinational pharmaceutical company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QrRIaZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
Peter D. St. Phillip, Esq.
Uriel Rabinovitz, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
E-mail: PStPhillip@lowey.com
URabinovitz@lowey.com
- and -
Scott J. Tucker, Esq.
William J. Fidurko, Esq.
TUCKER, DYER & O'CONNELL, LLP
199 Wells Avenue
Newton, MA 02459
Telephone: (617) 986-6226
- and -
Renee Nolan, Esq.
Charles Kopel, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
100 Front Street, Suite 520
W. Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (215) 399-4770
E-mail: RNolan@lowey.com
CKopel@lowey.com
- and -
Courtney Finerty-Stelzner, Esq.
GETNICK & GETNICK LLP
521 Fifth Avenue, 33rd Floor
New York, NY 10175
Telephone: (212) 376-5666
E-mail: cfinertystelzner@getnicklaw.com
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Premera Seeks to Certify Two Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Premera Blue Cross, v.
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited et al. (RE AMITIZA ANTITRUST
LITIGATION), Case No. 1:23-cv-12918-MJJ (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:
(1) certifying a Damages Class and an Unjust Enrichment Class;
(2) appointing Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. as Lead Class Counsel;
(3) designating Premera Blue Cross as Class Representative; and
(4) granting such other and further relief as the Court deems
just
and proper.
Takeda is a Japanese multinational pharmaceutical company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oWJv73 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Peter D. St. Phillip, Esq.
Uriel Rabinovitz, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
E-mail: PStPhillip@lowey.com
URabinovitz@lowey.com
- and -
Scott J. Tucker, Esq.
William J. Fidurko, Esq.
TUCKER, DYER & O'CONNELL, LLP
199 Wells Avenue
Newton, MA 02459
Telephone: (617) 986-6226
- and -
Renee Nolan, Esq.
Charles Kopel, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
100 Front Street, Suite 520
W. Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (215) 399-4770
E-mail: RNolan@lowey.com
CKopel@lowey.com
- and -
Courtney Finerty-Stelzner, Esq.
GETNICK & GETNICK LLP
521 Fifth Avenue, 33rd Floor
New York, NY 10175
Telephone: (212) 376-5666
E-mail: cfinertystelzner@getnicklaw.com
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Premera Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Memo
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Premera Blue Cross v.
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, et al. (re Amitiza Antitrust
Litigation), Case No. 1:23-cv-12918-MJJ (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for leave to
file under seal portions of its Memorandum of Law in Support of its
Motion for Class Certification and the Declaration of Charles
Kopel.
Premera proposes that the order sealing the Memorandum of Law in
Support be lifted only upon further order of the Court, and that
the Memorandum of Law in Support be kept in the Clerk's non-public
information file during any post-impoundment period.
On March 23, 2023, the Court entered the Stipulated Protective
Order.
Takeda is a Japanese multinational pharmaceutical company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Oc7XEt at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott J. Tucker, Esq.
William J. Fidurko, Esq.
TUCKER, O'CONNELL & FIDURKO, LLP
199 Wells Avenue
Newton, MA 02459
Telephone: (617) 986-6226
- and -
Peter D. St. Phillip, Esq.
Uriel Rabinovitz, Esq.
Renee Nolan, Esq.
Charles Kopel, Esq
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
E-mail: PStPhillip@lowey.com
URabinovitz@lowey.com
RNolan@lowey.com
CKopel@lowey.com
- and -
Courtney Finerty-Stelzner, Esq.
GETNICK & GETNICK LLP
521 Fifth Avenue, 33rd Floor
New York, NY 10175
Telephone: (212) 376-5666
E-mail: cfinertystelzner@getnicklaw.com
TITAN TACTICAL: Farr Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reginald Farr, and others similarly situated v. TITAN TACTICAL
SECURITY, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-11041 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 28, 2024),
is brought seeking to redress for Defendant's violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law
("IMWL"), and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act
("IWPCA"), for Defendant's failure to pay wages, minimum wage, and
final compensation to Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff routinely worked 40 hours or less in a work week for
an hourly rate of $17.00. the Defendant pays its employees on a
bi-weekly basis. The Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff any of his
earned wages from July 5, 2024 to July 23, 2024. In other words,
during this time period, Defendant would not pay Plaintiff his
agreed upon pay rate for all hours worked.
As a result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff suffered and
continues to suffer the following damages: unpaid wages, loss of
employment, loss of income, loss of employment benefits, mental
anguish, emotional distress, humiliation, financial distress, and
loss of enjoyment of life, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Security Guard
(non-exempt employee) from July 5, 2024 through July 23, 2024.
The Defendant is a limited liability company that provides
businesses with security services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8180
Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
TRANSDEV SERVICES: Hill Suit Removed from State Ct. to W.D. Wash.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY HILL, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TRANSDEV
SERVICES, INC., a Maryland Corporation; TRANSDEV NORTH AMERICA,
INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, as yet unknown
Washington entities, Case No. 24-2-21752-5 (Filed Sept. 24, 2024),
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in
and for the County of King to the United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington on Oct. 24, 2024.
The Western Washington District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-01742 to the proceeding.
The suit alleges violation of Washington's Equal Pay and
Opportunities Act.
The Plaintiff brings this case as a class action against the
Defendants on behalf of the Class defined as follows:
"All individuals who, from Jan. 1, 2023, through the date
notice is provided to the Class, applied for a job opening in
the State of Washington with Transdev Services, Inc. or
Transdev North America, Inc. where the job posting did not
disclose a wage scale or salary range."
Excluded from the Class are the Defendants and Defendants'
officers, directors, and independent contractors, and any judge
to whom this case is assigned, as well as his or her staff and
immediate family.
Transdev Services provides passenger transportation services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq.
Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 682-5600
Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
E-mail: rsolomon@tousley.com
kstephens@tousley.com
- and -
Timothy W. Emery, Esq.
Patrick B. Reddy, Esq.
Paul Cipriani, Jr., Esq.
EMERY REDDY, PLLC
600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 442-9106
Facsimile: (206) 441-9711
E-mail: emeryt@emeryreddy.com
reddyp@emeryreddy.com
paul@emeryreddy.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Benjamin W. Lance, Esq.
SCHLEMLEIN FICK & FRANKLIN PLLC
66 S. Hanford St., Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98134
Telephone: (206) 448-8100
Facsimile: (206) 448-8514
E-mail: bwl@soslaw.com
UNITED GROUND: Faces Abbas Employment Suit in Cal. State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Ground
Express, Inc. The case is captioned as ALI ABBAS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNITED GROUND
EXPRESS, INC., Case No. CIVSB2427264 (Cal. Super., San Bernardino
Cty., September 9, 2024).
The suit is brought over the Defendant's alleged employment
violation.
United Ground Express, Inc. is a provider of a variety of airport
services doing business in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William C. Sung, Esq.
JUSTICE FOR WORKERS, P.C.
3600 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1815
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (323) 922-2000
Email: william@justiceforworkers.com
UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO: Sealing of Class Cert Document Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2,
JOHN DOE 3, JOHN DOE 4, JOHN DOE 5, JOHN DOE 6, JOHN DOE 7, JOHN
DOE 8, JOHN DOE 9, JOHN DOE 10, JOHN DOE 11, and JOHN DOE 12, DOE
13, DOE 14 individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. THE UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ANTHONY N. (AKA
NINO) GIARRATANO, and TROY NAKAMURA, Case No. 3:22-cv-01559-LB
(N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
granting administrative motion to consider whether another party's
material should be sealed.
Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5(f), the Plaintiffs move
to consider whether the portions of the concurrently filed Joint
Discovery Letter Brief Concerning the Relevant Time Period and
Scope of Production of Two Categories of Documents Relevant to
Class Certification and the supporting Declaration of Jessica A.
Moldovan should be sealed.
These documents quote from materials from the Giarratano-USF
arbitration and USF requests to have any such quotes, and
information derived from these materials, sealed and redacted in
the public version.
Information derived from other documents that USF produced and
marked confidential pursuant to the protective order in this case
has also been redacted.
The Plaintiffs do not agree that any of these documents meet the
standard for sealing and have put forth their position as to the
arbitration materials at ECF No. 243. Accordingly, USF's request to
seal these materials should be denied.
University of San Francisco is a private Jesuit university in San
Francisco, California.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cQ0BFA at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan Selbin, Esq.
Michelle Lamy, Esq.
Jessica A. Moldovan, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com
mlamy@lchb.com
jmoldovan@lchb.com
- and -
Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
Michael Von Klemperer, Esq.
Lynn A. Ellenberger, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT LLC
150 S. Wacker Drive, 24th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 741-1019
Facsimile: (312) 264-0100
E-mail: beth@feganscott.com
mike@feganscott.com
lynn@feganscott.com
VIRGIN GALACTIC: Parties Seeks to Modify Class Cert Briefing
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lavin v. Virgin Galactic
Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-03070-ARR-TAM (E.D.N.Y.),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order modifying discovery
plan and class certification briefing.
Specifically, with the Parties' agreement to extend fact discovery
by approximately three months, we jointly propose new dates for
class certification briefing to provide both parties sufficient
time to conduct the necessary class certification discovery and
prepare their respective filings. The Parties thank the Court for
its consideration to this matter.
Virgin is a British-American spaceflight company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yNhfNp at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kara M. Wolke, Esq.
Ex Kano S. Sams II, Esq.
Natalie S. Pang, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
E-mail: kwolke@glancylaw.com
esams@glancylaw.com
npang@glancylaw.com
- and -
Jonathan Horne, Esq.
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
E-mail: jhorne@rosenlegal.com
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Kevin M. McDonough, Esq.
Corey A. Calabrese, Esq.
Michele D. Johnson, Esq.
Kristin N. Murphy, Esq.
Ryan A. Walsh, Esq.
Colleen Smith, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
1271 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 906-1200
E-mail: kevin.mcdonough@lw.com
corey.calabrese@lw.com
michele.johnson@lw.com
kristin.murphy@lw.com
colleen.smith@lw.com
VK SERVICES: Alexander Files Suit in Tenn. Judicial Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against VK Services, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Denise Alexander, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. VK Services, LLC; Anita Sands; Dmitri
Shklovsky; Enrico Gaglioti; Khosla Ventures SPAC Sponsor II LLC;
Khosla Ventures SPAC Sponsor Services, LLC; Khosla Ventures, LLC;
Michael Doyle; Nextdoor Holdings, Inc.; Nextdoor, Inc.; Peter
Buckland; Samir Kaul; Sarah Friar; SK SPAC Services, LLC; Vinod
Khosla; Case No. 2024-1096-LWW (Del. Chancery Ct., Oct. 28, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Civil Action."
Vk Services LLC is a domestic entity serving as Managing Member for
Khosla Ventures, LLC, a venture capital company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tiffany Geyer Lydon, Esq.
ASHBY & GEDDES
PO Box 1150
Wilmington, DE 19899
phone: (302) 654-1888
Email: tlydon@ashbygeddes.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Class Settlement in Fiscina Suit Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW FISCINA and HANS
CHOE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., a New Jersey Corporation, d/b/a
AUDI OF AMERICA, INC., VOLKSWAGEN AG, a German Corporation, and
AUDI AG, a German Corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-05875-ES-LDW
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Esther Salas entered an order granting
final approval of the class settlement and all of the terms and
provisions of the Settlement Agreement.
-- The Court certifies, for Settlement purposes only, the proposed
Settlement Class set forth in the Settlement Agreement and in
the
Preliminary Approval Order (ECF No. 38). The Court finds that,
for
the purposes of Settlement, the applicable prerequisites for
certification of the proposed Settlement Class under Fed. R.
Civ.
P 23(a) and 23(b)(3) are satisfied.
-- The Court hereby grants final approval and appointment of
Plaintiffs Andrew Fiscina and Hans Chose as Representatives of
the
Settlement Class.
-- The Court certifies, for the purpose of settlement, the
following
Settlement Class consisting of:
"All persons and entities who purchased or leased, in the
United
States or Puerto Rico, specific model year 2013- 2018 Audi A6,
A7
and A8 vehicles, model year 2013-2017 Audi Q5 and Audi S5
(Cabrio
and Coupe) vehicles, model year 2013-2015 and 2017-2019 Audi Q7
vehicles, model year 2013-2016 Audi S4 vehicles, and model year
2014- 2017 Audi SQ5 vehicles, that are equipped with the EA837
and
EA837 evo engines and specifically designated by Vehicle
Identification Number (VIN) in Exhibit 4 to the Settlement
Agreement, which were imported and distributed by Defendant
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. for sale or lease in the
United
States and Puerto Rico."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (a) all Judges who have
presided over the Action and their spouses; (b) all current
employees, officers, directors, agents and representatives of
Defendants, and their family members; (c) any affiliate, parent
or
subsidiary of Defendants and any entity in which Defendants
have a
controlling interest; (d) anyone acting as a used car dealer;
(e)
anyone who purchased a Settlement Class Vehicle for the purpose
of
commercial resale; (f) anyone who purchased a Settlement Class
Vehicle with salvaged title and/or any insurance company who
acquired a Settlement Class Vehicle as a result of a total
loss;
(g) any insurer of a Settlement Class Vehicle; (i) issuers of
extended vehicle warranties and service contracts; (i) any
Settlement Class Member who, prior to the date of the
Settlement
Agreement, settled with and released Defendants or any Released
Parties from any Released Claims; and (j) the eighteen (18)
Settlement Class Members who filed timely and proper Requests
for
Exclusion from the Settlement Class reflected in Exhibit A.
Volkswagen Group of America is the North American operational
headquarters, and subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group of automobile
companies of Germany.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=61mn8J at no extra
charge.[CC]
WCC EVERGREEN: Hubbard Sues Over Refusal to Include Wage Scale
--------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Hubbard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WCC EVERGREEN HEALTHCARE, LLC, a Washington limited
liability company; WCC OPERATOR, LLC d/b/a WASHINGTON CARE CENTER,
a Washington limited liability company; EVERGREEN HEALTHCARE GROUP,
LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company; and DOES 1-20, as yet
unknown Washington entities, Case No. 24-2-21409-7 SEA (Wash.
Super. Ct., King Cty., Sept. 20, 2024), is brought to remedy
Defendants' ongoing violation of Plaintiff and the Class members'
civil rights and to address Defendants' refusal to include a wage
scale or salary range in their job postings, and statutory damages
pursuant to.
Effective January 1, 2023, employers with 15 or more employees must
disclose, in each posting for each job opening, the wage scale or
salary range and a general description of all of the benefits and
other compensation being offered to the hired applicant.
This lawsuit follows important, recent research which revealed
pervasive pay disparity in Washington with respect to both women
and other protected classes. In particular, the study found that
women are paid 78 cents for every dollar paid to men--a decline
from 80 cents to the dollar a decade ago.
This is a class action on behalf of individuals who applied to job
openings with the Defendants where the job postings did not include
the wage scale or salary range being offered in direct violation of
RCW, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff applied for a position with Defendants in the State
of Washington.
WCC Evergreen Healthcare, LLC is a Washington limited liability
company that regularly transacts business in King County,
Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy W. Emery, Esq.
Patrick B. Reddy, Esq.
Paul Cipriani, Esq.
EMERY REDDY, PLLC
600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 442-9106
Fax: (206) 441-9711
Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com
reddyp@emeryreddy.com
paul@emeryreddy.com
- and -
Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq.
Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 682-5600
Fax: (206) 682-2992
Email: rsolomon@tousley.com
kstephens@tousley.com
WESCO DISTRIBUTION: Faces Wright Class Suit Over Job Postings
-------------------------------------------------------------
KATHERINE WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. WESCO DISTRIBUTION, INC, a foreign profit
corporation; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities,
Case No. 24-2-21041-5 SEA (Wash. Super., Sept. 17, 2024) is a class
action on behalf of individuals who applied to job openings with
the Defendant where the job postings did not include the wage scale
or salary range being offered in direct violation of RCW
49.58.110.
From Jan. 1, 2023, to the present, the Plaintiff and more than 40
Class members applied to job openings with the Defendant for
positions located in Washington where the postings did not disclose
the wage scale or salary range being offered. Despite RCW 49.58.110
becoming effective Jan. 1, 2023, the Defendant continues to
withhold pay information in some, if not all, of its job postings
for Washington-based positions. As of the date of this filing, the
Defendant continues to employ discriminatory hiring practices as a
result of its ongoing refusal to comply with RCW 49.58.110, the
suit alleges.
On May 29, 2024, the Plaintiff applied for a job opening in King
County, Washington with the Defendant. The Plaintiff was qualified
to perform the position for which she applied. The posting for the
job opening Plaintiff applied to did not disclose the wage scale or
salary range being offered.
The Plaintiff and the Class seek injunctive relief to address
Defendant's refusal to include a wage scale or salary range in its
job postings, and statutory damages pursuant to RCW 49.58.070 and
RCW 49.58.110.
Plaintiff Katherine Wright resides in King County, Washington and
applied for a position with Defendant in the State of Washington.
Wesco Distribution is a leading distributor of electrical and
industrial supplies, power distribution equipment, lighting and
lighting control systems.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy W. Emery, Esq.
Patrick B. Reddy, Esq.
Paul Cipriani, Esq.
Hannah M. Hamley, Esq.
EMERY REDDY, PLLC
600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 442-9106
Facsimile: (206) 441-9711
E-mail: emeryt@emeryreddy.com
reddyp@emeryreddy.com
paul@emeryreddy.com
hannah@emeryreddy.com
WESTFIELD, MA: Clark Files Contract Suit in Mass. State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Westfield.
The case is captioned as JOSEPH CLARK, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. CITY OF WESTFIELD, Case No.
2479CV00521 (Mass. Super., Hampden Cty., September 9, 2024).
The suit is brought over the Defendant's alleged contract
violation.
City of Westfield is a city government in Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chelsea Kim Choi, Esq.
Jeffrey Morneau, Esq.
CONNOR AND MORNEAU, LLP
273 State St., 2nd Floor
Springfield, MA 01103
Telephone: (413)455-1730
WIRELESS VISION: Court Remands Cruz Labor Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Rolando Cruz v. Wireless Vision Holdings
LLC et al, Case No.: 2:24-cv-07027-AB-RAO (C.D. Calif.), the
Honorable ANDRE BIROTTE JR. of the United States District Court for
the District of California granted the plaintiff's motion for
remand.
Plaintiff filed this putative class action in state court, alleging
seven claims for violations of the California Labor Code, a claim
for violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200, and a claim
under the Private Attorneys General Act. Defendant removed,
invoking the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d)(2).
Plaintiff now moves for remand, arguing that Defendant did not
establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in
controversy exceeds $5 million.
With its Notice of Removal, Defendant filed declarations
estimating, based on its records, the number of employees in the
classes, the numbers of work weeks in issue, average hourly rates,
and other data necessary to calculate the amounts in controversy.
Defendant contends that Plaintiff's allegations that it has a
policy and practice of violating California law justify assuming
the following violation rates: one unpaid hour of overtime per
week; 20% meal period violation rate; 20% rest period violation
rate; and 100% waiting time penalty violation rate. Defendant
characterizes the first three rates as conservative.
Plaintiff attacks Defendant's estimates on several grounds. The
Court accepts that Defendant's underlying employment data is
sufficiently accurate and assumes, without deciding, that
Defendant's proposed violation rates for the overtime claim (1
violation/week) and meal period and rest break claims (20%
violation rate) are reasonable.
However, for Plaintiff's waiting time penalty claim, Defendant's
assumption of a 100% violation rate and a maximum 30-pay penalty is
insufficiently supported. Defendant does not adequately support its
use of a 100% violation rate for this claim, the Court finds. It
says, Defendant's assumptions are not adequately supported, so its
$4,642,092 estimate is not a reliable figure to include in the
amount in controversy.
According to the Court, entirely disregarding the $4.6 million
attributed to the Sec. 203 claim, the amount in controversy is
plainly not satisfied. But even if waiting time penalties accrued
for half of the maximum duration -- 15 days -- or for 50% of the
class, that would reduce the amount in controversy for this claim
by half, that is, by $2,321,026, to $3,669,834. A 25% attorneys'
fee recovery would add another $917,458 to the amount, for a total
of $4,587,292, which remains below $5 million, the Court notes.
The Court therefore concludes that Defendant has not met its burden
of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount
in controversy exceeds $5 million. Therefore, Defendant has not
established that the Court may exercise subject matter jurisdiction
under CAFA. The Court concludes it lacks jurisdiction.
A copy of the Court's Order dated October 22, 2024, is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2u1llM
ZURICH AMERICAN: Hale Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kystal Hale, as an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24CV015938 was removed
from the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
on Sept. 20, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02554-CKD.
The Complaint alleges four wage-and-hour class action causes of
action against Zurich for allegedly "failing to pay overtime wages,
in violation of Labor Code; failing to provide accurate itemized
wage statements, in violation of Labor Code; failing to reimburse
employees for all work-related expenses, in violation of Labor
Code; and engaging in unfair business practices in violation of
Business and Professions Code, the California Labor Code, and the
applicable IWC Wage Orders."[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Noah A. Finkel, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
Chicago, IL 60606-6448
Phone: (312) 460-5913
Facsimile: (312) 460-7913
Email: nfinkel@seyfarth.com
- and -
Phillip J Ebsworth, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Nordlander, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 498-7012
Facsimile: (916) 288-6313
Email: pebsworth@seyfarth.com
jnordlander@seyfarth.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***