/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241106.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, November 6, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 223
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Baxley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Brewer Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Highberg Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Holland Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Kinard Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Kolodziejski Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Letzelter Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Meloling Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Sams Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
A&A SERVICES: Appointment of Interim Class Counsel in Geerhart OK'd
A&A SERVICES: Appointment of Interim Class Counsel in Krueger OK'd
A&A SERVICES: Appointment of Interim Class Counsel in Moser OK'd
A&A SERVICES: Appointment of Interim Class Counsel in Pennell OK'd
A&A SERVICES: Appointment of Interim Class Counsel in Prestby OK'd
ADT INC: Sakande Files Suit Over Data Breach
AMERICAN WATER: Fails to Protect Confidential Info, Lawson Says
AMPIO PHARMA: $3MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Feb. 19
BANNER HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 29, 2025
BECHTEL GLOBAL: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Certification
BENCHMARK SERVICES: Plaintiff Must Complete Discovery by Nov. 29
BON SECOURS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Lausche Says
BOSTON CHILDREN'S: Ougrin Balks at Illegal Personal Info Access
CARAWAY HOME: Sends Unwanted Text Messages, Figueroa Suit Says
COMMUNITY INTEGRATED: Faces Lumsey Class Suit in Cal. Super.
EQUIFAX WORKFORCE: St. Louis Balks at Unlawful Service Fee Increase
EXPRESS SERVICES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Lunsford Says
HEIDI WASHINGTON: Smith Seeks to Certify Class of Jewish Prisoners
KRAFT HEINZ: Products Contain Artificial Ingredient, Jefferson Says
LATE BLOOMERS: Igartua Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
LEHIGH VALLEY: Mismanaged Savings Plan, Kiskeravage Suit Says
MAXIM INTERNATIONAL: Chor Ling Ma Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
NOMINAL LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Miller Says
SECURIX LLC: Filing for Conditional Status Due Feb. 18, 2025
STANLEY CHAO: Faces Jones Class Suit Over Illegal Lending Schemes
TAYLOR, MI: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Response
TONY THOMPSON: Roberts Seeks to Extend Class Cert Deadline
TRON FOUNDATION: Court Narrows Claims in Hardin Suit
TWITTER INC: Seeks to Redact Portions of Exhibits in Schobinger
UNION SECURITY: Lewis-Abdulhaadi Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
UNITED PARKS: Marks Suit Removed from State Court to S.D. Cal.
VARSITY BRANDS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, London Suit Says
VIRGIN GALACTIC: Must File Opposition to Class Cert. Bid by Dec. 6
VISA INC: Monopolizes Debit Network Markets, Kevranian Alleges
WOODSTREAM CORP: Notice of Response OK'd in Maroney Class Suit
YARDI SYSTEMS: Faces Joseph Suit Over Unlawful Use of Names
*********
3M COMPANY: Baxley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Ryan Baxley, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY,
f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co..; AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA,
INC. individually and as successor-in-interest to Atofina S.A.;
BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to
Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, individually and as
successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as
successor-in-interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation; CORTEVA,
INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS
INC, f/k/a Dowdupont Inc., individually and as
successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, individually
and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions
Enterprise; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,
individually and as successor-in-interest to Angus Fire Armour
Corporation; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as
successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; TYCO
FIRE PRODUCTS LP, individually and as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Case No.
2:24-cv-06201-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 28, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injury and wrongful death resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS bind 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
as a civilian firefighter at multiple sites located throughout
Carthage, North Carolina and was diagnosed with Thyroid Disease as
a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS.
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:
Gary K. Shipman, Esq.
William G. Wright, Esq.
SHIPMAN & WRIGHT, LLP
575 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 106
Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: 618-656-4400
Facsimile: 618-656-4401
Email: gshipman@shipmanlaw.com
wwright@shipmanlaw.com
3M COMPANY: Brewer Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Brewer, individually and as personal representative for
Decedent, David Edwin Tipton, 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.; 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.; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION;
SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P. 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-05212-RMG (D.S.C., Sept.
20, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting
from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and
firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF and 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 it where
it remains and persists over extended 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 remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of 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 seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during 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 and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter who was diagnosed
with Thyroid Disease 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:
Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq.
RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP
225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110
Atlanta, GA 30624
Phone: 404-381-2888
Email: buck@lawrsd.com
3M COMPANY: Highberg Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Highberg, executor of the estate of Walter Kaye Highberg, and
other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Co..; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC. individually and as
successor-in -interest to Atofina S.A.; BASF CORPORATION,
individually and as successor-in-interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont
Chemical Solutions Enterprise; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT
CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to Sandoz
Chemical Corporation; CORTEVA, INC., individually and as
successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise;
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC, f/k/a Dowdupont
Inc., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont
Chemical Solutions Enterprise; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to
Angus Fire Armour Corporation; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually
and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions
Enterprise; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, individually and as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:24-cv-06204-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 28,
2024), is brought for damages for personal injury and wrongful
death resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per
and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS bind 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 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
as a civilian firefighter at multiple sites located throughout
Washington state and was diagnosed with and died from kidney cancer
as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products containing
PFAS.
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: Holland Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Holland, 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-05059-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 13, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist
biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in
people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air,
and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire
suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to
extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS,
PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are man-made compounds that are
persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the
environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and
safety. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals.
Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the
human body while presenting significant health risks to humans.
Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required
to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades
by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in
training and in response to Class B fires.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff,
and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate
for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing,
reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in
connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as
a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive,
equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training during the Plaintiff's service in the United
States Air Force.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone (305) 375-0111
Email: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
james@ferrarolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Kinard Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Kinard, 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-05065-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: Kolodziejski Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Kolodziejski, 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-05095-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 13,
2024), is brought for damages for personal injuries resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist
biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in
people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air,
and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire
suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to
extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS,
PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are man-made compounds that are
persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the
environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and
safety. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals.
Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the
human body while presenting significant health risks to humans.
Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required
to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades
by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in
training and in response to Class B fires.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff,
and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate
for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing,
reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in
connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as
a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive,
equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training during the Plaintiff's service in the United
States Air Force.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 375-0111
Email: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
james@ferrarolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Letzelter Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Letzelter, 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-06077-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
3M COMPANY: Meloling Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence John Meloling, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY,
f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co..; AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA,
INC. individually and as successor-in-interest to Atofina S.A.;
BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to
Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, individually and as
successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as
successor-in-interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation; CORTEVA,
INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS
INC, f/k/a Dowdupont Inc., individually and as
successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, individually
and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions
Enterprise; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,
individually and as successor-in-interest to Angus Fire Armour
Corporation; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as
successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; TYCO
FIRE PRODUCTS LP, individually and as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Case No.
2:24-cv-06200-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 28, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injury and wrongful death resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS bind 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
as a civilian firefighter at multiple sites located throughout the
Caughdenoy, New York area and was diagnosed with bladder cancer and
thyroid disease as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products containing PFAS.
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:
Gary K. Shipman, Esq.
William G. Wright, Esq.
SHIPMAN & WRIGHT, LLP
575 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 106
Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: 618-656-4400
Facsimile: 618-656-4401
Email: gshipman@shipmanlaw.com
wwright@shipmanlaw.com
3M COMPANY: Sams Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Sams, 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-05209-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 liver cancer, thyroid disease, 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
A&A SERVICES: Appointment of Interim Class Counsel in Geerhart OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Geerhart v. A&A Services,
LLC (Re: SAV-RX Data Breach Litigation), Case No. 8:24-CV-00261 (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=onVUWD at no extra
charge.[CC]
A&A SERVICES: Appointment of Interim Class Counsel in Krueger OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Krueger v. A&A Services,
LLC (Re: SAV-RX Data Breach Litigation), Case No. 8:24-CV-00206 (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=PcRNL3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
A&A SERVICES: Appointment of Interim Class Counsel in Moser OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Moser v. A&A Services, LLC
(Re: SAV-RX Data Breach Litigation), Case No. 8:24-CV-00215 (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=5paBrC at no extra
charge.[CC]
A&A SERVICES: Appointment of Interim Class Counsel in Pennell OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pennell v. A&A Services,
LLC (Re: SAV-RX Data Breach Litigation), Case No. 8:24-CV-00210 (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=S14Hwe at no extra
charge.[CC]
A&A SERVICES: Appointment of Interim Class Counsel in Prestby OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Prestby, et al., v. A&A
Services, LLC (Re: SAV-RX Data Breach Litigation), Case No.
8:24-CV-00204 (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=LPP8NX at no extra
charge.[CC]
ADT INC: Sakande Files Suit Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------
MOHAMADI SAKANDE, on behalf of himself individually and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADT INC., Defendant, Case No.
CACE-24-015018 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., October 18,
2024) arises from a recent cyberattack resulting in a data breach
of personally identifying information (PII) in the possession and
custody and/or control of Defendant.
According to the complaint, the data breach resulted in
unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, and theft of current and
former employees' PII. The Defendant's failure to timely detect and
report the data breach made its employees vulnerable to identity
theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or
credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their PII. In failing
to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII, failing
to adequately notify them about the breach, and by obfuscating the
nature of the breach, the Defendant violated state and federal law
and harmed thousands of its current and former employees, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendant from October 2021
until August 2022. As a condition of receiving employment with
Defendant, the Plaintiff provided Defendant with his PII.
ADT Inc. provides security, interactive, and smart home solutions
to residential and small business customers in the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Telephone: (954) 332-4200
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
cardoso@kolawyers.com
- and -
Gerard Stranch, Esq.
Grayson Wells, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37303
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
gwells@stranchlaw.com
AMERICAN WATER: Fails to Protect Confidential Info, Lawson Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA LAWSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN WATER WORKS COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-09955 (D.N.J., October 21, 2024) arises
from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard
Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information
(PII) and financial information stored within Defendant's
information network.
On October 3, 2024, unauthorized third-party cybercriminals gained
access to Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII as hosted with
Defendant, with the alleged intent of engaging in the misuse of the
PII, including marketing and selling Plaintiff's and Class Members'
PII.
According to the complaint, the Defendant disregarded the rights of
Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully,
recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate
and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiff's and Class
Members' PII was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to
prevent unauthorized disclosure of customers' data.
As a result, the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised
through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party -- an
undoubtedly nefarious third party that seeks to profit off this
disclosure by defrauding Plaintiff and Class Members in the future.
The Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing interest in
ensuring that their information is and remains safe, and they are
thus entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief, says the
suit.
American Water Works Company, Inc. is a New Jersey-based water and
wastewater utility company that provides essential water and
wastewater services to more than 14 million people across 14
states.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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
AMPIO PHARMA: $3MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Feb. 19
----------------------------------------------------------
To: All Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Ampio
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s ("Ampio") common stock between December 29,
2020, and August 2, 2022, inclusive, and who suffered damages
thereby ("Settlement Class").
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Ampio Pharmaceuticals
Securities Settlement Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado, that Tao Wang and SynWorld Technologies
Corporation, Lead Plaintiffs in the Action ("Lead Plaintiffs"), on
behalf of themselves and all members of the Settlement Class and
Defendants Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Ampio"), Michael A.
Martino, Holli Cherevka, Dan Stokely, David Bar-Or, Philip H.
Coelho, and Richard B. Giles (the "Defendants," and collectively
with Lead Plaintiffs, the "Parties"), have reached a proposed
settlement of the claims in the Action in the amount of $3,000,000
(the "Settlement").
A hearing will be held before the Honorable William J. Martinez, on
February 19, 2025, at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom A801 of the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado, at the Alfred
A. Arraj Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, CO 80294 (the
"Settlement Hearing") to, among other things, determine whether the
Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as
provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated May
13, 2024; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for
distribution of with the instructions set forth in the Notice such
that the settlement funds available for distribution to Settlement
Class Members (the "Net Settlement Fund"); and (iv) approve Lead
Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court may change the
date of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it telephonically, without
providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement
Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A
MONETARY PAYMENT. You may obtain copies of the Notice and Proof of
Claim Form by visiting the website of the Claims Administrator,
www.AmpioSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by contacting the Claims
Administrator at:
Ampio Pharmaceuticals Securities Settlement
P.O. Box 25226, Santa Ana, CA, 92799
info@AmpioSecuritiesSettlement.com
1-833-602-5027
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice/Claim Form or for
information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead
Counsel: James M. Wilson, Jr., FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP, 685 Third
Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY 10017. Telephone: 212-983-9330;
Facsimile: 212-983-9331; Email: jwilson@farugqilaw.com
If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked or submitted electronically no later than
January 13, 2025. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not
timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share
in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will
nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the
Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or
unfavorable.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for
exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice such that it is received no later than January 29, 2025. If
you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will
not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court
relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and
you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Lead Counsel's Fee and
Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be
filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed o
counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the
Notice, such that they are received no later than January 29, 2025.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS'
COUNSEL, REGARDING THIS NOTICE.
1-833-602-5027
www.AmpioSecuritiesSettlement.com
BANNER HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 29, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------
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 a scheduling order as follows:
-- All fact discovery related to class July 3, 2025
certification shall be completed
no later than:
-- All fact discovery related to the Feb. 6, 2026
merits shall be completed1 no later
than:
-- The parties shall disclose initial July 18, 2025
experts and produce reports related
to class certification in accordance
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(a)(2) on or before:
-- The Plaintiff's motion for class Aug. 29, 2025
certification, shall be filed on or
before:
-- The final pretrial conference is set for: Sept. 10, 2026
-- A jury trial is set for: Nov. 2, 2026
Banner is a non-profit health system in the United States, based in
Phoenix, Arizona.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bt1DU3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
BECHTEL GLOBAL: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBRA D. HANIGAN,
individually, and a representative of a Class of Participants and
Beneficiaries of the Bechtel Trust & Thrift Plan, v. BECHTEL GLOBAL
CORPORATION, BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF BECHTEL GLOBAL CORPORATION, and
BECHTEL TRUST & THRIFT PLAN COMMITTEE, Case No.
1:24-cv-00875-AJT-LRV (E.D. Va.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order granting their joint motion for extension of time to
file class certification briefing.
In line with the time intervals set by Judge Valaa's Scheduling
Order, the parties request that:
-- Plaintiff's motion for class certification be due on Nov. 15,
2024;
-- Defendants' Opposition to the Motion for Class Certification be
due on Dec. 6, 2024; and
-- Plaintiff's Reply in Support of the Motion for Class
Certification be due on Dec. 20, 2024.
The Plaintiff filed her initial Complaint on May 24, 2024. The
Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a
Claim on July 23, 2024.
In response, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Aug. 6,
2024. On Oct. 18, 2024, the Court issued an Opinion and Order
dismissing Plaintiff's Amended Complaint with leave to file a
second amended complaint within 15 days of the order.
Bechtel is an American engineering, procurement, construction, and
project management company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 24, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=makvRi at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul M. Secunda, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (414) 828-2372
E-mail: psecunda@walcheskeluzi.com
- and -
Andrew L. Fitzgerald, Esq.
FITZGERALD LITIGATION
119 Brookstown Avenue, Suite 402
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Telephone: (336) 793-4365
E-mail: andy@fitzgeraldlitigation.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Matthew L. Riffee, Esq.
Alison V. Douglass, Esq.
James O. Fleckner, Esq.
Jordan Bock, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
1900 N Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 346-4000
E-mail: mriffee@goodwinlaw.com
adouglass@goodwinlaw.com
jfleckner@goodwinlaw.com
jbock@goodwinlaw.com
BENCHMARK SERVICES: Plaintiff Must Complete Discovery by Nov. 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUYEN FARRELL, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. BENCHMARK SERVICES,
LLC, and DOE CORP. UTILITZING TELEPHONE NUMBERS (850) 373-4537.
(850) 676-9409, (954) 872-0058, (352) 662-0550, and (904) 901-8916,
Case No. 1:24-cv-04494-LDH-LB (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lois Bloom
entered an order extending the time to continue discovery as to
"SamFin Resources, LLC" and "Norman Velez" -- two of the entities
returned from its prior subpoenas.
The Plaintiff shall complete discovery by Nov. 29, 2024. Further
requests for extensions of time are unlikely to be granted. The
Plaintiff shall move to amend the complaint to include any newly
named defendants by Dec. 6, 2024.
The Plaintiff commenced this purported class action under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act against the Defendants.
On June 27, 2024 the Court granted plaintiff's motion for expedited
discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) to obtain
the true identity of the Doe Corp. defendant. Upon plaintiff's
request, the Clerk of Court noted entry of default against
defendant Benchmark Services, LLC.
On Oct. 9, 2024, plaintiff moved for an extension of time to
continue conducting discovery to identify the Doe Corp. defendant
and for leave to conduct discovery regarding class certification
and damages. The Court denied the request without prejudice and
ordered plaintiff to file a status letter stating what additional
discovery she intended to conduct to obtain the Doe Corp.
defendant's identity.
Benchmark is a professional forensic roof consulting and asset
management company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lEAtF3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
BON SECOURS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Lausche Says
--------------------------------------------------------
ALISON LAUSCHE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BON SECOURS MERCY HEALTH, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00594-DRC (S.D. Ohio, October 18, 2024) seeks to
hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused Plaintiff and
similarly situated customers as a result of the breach on
Defendant's computer network.
The Defendant recently detected suspicious activity on its Workday
test environment, indicating a data breach. Based on a subsequent
forensic investigation, BSMH determined that cybercriminals
infiltrated its Workday test environment and thereby gained
undetected access to certain BSMH's data files between April 10,
2024 and July 31, 2024.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's misconduct in failing
to implement adequate and reasonable measures to protect
Plaintiff's and Class members' personal information; failing to
timely detect the data breach; failing to take adequate steps to
prevent and stop the data breach; failing to disclose the material
fact that it did not have adequate security practices in place to
safeguard the personal information; and failing to provide timely
and adequate notice of the data breach, caused substantial harm and
injuries to Plaintiff and Class members across the United States.
Bon Secours Mercy Health, Inc. is one of the 20 largest health care
systems in the U.S. With 48 hospitals, thousands of providers, over
1,000 points of care and over 60,000 employees Bon Secours Mercy
Health serves communities across seven states.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 East Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com
- and -
A. Brooke Murphy, Esq.
MURPHY LAW FIRM
4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700
Oklahoma City, OK 73108
Telephone: (405) 389-4989
E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com
BOSTON CHILDREN'S: Ougrin Balks at Illegal Personal Info Access
---------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL OUGRIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BOSTON CHILDREN'S HEALTH PHYSICIANS, LLP and
THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL CORPORATION d/b/a BOSTON CHILDREN'S
HOSPITAL, Defendants, Case No. 7:24-cv-7938 (S.D.N.Y., October 18,
2024) seeks to hold Defendants responsible for the injuries
Defendants inflicted on Plaintiff and similarly situated persons
due to Defendants' impermissibly inadequate data security, which
caused personal information to be exfiltrated via unauthorized
access by cybercriminals on September 10, 2024.
According to the complaint, prior to and through the date of the
data breach, the Defendants obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members'
personal identifying information and personal health information
and then maintained that sensitive data in a negligent and/or
reckless manner. As evidenced by the data breach, the Defendants
inadequately maintained their network, platform, software, and
technology partners -- rendering these easy prey for
cybercriminals, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered -- and will continue
to suffer -- from the loss of the benefit of their bargain,
unexpected out-of-pocket expenses, lost or diminished value of
their PII and PHI, emotional distress, and the value of their time
reasonably incurred to mitigate the fallout of the data breach.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these injuries
on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals whose
PII and PHI were exfiltrated and compromised in the data breach.
Boston Children's Health Physicians, LLP is an affiliate hospital
of Boston Children's Hospital and part of BCH's network of
care.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randi Kassan, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 741-5600
E-mail: rkassan@milberg.com
- and -
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, PLLC
402 W Broadway, Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (858) 209-6941
E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com
- and -
Jean S. Martin, Esq.
Francesca K. Burne, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
E-mail: jeanmartin@ForThePeople.com
fburne@ForThePeople.com
CARAWAY HOME: Sends Unwanted Text Messages, Figueroa Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY FIGUEROA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARAWAY HOME, INC., Defendant,
Case No. CACE-24-015040 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty.,
October 18, 2024) is an action for injunctive and declaratory
relief, and damages for violations of the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant made text message sales
calls that promoted Caraway and violated the Caller ID Rules when
it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services in
a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone
calls.
Caraway Home, Inc. provides kitchenware products. The Company
offers cookware, linens, tea towels, oven mitts, pot holders,
apron, and other related products. Caraway Home serves customers
worldwide.[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
Telephone: (202) 709-5744
Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com
shawn@sjlawcollective.com
COMMUNITY INTEGRATED: Faces Lumsey Class Suit in Cal. Super.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Integrated
Work Program. The case is captioned as MIKYSHA M LUMSEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. COMMUNITY INTEGRATED WORK PROGRAM; and Does 1 – 50,
Case No. 24CV017964 (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Sept. 10, 2024).
The case is assigned to Judge Jill H. Talley.
Community Integrated Work Program, Inc. provides health care
services. The Company offers vocational training, employment,
business ownership, self advocacy, health maintenance, independent
living, and crisis intervention services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Hawkins, Esq.
James Hawkins APLC
9880 Research Dr.
Irvine, CA 92618
Tel: (949) 387-7200
EQUIFAX WORKFORCE: St. Louis Balks at Unlawful Service Fee Increase
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ST. LOUIS HOUSING AUTHORITY, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. EQUIFAX WORKFORCE
SOLUTIONS, formerly known as TALX CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-04755-SEG (N.D. Ga., October 18, 2024) is a class action
against Defendant for misleading the public, including the
Plaintiff and other clients, in respect of the cost of its
verification services.
The Defendant provides "The Work Number," an Equifax Verification
Service used to verify employment and income information about an
individual and various other services used to verify certain
Consumer information.
According to the complaint, the Defendant enters into contracts of
adhesion with its clients, many of which are government agencies
and other non-profit organizations, which ostensibly permit the
Defendant to raise the prices it charges for The Work Number
service, at will.
Moreover, the Defendant exercised its discretion under its contract
of adhesion with Class Members in an arbitrary manner, contrary to
parties' reasonable expectations, and in bad faith, and raised
prices under its contracts with Plaintiff and Class Members by at
least 300% in the span of several months. This conduct is unlawful,
and the price increases are of no force and effect, says the suit.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks damages, or, in the
alternative, rescission of the existing contracts, and restitution
of moneys paid pursuant to these contracts to Plaintiff and Class
Members, as well as declarations that the contracts are void and
the purported price increases are unenforceable.
Equifax Workforce Solutions operates The Work Number, a service
used by corporations, non-profits, and government agencies, to
verify employment and income information about an individual, and
provides other services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Ronald Podolny, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
ronald.podolny@ForThePeople.com
- and -
Gregory John Bosseler, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN PA
191 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 4200
Atlanta, GA 30303
E-mail: gbosseler@forthepeople.com
EXPRESS SERVICES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Lunsford Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTIN LUNSFORD, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals v. EXPRESS SERVICES, INC., Case No.
5:24-cv-01123-SLP (W.D. Okla., Oct. 25, 2024) is a class action
lawsuit against Express for its negligent failure to protect and
safeguard Plaintiff's and the Class's highly sensitive personally
identifiable information.
As a result of Express's negligence and insufficient data security,
cybercriminals easily infiltrated Defendant's inadequately
protected email accounts and stole the PII of Plaintiff and the
Class (the "Data Breach"). The Plaintiff's and the Class's PII is
in the hands of cybercriminals who will undoubtedly use their PII
for nefarious purposes for the rest of their lives, says the suit.
The total number of individuals impacted by the data breach has yet
to be disclosed but at least 5,941 Texas residents were impacted by
the Data Breach.
On September 13, 2024, Express filed a notice of data breach with
the Attorney General of Texas after discovering that an
unauthorized actor gained access to two (2) company email accounts
on June 21, 2024. In this notice, Express confirmed that during the
Data Breach an unauthorized actor accessed and copied sensitive
information. The PII stolen in the Data Breach included highly
sensitive private
information such as: names; Social Security numbers; driver’s
license numbers; financial information (e.g., account number,
credit or debit card number); medical information; and health
insurance information.
The Plaintiff Lunsford is an individual domiciled Bryan, Texas. The
Plaintiff received a Notice of Data Breach Letter from Express
dated September 13, 2024, notifying her that her Social Security
number was accessed and copied from Defendant's email accounts.
Express Services is a staffing company in the U.S. and Canada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William B. Federman, Esq.
Kennedy M. Brian, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
kpb@federmanlaw.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
HEIDI WASHINGTON: Smith Seeks to Certify Class of Jewish Prisoners
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Robert Smith, v.
Heidi Washington, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00638-SJB (W.D. Mich.),
the Court entered an order granting motion for class
certification.
The Plaintiff is a Jewish prisoner who is on the Men's Religious
Menu (MRN) which is provided at selected correctional facilities
operated by the Michigan Department of corrections (MDOC)
collectively.
Mr. Smith asserts the Jewish on the MRM are comprised of a class of
prisoners separate from other prisoners due to their sincerely held
religious beliefs and are so numerous as to make it impractical to
joinder them all.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 24, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2j1sXa at no extra
charge.[CC]
KRAFT HEINZ: Products Contain Artificial Ingredient, Jefferson Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MIKAL JEFFERSON, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY, LLC, Case No.
5:24-cv-02278 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 25, 2024)is a California consumer
class action for violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
Unfair Competition Law, and for breach of express warranty.
The suit contends that the Defendant violated the CLRA because the
Products were prominently advertised as containing "All Natural
Ingredients," but, in reality, the Products contain an artificial
ingredient called citric acid. The Defendant knew or should have
known that consumers would want to know that the Products contain
an artificial ingredient. The Defendant manufactures, distributes,
advertises, markets, and sells Capri-Sun beverage products. Each of
the Products are made with manufactured citric acid— an
artificial ingredient used in food and beverage products. The
Defendant's packaging, labeling, and advertising scheme is intended
to give consumers the impression that they are buying a premium
product that contains only natural ingredients, says the suit.
The Plaintiff, who purchased the Products in California, was
deceived by Defendant's unlawful conduct and brings this action on
her own behalf and on behalf of California consumers to remedy
Defendant's unlawful acts.
Kraft Heinz operates as a food and beverage company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
Craig W. Straub, Esq.
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (866) 276-7637
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
E-mail: mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com
craig@crosnerlegal.com
zach@crosnerlegal.com
LATE BLOOMERS: Igartua Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
JUAN IGARTUA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LATE BLOOMERS NYC, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-07966 (S.D.N.Y., October 18, 2024) is a civil action
against the Defendant for their failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website -- www.latebloomers-nyc.com -- to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights
Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State
Civil Rights Law.
The Plaintiff was injured when attempting to access Defendant's
website around October 10, 2024, from his home in New York County,
in an effort to search for and purchase Defendant's products and
services, including their edible products. Despite the website's
apparent thoroughness and transparency, the Plaintiff encountered
significant accessibility barriers that prevented her from fully
utilizing its services, when she attempted to access the site by
herself to discover crucial information regarding the presence of
any contraindications therein, says the suit.
The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so
that its eebsite will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Late Bloomers NYC LLC is a recreational dispensary in Flushing, New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
LEHIGH VALLEY: Mismanaged Savings Plan, Kiskeravage Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA KISKERAVAGE, ANDREA YACHERA, JUAN DOMINGUEZ, KEILYN
WILLIAMS, and KIM ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LEHIGH VALLEY HEALTH NETWORK,
INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF LEHIGH VALLEY HEALTH NETWORK, INC.,
THE EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE OF LEHIGH VALLEY HEALTH
NETWORK, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-30, Defendants, Case No.
5:24-cv-05567 (E.D. Pa., October 21, 2024) is a class action
brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
against the Lehigh Valley Health Network, Inc. 403(b) Plan Savings
Plan's fiduciaries, which include Lehigh the Company, Lehigh
Valley's Board of Directors and its members, and Lehigh Valley's
Executive Compensation Committee and its members during the Class
Period for breaches of their fiduciary duties.
According to the complaint, to safeguard plan participants and
beneficiaries, ERISA imposes strict fiduciary duties of loyalty and
prudence upon employers and other plan fiduciaries. At all times
during the Class Period, the Plan had over $500 million in assets
under management. At the Plan's fiscal year end in 2023 and 2022,
the Plan had over $1.1 billion and $900 million, respectively, in
assets under management that were/are entrusted to the care of the
Plan's fiduciaries.
The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period,
Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, breached the duties they
owed to the Plan, to Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of
the Plan by, inter alia, failing to control the Plan's
administrative and recordkeeping costs. The Defendants'
mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of participants and
beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duty of
prudence, say the Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants. During their employment,
they participated in the Plan paying the RKA costs associated with
their Plan accounts and were subject to the alleged excessive RKA
costs.
Lehigh Valley Health Network, Inc. is a healthcare subsidiary
company of Jefferson Health.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
James A. Maro, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
jamesm@capozziadler.com
MAXIM INTERNATIONAL: Chor Ling Ma Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
IRENE CHOR LING MA, BERNARD LAP SHUN LEUNG, TAK Y. CHAN, and ZHUO
ZHOU WU on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. MAXIM INTERNATIONAL GROUP INC. D/B/A ZEN RAMEN & SUSHI,
CELINA LIN, CINDY JIN, and JESSICA CHEN a/k/a JESSICA CHAN, Case
caption, Case No. 1:24-cv-07457 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2024) alleges
that Maxim failed to pay their employees, including Plaintiffs,
minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime compensation for all
hours worked over 40 each workweek in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiffs allege pursuant to the FLSA, that they are entitled
to recover from the Defendants: unpaid minimum wage and unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgement
interest; and/or attorney's fees and costs.
From June 1, 2017, through August 30, 2023, the Plaintiff Ma was
employed by the Defendants to work at the restaurant located at 150
W 36th Street, New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Benjamin B. Xue, Esq.
Michael S. Romero, Esq.
XUE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
1 School Street, Suite 303A
Glen Cove, NY 11542
Telephone: (516) 595-8887
Facsimile: (212) 219-2276
NOMINAL LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Miller Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY MILLER, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NOMINAL LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-01004 (W.D.N.Y., October 18, 2024) is a civil rights action
against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website --
https://nominalx.com -- to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York
State Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff visited the website and attempted to purchase a
Sister Love, Custom Name Necklace but was unable to locate pricing
and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links,
pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on
Defendant's website, which prevented her from doing so. These
access barriers that she encountered have caused a denial of her
full and equal access multiple times in the past, and now deter her
on a regular basis from visiting Defendant's website, says the
Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Nominal LLC operates the Nominal X online jewelry retail store, as
well as the Nominal X 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 PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
SECURIX LLC: Filing for Conditional Status Due Feb. 18, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Divine, et al., v.
Securix, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00196 (S.D. Miss., Filed Aug. 10,
2023), the Hon. Judge Halil S. Ozerden entered a scheduling order:
-- The parties will conduct class Jan. 17, 2025
certification-related discovery
which shall end:
-- The deadline for filing any motion to Feb. 18, 2025
conditionally certify collective
action is:
The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC]
STANLEY CHAO: Faces Jones Class Suit Over Illegal Lending Schemes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JASON JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. STANLEY CHAO; ARB RISK MANAGEMENT, LLC, ARB RISK MANAGEMENT
HOLDINGS, LLC; AGUSTIN GARCIA; SARAH BROWN GARCIA; APRIL POPADITCH;
PENNY MORANDA; and JOHN DOES 1-40, Case No. 3:24-cv-07453 (N.D.
Cal., Oct. 25, 2024) is a case about a scheme to make online,
short-term loans that carry interest rates exceeding 600%—loans
that are illegal in many states -- and to do so with impunity.
In an attempt to evade litigation and government enforcement aimed
at halting these illegal lending schemes, predatory lenders have
sought to cloak themselves in the sovereign immunity granted to
American Indian tribes in the United States. These predatory
lenders pretend to be companies created and run by tribes when, in
all reality, they are run by non-tribal third parties, and the
profits that these companies extract from consumers do not inure to
the benefit of the tribes whose immunity these predatory lenders
seek to exploit, says the suit.
Courts routinely reject such cynical efforts to use tribal immunity
to shield plainly illegal commercial conduct. The Elem Indian
Colony of Pomo Indians has entered into agreements with nontribal
outsiders to lend their name to predatory lending operations,
including First Loan and Right Now Loans. In exchange, the Elem
Indian Colony of Pomo Indians receives a small fraction of theses
businesses' revenues. On their websites, First Loan and Right Now
Loans purport to be tribal lending businesses that are owned and
operated by the Elem Indian Colony of Pomo Indians, the suit
contends.
Non-tribal members, including Stanley Chao and his companies ARB
Risk Management, LLC, and ARB Risk Management Holdings, LLC, run
First Loan and Right Now Loans and hide behind the Elem Indian
Colony of Pomo Indians' laundered sovereign immunity. The Chao
Defendants and other non-tribal members have been running lending
schemes for years, making usurious loans to consumers located
throughout the United States. These schemes have been highly
lucrative. These schemes are also illegal, alleges the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages and penalties under state
and federal law for the usurious interest and fees obtained by the
Chao Defendants, and also seeks injunctive and declaratory relief
against the Tribal Chairman, Secretary/Treasurer, Vice-Chair, and
Member-At-Large of the Tribal Council of the Elem Indian
Colony.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julie Pollock, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
505 Montgomery St, Suite 625
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 906-0684
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: jpollock@bm.net
- and -
John G. Albanese, Esq.
Marika O'Connor Grant, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Telephone: (612) 594-5999
Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
E-mail: jalbanese@bm.net
moconnorgrant@bm.net
TAYLOR, MI: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Response
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUDY FLUMERFELT, v. CITY
OF TAYLOR, et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-10067-FKB-CI (E.D. Mich.), the
Hon. Judge F. Kay Behm entered an order extending time for
defendants to respond to motion to certify class.
By agreement of the parties evidenced by their attorneys'
signatures below, the Defendants may have until Nov. 15, 2024, to
respond to Plaintiffs' motion for to certify.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oh5nbw at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott F. Smith, Esq.
SMITH LAW GROUP
30833 Northwestern Hwy, Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334 3201
Telephone: (248) 302-7181
E-mail: smithsf.law@gmail.com
Attorney for Richard Sollars
Kevin G. Simowski, Esq.
FLOOD LAW PLLC
155 W. Congress Street, Suite 603
Detroit, MI 48226
Telephone: (248) 547-1032
The Defendants are represented by:
Thomas P. Bruetsch, Esq.
SCHENK & BRUETSCH PC
211 W. Fort, Suite 1410
Detroit, MI 48226
Telephone: (313) 774-1000
E-mail: Thomas.Bruetsch@SBDetroit.com
- and -
Nasseem S. Ramin, Esq.
DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
County Treasurer
400 Renaissance Center
Detroit, MI 48243
Telephone: (313) 568-5326
E-mail: nramin@dykema.com
Attorney for Hadir Altoon, Taylor South Investment LLC, and Abigail
Investments LLC
Brian C. Grant, Esq.
O'REILLY RANCILIO PC
12900 Hall Rd., Suite 350
Sterling Hts, MI 48313
TONY THOMPSON: Roberts Seeks to Extend Class Cert Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LETICIA ROBERTS and CALVIN
SAYERS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated; v.
SHERIFF TONY THOMPSON, in his official capacity; and BLACK HAWK
COUNTY; Case No. 6:24-cv-02024-CJW-MAR (N.D. Iowa), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for filing a
motion for class certification to March 28, 2025.
This action was initiated on May 13, 2024, on behalf of Ms. Roberts
and a class of similarly situated individuals.
On June 7, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed the operative complaint, the
First Amended Complaint, on behalf of Ms. Roberts and Mr. Sayers as
well as a class of similarly situated individuals.
The First Amended Complaint defines the proposed class as follows:
"All individuals who have been released, or will be released,
from
the Black Hawk County Jail and have signed, or will sign, a
confession of judgment for jail fees since May 14, 2022; and
whose
jail fees have been paid, are being paid, or will be paid under
a
confession of judgment absent a court order."
Black Hawk is a county in the northeastern part of the U.S. state
of Iowa.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 24, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W4eT5h at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charles Moore, Esq.
Leslie A. Bailey, Esq.
PUBLIC JUSTICE
1620 L Street NW, Suite 630
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 861-5226
E-mail: cmoore@publicjustice.net
lbailey@publicjustice.net
- and -
Rita Bettis Austen, Esq.
Thomas Story, Esq.
Shefali Aurora, Esq.
ACLU OF IOWA FOUNDATION, INC.
505 Fifth Ave., Suite 808
Des Moines, IA 50309-2317
Telephone: (515) 207-0567
Facsimile: (515) 243-8506
E-mail: rita.bettis@aclu-ia.org
thomas.story@aclu-ia.org
shefali.aurora@aclu-ia.org
- and -
Thomas P. Frerichs, Esq.
FRERICHS LAW OFFICE, P.C.
106 E. 4th Street, P.O. Box 328
Waterloo, IA 50704-0328
Telephone: (319) 236-7204
Facsimile: (319) 236-7206
E-mail: tfrerichs@frerichslaw.com
- and -
Brandon R. Underwood, Esq.
Kelcy Whitaker, Esq.
Michael D. Currie, Esq.
Sarah Golwitzer, Esq.
FREDRIKSON & BYRON P.A.
111 East Grand Ave., Suite 301
Des Moines, IA 50309-1884
Telephone: (515) 242-8900
Facsimile: (515) 242-8950
E-mail: bunderwood@fredlaw.com
kwhitaker@fredlaw.com
mcurrie@fredlaw.com
sgolwitzer@fredlaw.com
TRON FOUNDATION: Court Narrows Claims in Hardin Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as COREY HARDIN and CHASE
WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. TRON FOUNDATION, JUSTIN SUN, and ZHIQIANG (LUCIEN)
CHEN, Case No. 1:20-cv-02804-VSB (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vernon
Broderick entered an order granting in part and denying in part
Defendants' motion to dismiss:
-- The Defendants' motion is denied as to the Section 12(a)(1)
claims
against the Defendants TRON and Sun and the remaining one
hundred
Blue Sky state law claims.
-- The Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted as to the Section
12(a)(2) claims against Defendants TRON and Sun.
-- The Defendants are directed to submit an answer to Plaintiffs'
Amended Complaint within 21 days of the date that this Opinion
&
Order is filed.
The Plaintiffs state in their Amended Complaint that "TRON entered
into listing agreements with crypto-asset exchanges that targeted
United States consumers with the intent of creating secondary
trading markets for the purchase, sale, and trading of TRX in the
United States."
The Plaintiffs then name several of those U.S.-based exchanges that
listed TRX following the ICO, including Bittrex, BitMEX, Poloniex,
and Kraken. Defendants cite a number of cases to demonstrate that
the Second Circuit has rejected this "cross-listing" theory, but
those cases differ materially in that they involve foreign
individuals purchasing foreign securities on foreign exchanges.
The Plaintiffs reside in Nevada and Texas, made their purchases
from Nevada and Texas, held TRX tokens in Nevada and Texas, and
continued to buy and sell on Binance from Nevada and Texas.
TRON is a blockchain-focused software development company that is
developing and promoting the TRON blockchain protocol.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Oct. 23, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HKhHGJ
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mitchell D. Nobel, Esq.
CANTOR FITZGERALD
New York, NY
- and -
Jordan Ari Goldstein, Esq.
Philippe Zuard Selendy, Esq.
SELENDY & GAY PLLC
New York, NY
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael Dicke, Esq.
Dean S. Kristy, Esq.
Casey Thomas O'Neill, Esq.
FENWICK & WEST LLP
San Francisco, CA
TWITTER INC: Seeks to Redact Portions of Exhibits in Schobinger
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK SCHOBINGER, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. TWITTER, INC. and
X CORP., Case No. 3:23-cv-03007-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask
the Court to enter an order redacting portions of Exhibits 6, 7, 9,
10, 11, and 12 and the Gilbert Declaration.
The information X seeks to redact has no relevance to or bearing
upon the ultimate disposition of Plaintiff's Motion; specifically,
Plaintiff's Motion does not rely on or cite to the portions of the
Exhibits sought to be redacted. In any event, redactions are
warranted under either standard.
Twitter provides online social networking and microblogging
service.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 23, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=E0hcqb at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Eric Meckley, Esq.
Brian D. Berry, Esq.
Ashlee N. Cherry, Esq.
Jonathan D. Lotsoff, Esq.
Kassia Stephenson, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
Telephone: (415) 442-1000
Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
E-mail: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com
brian.berry@morganlewis.com
ashlee.cherry@morganlewis.com
kassia.stephenson@morganlewis.com
jonathan.lotsoff@morganlewis.com
UNION SECURITY: Lewis-Abdulhaadi Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTOINETTE
LEWIS-ABDULHAADI, v. UNION SECURITY INSURANCE CO., et al., Case No.
2:21-cv-03805-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order as follows:
1. Certifying Counts I, II, and IV-VIII as a class action on
behalf
of the following Class under Rule 23(b)(1) and/or Rule
23(b)(2)
for purposes of the Settlement:
"All participants in an ERISA-covered plan that provided or
offered dependent child life insurance that is or was insured
by
Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada or Union Security
Insurance
Company ("USIC") at any time from and including Aug. 25, 2015
until the Initial Final Approval Hearing Date [if the Court
grants preliminary approval of the settlement] and for which
a
participant paid premiums (or premiums were paid) for at
least
one child in such dependent child life insurance coverage and
either (i) had no enrolled children who met the definition of
dependent child under the policy while such premiums were
paid
for coverage or (ii) had a claim for dependent child life
insurance denied because the child's age was beyond the
oldest
allowable age for a dependent child under the applicable
policy
or based on the child’s age and because the child was not a
full-time student; and the beneficiaries of such persons."
Excluded from the Class are (1) any fiduciaries of the Plans
with decision-making or administrative authority related to
the
establishment, administration, funding or interpretation of
the
Plan, (2) persons not eligible for benefits under Section IV
of
this Settlement Agreement. Additionally, any person does not
meet the requirements of Section (ii) of the Class Definition
and will be excluded unless (a) Defendants identify that
person
as a Class Member With Denied Claim or (b) the claim for
dependent child life insurance was denied solely because the
child's age was beyond the oldest allowable age for a
dependent
child under the applicable policy or a claim denied solely
based
on the child's age and because the child was not a full-time
student.
2. Appointing Plaintiff Antoinette Lewis as the Class
Representative; and
3. Appointing R. Joseph Barton of Barton & Downes LLP, Adam
Harrison Garner of The Garner Firm, Ltd., and Jonathan
Feigenbaum as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class pursuant to Rule
23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Union Security is a national provider of Medicare Supplement
insurance solutions.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 23, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kZLC0f at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
Colin M. Downes, Esq.
BARTON & DOWNES, LLP
1633 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20009
Telephone: (202) 734-7046
E-mail: jbarton@bartondownes.com
colin@bartondownes.com
- and -
Adam Harrison Garner, Esq.
Melanie J. Garner, Esq.
THE GARNER FIRM, LTD.
1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 550
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 645-5955
Facsimile: (215) 645-5960
E-mail: adam@garnerltd.com
melanie@garnerltd.com
- and -
Jonathan M. Feigenbaum, Esq.
184 High Street, Suite 503
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 357-9700
Facsimile: (617) 227-2843
E-mail: jonathan@erisaattorneys.com
UNITED PARKS: Marks Suit Removed from State Court to S.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID MARKS and TAGUI GALSTIAN, each individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. UNITED PARKS & RESORTS, INC, Case
No. 24CU012855N, (Filed Sept. 19, 2024) was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Diego to the United States District Court for the Southern District
of California, San Diego County Division, on Oct. 25, 2024.
The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:24-cv-01992-MMA-KSC to the proceedings.
The alleged fraud complaint alleges that the size of the putative
class is well over 100 members, specifically alleging that "there
are thousands or tens of thousands of class members."
Since Jan. 1, 2021, United Parks (or its predecessor) sold online
(and at a discount) in excess of 2,300,000 single-day tickets to
SeaWorld San Diego (one of the three SeaWorld parks located in the
United States). In addition, of the discounted single-day tickets
sold online to SeaWorld San Diego since January 1, 2021, at least
1,300,000 of those tickets were sold to consumers with a California
zip code.
The putative class includes individual and named plaintiff David
Marks, who (according to the allegations of the Complaint and a
declaration submitted with the Complaint) is domiciled in
Camarillo, California.
The putative class also includes individual and named Plaintiff
Tagui Galstian, who (according to the allegations of the Complaint
and a declaration submitted with the Complaint) is domiciled in
Santa Clarita, California.
United Parks & Resorts Inc is an American theme park and
entertainment company headquartered in Orlando, Florida.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Lawrence Y. Iser, Esq.
Kristen L. Spanier, Esq.
KINSELLA HOLLEY ISER KUMP STEINSAPIR LLP
11766 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 750
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 566-9800
Facsimile: (310) 566-9850
E-mail: iser@khiks.com
kspanier@khiks.com
VARSITY BRANDS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, London Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WANETTA LONDON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. VARSITY BRANDS, INC., Case caption, Case No.
3:24-cv-2695 (N.D. Tex., Oct. 25, 2024) arises out of the recent
data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against
Defendant, which held in its possession certain personally
identifiable information of Plaintiff and other current and former
employees and/or customers of Defendant, the putative class
members.
This Data Breach occurred in May of 2024. The Private Information
compromised in the Data Breach included certain personal
information of Defendant Varsity Brands' employees and customers,
including Plaintiff. The Defendant has reported to the Maine
Attorney General's office that the personal information of 65,669
individuals was affected in the data breach.
The Data Breach resulted from Defendant's failure to implement
adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols
necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which it
was entrusted for business relationships, says the suit.
The Defendant maintained the Private Information in a reckless
manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on
Defendant's computer network in a condition vulnerable to
cyberattacks. In addition, the Defendant failed to properly monitor
the computer network and systems that housed the Private
Information. Had Defendant's employees (presumably in the IT
department) properly monitored its property, it would have
discovered the intrusion sooner, the suit contends.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those
similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding
of Class Members' Private Information that it collected and
maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice
to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information was
subjected to unauthorized access by an unknown third party and
precisely what type of information was accessed.
Varsity Brands, Inc. is an American apparel company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
EKSM, LLP
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (888) 350-3931
Facsimile: (888) 276-345
E-mail: jellzey@eksm.com
lmontgomery@eksm.com
VIRGIN GALACTIC: Must File Opposition to Class Cert. Bid by Dec. 6
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANE LAVIN, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. VIRGIN GALACTIC
HOLDINGS, INC., MICHAEL A. COLGLAZIER, GEORGE WHITESIDES, MICHAEL
MOSES, RICHARD BRANSON, and CHAMATH PALIHAPITIYA, Case No.
1:21-cv-03070-ARR-TAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Allyne R. Ross
entered an order granting the parties' proposed modification of
existing deadlines related to discovery and motion practice as
follows:
1. Substantial completion of production in response to all
requests
for production will occur 60 days following the Parties
reaching
agreement on search terms and custodians, but no later than
Dec.
18, 2024 for requests for production already served.
2. Defendants to file opposition to class certification motion
on
or before Dec. 6, 2024.
3. Plaintiffs to file reply in support of class certification
motion on or before Jan. 3, 2025.
4. Completion of fact discovery by March 21, 2025.
5. Parties to file joint status report certifying close of fact
discovery on or before March 28, 2025.
6. Exchange of expert disclosures on June 13, 2025.
7. Opening expert reports due July 29, 2025.
8. Rebuttal expert reports due Aug. 26, 2025.
9. Reply expert reports due Sept. 23, 2025.
10. Expert discovery completion by Oct. 14, 2025.
11. Certification of the completion of all discovery due Oct.
14,
2025.
Virgin Galactic is a British-American spaceflight company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8G5v0p at no extra
charge.[CC]
VISA INC: Monopolizes Debit Network Markets, Kevranian Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
NOURIJAN KEVRANIAN d/b/a NUTS FOR CANDY, a Sole Proprietorship, and
CATHY HOUTS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. VISA INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-07997 (S.D.N.Y., October 21, 2024) is a class action
brought under the Sherman Act and the California Business and
Professions Code seeking to stop Visa's unlawful conduct, redress
past harms, and restore competition to the debit network market.
According to the complaint, Visa maintains a monopoly over debit
network markets by using its dominance to thwart the growth of its
existing competitors and prevent others from developing new and
innovative alternatives. Visa's systematic efforts to limit
competition for debit transactions have resulted in billions of
dollars in additional fees imposed on American consumers and
businesses and cuts off competition where it should occur today,
the complaint adds.
Accordingly, the Defendant's anticompetitive conduct harms
consumers and merchants like Plaintiffs and members of the Class.
It ensures that Visa continues to dominate the debit network market
in the United States without having to meaningfully compete on the
price of fees, driving up costs for all businesses, which are then
passed on to consumers in the form of raised prices on goods and
services. Visa prevents innovators and rivals from meaningfully
competing with Visa, forcing merchants to remain in overpriced
contracts and try to recoup those absurd costs from their customers
through surcharges and higher prices, alleges the suit.
Visa, Inc. is a global payments technology company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
Brian Danitz, Esq.
Gia Jung, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
840 Malcolm Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
- and -
Karin B. Swope, Esq.
Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
Vara Lyons, Esq.
999 N. Northlake Way Suite 215
Seattle, WA 98103
Telephone: (206) 802-1272
Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
E-mail: tloeser@cpmlegal.com
kswope@cpmlegal.com
vlyons@cpmlegal.com
WOODSTREAM CORP: Notice of Response OK'd in Maroney Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORY MARONEY AND HENRY
H. HEUMANN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. WOODSTREAM CORPORATION, Case No. 7:19-cv-08294-KMK-JCM
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting Defendant's
notice of response and response in support of maintaining certain
documents under seal.
The court notes that the Plaintiffs do not oppose the request. The
following documents and information should be maintained under
seal:
(1) Exhibit 20 to the Declaration of Timothy Blood in Support of
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;
(2) redacted portions of the Plaintiffs' reply brief in support
of
the motion for class certification that reference or quote
from
Woodstream's confidential documents.
Woodstream manufactures and markets pest control and wildlife
caring and control products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W0np04 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Robyn E. Bladow, Esq.
Savannah L. Jensen, Esq.
Jake A. Feiler, Esq.
Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
555 South Flower Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 680-8400
Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
E-mail: robyn.bladow@kirkland.com
savannah.jensen@kirkland.com
jake.feiler@kirkland.com
lefkowitz@kirkland.com
YARDI SYSTEMS: Faces Joseph Suit Over Unlawful Use of Names
-----------------------------------------------------------
BIANCA JOSEPH and JUSTIN ROGALSKY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. YARDI SYSTEMS, INC., a California
corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-11026 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 25, 2024)
seeks to put an end to its unlawful practice of using the names and
identities of Illinois and Ohio residents without their consent in
order to promote its service in violation of the Illinois Right of
Publicity Act.
Yardi operates a website called Property Shark that sells access to
a database containing proprietary information about homeowners to
anybody willing to pay for access to it. To market its service,
Yardi encourages prospective customers to perform a free search on
its website. When consumers perform a free search for an individual
-- by typing the individual's first and last name into the search
bar -- Yardi displays a preview page featuring the searched
individual's full name alongside properties the individuals either
currently own or previously owned.
According to the complaint, the purpose of the page is twofold:
first, it shows potential customers that the Property Shark
database contains the specific individual they searched for and
represents that a paid membership grants access to much more
information about the individual than the "free" preview; and
second, it offers to sell them a paid membership, where they can
access proprietary information about any property owner in its
database. In other words, Yardi uses the identities of searched
individuals to sell a membership to its paid service. The people
appearing in these advertisements never provided Yardi with their
consent (written or otherwise) to use their identities for any
reason, let alone for marketing purposes, says the suit.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ari Scharg, Esq.
Schuyler Ufkes, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 589-6370
Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
E-mail: ascharg@edelson.com
sufkes@edelson.com
- and -
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1300 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
- and -
Kevin Tucker, Esq.
Stephanie Moore, Esq.
Jessica Liu, Esq.
EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC
6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215
Pittsburgh, PA 15208
Telephone: (412) 877-5220
E-mail: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com
smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com
jliu@eastendtrialgroup.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 ***