/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241108.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, November 8, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 225 Headlines 5.11 INC: Tate Sues Over Compromised Customers' Personal Info 6SENSE INSIGHTS: Ambrozewicz Sues for Selling Subscription Plans ABBTECH PROF: Preemployment Screening Violates GIPA, Soto Says ACCELLION INC: Bid to Dismiss Brown Class Suit Denied ACRES LAND: Salmon Sues Over Unlawful Referral Fees AGADIR PROPERTIES: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Delacruz Says ALASKA: District Court Dismisses James v. Mun With Leave to Amend ALBERTA: Faces Whistle Stop Suit Over COVID-19 Restrictions ALBERTA: Judge Certifies Class Action Over COVID Business Losses AMERICAN CRUISE: Parties Seek Dec. 13 Extension for Class Cert Bid AMERICAN HOME: Has Until Nov. 20 to Answer to Robertson Complaint AMERICAN PAIN: Must Produce Requested Docs in Smith, et al. Suit AMERICAN WATER: Continues to Defend West Va. Main Break Class Suit AMPAM PARKS: Ramirez Seeks to Certify ERISA Class AMPAM PARKS: Ramirez Seeks to File Certain Exhibits Under Seal ASHLYNN MARKETING: Deceptively Sells Kratom Products, Suit Says AT&T INC: Plaintiffs' Supplemental Briefing Due Nov. 12 B.S.D. CAPITAL: Faces Class Action Suit Over AI Data Harvesting BASSETT HEALTHCARE: Browning Seeks Conditional Status of Action BAYER HEALTHCARE: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due June 28, 2025 BECHTEL GLOBAL: Class Cert. Filing in Hanigan Extended to Nov. 15 BERRY'S RELIABLE: 5th Cir. Affirms Ruling in Wage Dispute Suit BIOGEN INC: Bid to Transfer Gray Suit to Mass. Court Granted BLACKLANE NORTH: Almandalawi Suit Removed from State Ct. to D.N.J. BLUE APRON: Parties Seek to Amend Class Cert Briefing Schedule BOAR'S HEAD: Products Contain Listeria Monocytogenes, Pompilio Says BRAINXCAPE LLC: Blind Can't Access Website, Reid Suit Alleges BYTEDANCE INC: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Opposition in Young Suit CAKE 5332: Plaintiffs Seek Amendment of August 19 Order CANADA: Veterans Affairs May Face Suit Over Long-Term Care Charges CAPITAL ONE: Wins Bid to Stay Discovery in Jensen Consumer Suit CASSAVA SCIENCES: Bid to Strike Expert Sur-Reply Report Granted CHICO'S FAS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Gaspa Suit Says CITI GROUP: Nusbaum FCRA Class Suit Removed to E.D. Ky. CODY CADJEW: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Jan. 21, 2025 COLSEN FIRE: Faces Barnhart Suit Over Fire Pits' Deceptive Ads COMERICA BANK: Sparkman Seeks to Certify Class Action COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES: Drake Suit Seeks Unpaid Earned Commissions COUNTRY MUTUAL: Court Dismisses Cameron Class Suit W/o Prejudice CPO SERVICES: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Bishop CRICKET WIRELESS: Faces Cao Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages CROWDSTRIKE HOLDINGS: DiNapoli Named Lead Plaintiff in Class Suit DAVITA INC: Teodosio Suit Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement DBMB 18 II: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Suit Says DICKINSON COLLEGE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Jurek Class Action DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Bid to Extend Class Cert Filing Partly OK'd DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Bid to Extend Discovery Deadlines Partly OK'd DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Fails to Meet Children's Rehabilitative Needs DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: K.Y. Suit Seeks to Certify Class DOT TRANSPORTATION: Hoffman Class Claims Dismissed w/o Prejudice EATON CORPORATION: Parties in Chambers Must Submit Joint Brief EL HOGAR COMMUNITY: Faces Pauline Labor Suit in Cal. Super. EMORY UNIVERSITY: 11th Circuit Vacates, Remands Schultz Lawsuit EMPLOYERS PERSONNEL: Faces Velasquez Class Suit in Cal. Super. EQUINIX INC: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit in Calif. ERIC ARMEL: Parties Must Complete Class Discovery by Feb. 26, 2025 EXCELSIOR MINING: Announces Dismissal of MM Fund Class Action Suit FAMILY DOLLAR: Lindsey Dismisses All Claims Against Two Defendants FAMILY DOLLAR: W.D. Tenn. Directs Lindsey to File Proof of Service FAROUK SYSTEMS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Delacruz Claims FAVORITE WORLD: Plaintiffs Can File Portions of Reply Under Seal FIDELITY INVESTMENTS: Campagnolo Balks at Unprotected Personal Info FIELDWORKS LLC: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Tossed FLO HEALTH: Parties Seek to Modify Sealing Procedure in Frasco Suit FOOD LION: Daniels Sue Over Harmful Additives in Orange Soda FRED MEYER: Court Refuses to Approve Settlement in Woody Suit FREEDOM LASER: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Espinal Alleges GAP INC: Stipulation and Briefing on Bid to Dismiss Cho Suit OK'd GAVIN NEWSOM: Court Dismisses Laponte DSL Lawsuit GDK GO INC: Thurman Seeks Drivers' Unpaid Wages Under FLSA GEO GROUP: 10th Circuit Rejects Appeal in Detainees' Class Suit GEO GROUP: Not Entitled to Derivative Sovereign Immunity GEORGIA: Plaintiffs Seek Reconsideration of Sept. 27 Order GERMAN KITCHEN: Sporer Suit Seeks Kitchen Designers' Unpaid Wages GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Bid to Exclude Rosenthal's Opinions OK'd GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Bid to Exclude Rosenthal's Testimony Granted GLOBAL E-TRADING: Court Imposes Sanctions Against Co-Defendant GNC HOLDINGS: W.D. Washington Refuses to Remand Moquete Class Suit GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Property Owners GREATER LOVE: Class Settlement in Carrington Suit Gets Final Nod HAZA FOODS: Bid to Strike Townsend Class Allegations Tossed HEADLESS WIDOW: Hussein Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective Action HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATION: Pallas Alleges Discriminatory Discharge HEALTHY CHOICE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Gaspa Suit Says HEIDI WASHINGTON: Plaintiff Loses Bid for Class Certification HOLDINGS LIMITED: Kennedy Suit Seeks to Certify Class HONEYWELL FEDERAL: Court Narrows Claims in Wilder HRM RESOURCES: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid HYUNDAI CAPITAL: Plaintiff Must File Class Cert Bid by Dec. 20 ILEARNINGENGINES INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Dec. 6 INNOPHOS HOLDINGS: Fails to Secure Employees Info, Alberti Alleges INTREPID POTASH: Cash Class Suit Seeks Load Out Operators' OT Wages KELLOGG COMPANY: 6th Cir. Reverses Ruling in Fleming ERISA Suit KISS NUTRACEUTICALS: Gamboa Seeks to Extend Class Cert Reply Date LAKES EMERGENCY: Muniz Seeks Conditional Status of FLSA Collective LASERSHIP INC: West Seeks to Certify Collective Action LINCARE INC: Morris Bid to Strike Not Necessary, Court Says LINCOLN NATIONAL: IBT Employer Named Lead in Meade Securities Suit LIVE NATION: Appellate Court Rules User Agreements Invalid LOWE'S HOME: Faces Hern Class Suit Over False Discount Ads LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Says MAIN DRAG: Website Not Accessible to the Blind, Fernandez Alleges MARCUS POLLARD: Settlement Deal in Fitzgerald Suit Gets Final Nod MARK CUBAN: Robertson Case Stayed Pending Dismissal Resolution MARK ZUCKERBERG: Court Tosses Johnson's Claims as Duplicative MCDONALD'S CORP: Consumers Sue Over E.coli Outbreak in Onions MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Hughes Alleges MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Jackson Says MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Piatt Says MDL 2873: Ash Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MDL 2873: Barton Files Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MDL 2873: Braswell Files Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MDL 2873: Crull Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic Chemicals Caused Cancer, Harris Says MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic Chemicals Caused Illness, Heavey Says MDL 2873: Faces Kudlacik Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MDL 2873: Faces Lomeli Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MDL 2873: Faces Reynolds Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MDL 2873: Faces Vernon Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MDL 2873: Hansen Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MDL 2873: Hines Sues Over Cancer Due to AFFF Exposure MDL 2873: Jones Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure MDL 2873: Pelszynski Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MDL 2873: Purse Suit Alleges Illness Due to AFFF Exposure MDL 2873: Sickness Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure, Boelens Alleges MDL 2873: Toxic Aqueous Foams Caused Cancer, Gray Says MDL 2873: Toxic Chemicals Caused Cancer, Holland Says MDL 2873: Toxic Chemicals Caused Illness, Tedesco Says MDL 2873: Turner Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MERRICK GARLAND: Williams Bid to Reopen for Class Cert Nixed META PLATFORMS: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to June 3, 2026 MGM RESORTS: Plaintiff's Bid to Appoint Interim Counsel Granted MIDDLEBURY COLLEGE: Wins Summary Judgment in Mooers Class Suit MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Class Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Approval MONSANTO CO: Court Says Certification Appropriate in Neddo Suit MYNARIC AG: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Settlement in Antitrust Suit Granted Final OK NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: $2.7-Bil. Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod NIKOLA CORPORATION: Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply in Borteanu Suit NURTURE INC: Sanchez Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses OTHERSHIP USA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Bunting Suit Says PAYCOR INC: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Reply by Jan. 10, 2025 PERFECT PAWN: Lustig FLSA Class Action Obtains Final Certification PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER: Mosley's Class Proposal OK'd PILLOW CUBE: Court Grants Hogan Leave to Conduct Limited Discovery PLAN BENEFIT: Supreme Court Urged to Solve ERISA Excessive Fee Suit PLANET PHARMA: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Czischki Alleges PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Plaintiffs' Reply Brief Due Dec. 13 QUEBEC: Montreal Man Sues Over Cemetery's Unfair Perpetual Care RAYMOND JAMES: Court Transfers Conran Suit to Tampa Division REPUBLIC SERVICES: BSH Bid for Class Cert. Denied RIPPLE LABS: CEO Requests Final Judgment in XRP Class Suit RYVYL INC: Court Narrows Claims in Cullen Securities Fraud Suit SABA UNIVERSITY: Seeks to Stay All Class Cert Proceedings in Ortiz SANTA CRUZ SEASIDE: Overtime Pay Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod SANTANDER BANK: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Nov. 15 SANYO FOODS: Shin Suit Seeks to Certify Classes SARAH JANE SPIKES: Brown Class Action Dismissed Without Prejudice SCIENCE APPLICATIONS: Court Remands Millis Lawsuit to State Court SELECT REHABILITATION: Seeks to Correct Docket Entry in McLaughlin SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Bid to Dismiss Brown Consumer Suit Granted SISKIYOU COUNTY, CA: Chang Can File Supplemental Complaint SMITH'S FOOD: Has Until Nov. 1 to Reply to Bid to Stay Dempsey Suit SPACE COAST: Leyva Seeks to Substitute Exhibits ST. JOHN'S: Bid for More Time to Complete Discovery Tossed STEEL CONNECT: Agrees to Settle Fiduciary Breaches Suit for $6MM TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: FWK Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes TARGET CORPORATION: Halley's Bid for Class Certification Tossed TEAM ENTERPRISES: Class Settlement in Cipolla Suit Gets Final Nod TENNESSEE: Lawrence Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners TONY THOMPSON: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to March 28, 2025 TRACE MINERALS: Espinal Seeks Website's Equal Access to Blind Users TRAVERS TOOL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Abramson Alleges TRC STAFFING: Burke Seeks to Suspend All Class Cert Deadlines UNITED STATES: Conklin Seeks to Conditionally Certify Action UNITED STATES: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Response UNITED STATES: Faces Suit for Withholding Immigration Bond Money UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Plaintiffs Allowed to File SAC UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO: Court Grants Martinez's Bid to Seal Docs VECTOR GROUP: Scott Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties VERISK ANALYTICS: Continues to Defend Cantinieri Class Suit VERISK ANALYTICS: Continues to Defend Williams Class Suit VICOR CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in California VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Brakes VOLTA INC: Wins Bid to Dismiss Kampe, et al. Securities Fraud Suit WARDEN SHROPSHIRE: Plaintiffs Allowed to Amend Complaint WASATCH ADVANTAGE: Final Approval Hearing Set for Jan. 23, 2025 WEBMD LLC: Allowed Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal WEXFORD HEALTH: Class Certification Bid Amended to Jan. 16, 2025 WHOOP INC: Sanderson Seeks to Seal Class Cert Documents WHOOP INC: Sanderson Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action YOUNG CONSULTING: Wasserman Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI YOUTUBE INC: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Class Action Suit ZANDER GROUP: Jones Seeks to Certify ESOP Participants Class Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Faces 4,045 Exposure Claims as of Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Westinghouse Air Brake Defends PI Claims ********* 5.11 INC: Tate Sues Over Compromised Customers' Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------- TYLER TATE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 5.11, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-02327 (C.D. Cal., October 25, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, intrusion upon seclusion/invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated customers stored within its network systems following a data breach it learned on September 12, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. 5.11, Inc. is a provider of tactical gear and apparel with its headquarters in Costa Mesa, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Lechtzin, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Facsimile: (267) 685-0676 Email: elechtzin@edelson-law.com - and – Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr. Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 Email: daniel@slfla.com 6SENSE INSIGHTS: Ambrozewicz Sues for Selling Subscription Plans ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL AMBROZEWICZ, DEVIN FRANKE, MATTHEW HARTZ, NICOLE LAMONICA, EDWARD BELL AND MADELINE GARCIA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. 6SENSE INSIGHTS, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-07489 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 28, 2024) contends that 6Sense knowingly uses the names and identities of the Plaintiffs and Class Members for the commercial purpose of selling subscription plans to its online services without compensating them and without obtaining their prior consent. The suit says that the Defendant profits from the identities of the individuals in its database without their consent by using their names and identities to advertise and promote its paid services and entice free plan users to upgrade to a paid subscription. The Defendant uses Plaintiff Michael Ambrozewicz's name and identity in its advertisements to promote the sale of paid subscriptions to 6Sense. The Defendant includes Mr. Ambrozewicz's personally identifiable information—including his full name, job title, employer, location, email address, previous places of employment and previous phone number—in its database which is accessible to all 6Sense Free Plan users. To protect Mr. Ambrozewicz's privacy, Plaintiffs have redacted Mr. Ambrozewicz's identifying information that appears unredacted on Defendant's website, the suit alleges. The Defendant's use of the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' identities for a commercial purpose without their consent violates the right of publicity statutes of California, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio, as well as California's Unfair Competition Law. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of a class of all persons whose right of publicity was violated by 6Sense and seek all civil remedies including compensatory, statutory and/or punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs. 6Sense operates a website offering a sales and marketing platform that employs artificial intelligence to help companies improve business-to-business ("B2B") transactions.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Laurence D. King, Esq. Matthew B. George, Esq. Blair E. Reed, Esq. Clarissa R. Olivares, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 772-4700 Facsimile: (415) 772-4707 E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com mgeorge@kaplanfox.com breed@kaplanfox.com colivares@kaplanfox.com - and - Klint Bruno, Esq. Jennifer H. Gelman, Esq. Michael L. Silverman, Esq. THE BRUNO FIRM, LLC 205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 810 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 321-6481 E-mail: kb@brunolawus.com jg@brunolawus.com ms@brunolawus.com ABBTECH PROF: Preemployment Screening Violates GIPA, Soto Says -------------------------------------------------------------- RAMON SOTO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. ABBTECH PROFESSIONAL RESOURCES, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-11117 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 29, 2024) alleges that the Defendant requires potential employees to submit to a preemployment screening as part of its hiring process during which the employees must disclose their family medical history, in violation of the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act. During its preemployment screenings, Abbtech asks questions about and requires Employees to disclose information concerning their family medical histories, including family history of high blood pressure, anxiety, or depression. Abbtech acted intentionally in violating GIPA by forcing the Plaintiff and other members of the Class to undergo screenings that included questions about their family medical histories, the suit says. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, brings this action seeking damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and costs. Mr. Soto applied for a job through Abbtech in February 2024 for employment placement at one of Abbtech's partners in government or the private sector. Abbtech is an employment agency that specializes in placing technology workers with governmental and commercial clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. S. Jarret Raab, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 525-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com jraab@milberg.com - and - Zachary Arbitman, Esq. George Donnelly, Esq. FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER TANNER WEINSTOCK & DODIG, LLP 1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 567-8300 E-mail: zarbitman@feldmanshepherd.com gdonnelly@feldmanshepherd.com ACCELLION INC: Bid to Dismiss Brown Class Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brown v. Accellion, Inc. (RE: ACCELLION, INC. DATA BREACH LITIGATION), Case No. 5:21-cv-01155-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward Davila entered an order denying Accellion's motion to dismiss and Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. Based on the Amended Complaint, all four factors support finding a special relationship, just as all four factors supported finding a special relationship under the Original Complaint. Therefore, Accellion's argument fails, and the Court denies its motion to dismiss. Illuminate did not construe the word “consumer” in § 56.06(b), so it is not relevant to the Court’s prior § 56.06(b) ruling, either. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. In December 2020 and January 2021, hackers breached a secure file transfer application offered by Defendant Accellion, Inc. and widely used by entities who handled sensitive personal information. This breach exposed millions of individuals’ private data. The Plaintiffs allege that these breaches exposed their personally identifiable information, subjecting them to injuries such as identity theft and fraudulent credit charges. Accellion is a "cloud solutions company" that develops and offers products for "prevent[ing] data breaches and compliance violations from third party cyber risk." A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7YUpJ2 at no extra charge.[CC] ACRES LAND: Salmon Sues Over Unlawful Referral Fees --------------------------------------------------- SCOTT D. SALMON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACRES LAND TITLE AGENCY, INC.; ABSOLUTE ESCROW SETTLEMENT, CO, INC.; and PETER A. UZZOLINO, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-09305 (D.N.J., Sept. 19, 2024) alleges violation of the New Jersey Title Insurance Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in illegally marking up pass-through costs, charging fees for services not performed and giving improper kick-backs and referrals to each other, causing substantial harm to customers. The Defendants engineered to facilitate and disguise the payment of unlawful referral fees and other kickbacks and things of value in exchange for referrals of settlement services including title insurance, says the suit. Acres Land Title Agency was founded by Peter Uzzolino in 1978. From 1978 through today, Acres Title prides itself on providing the best title insurance service. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marguerite M. Schaffer, Esq. Xiaosong Li, Esq. SHAIN SCHAFFER PC 150 Morristown Road, Suite 105 Bernardsville, NJ 07924 Telephone: (908) 953-9300 Facsimile: (908) 953-2969 AGADIR PROPERTIES: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Delacruz Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- EMANUEL DELACRUZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. AGADIR PROPERTIES LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-08238 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://agadirint.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons under the Americans with Disabilities Act. During the Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on Sept. 29, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a Argan Oil Daily Moisturizing Conditioner and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied the Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person. The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on the Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue to contribute to Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation, the suit alleges. This discrimination is particularly acute during the current COVID-19 global pandemic. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumer. Agadir offers hair care products, including conditioners, shampoos, styling lotions, styling gels, spray-on mist, hair spritz, and hair oils.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Dana@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal ALASKA: District Court Dismisses James v. Mun With Leave to Amend ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned PAUL R. JAMES, JR., Plaintiff v. OFFICER MUN, OFFICER WASSILIE, and SUPERINTENDENT KARGASS, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00092-SLG (D. Alaska), Judge Sharon L. Gleason of the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska dismisses the complaint with leave to amend. On April 25, 2024, self-represented prisoner Paul R. James filed a civil complaint and an application to waive prepayment/payment of the filing fee. The Plaintiff alleges on or about December 2023, the Defendants discriminated against him, violated his due process rights in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Although the Plaintiff's narrative describes events affecting himself, Judge Gleason notes that the Plaintiff attempts to bring his claims as a class action. For relief, he seeks damages in the amount of $100,000 in damages; $100,000 in punitive damages, an order requiring the Defendants to be summoned, and "injunctive relief" generally. The Court has now screened the Plaintiff's Complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. Sections 1915(e) and 1915A. For the reasons discussed in this Order, Judge Gleason finds the Plaintiff's Complaint fails to adequately state a claim for which relief may be granted. Therefore, the Complaint is dismissed. However, Plaintiff is accorded 60 days to file an amended complaint that corrects the deficiencies identified in this Order. Judge Gleason opines that the Plaintiff cannot represent other prisoners or a class of prisoners. The Plaintiff cannot bring claims on behalf of other individual prisoners and may not represent a class of prisoners in a class action. Accordingly, the Court only considers the claims affecting the Plaintiff personally, and if he elects to file an amended complaint, he must do so only on his own behalf. Judge Gleason also finds, among other things, that the Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim under either the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment and that because the Plaintiff has not alleged facts to support a finding of discrimination based on his membership in a protected class, he fails to state a claim for violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Although he is being given the opportunity to file an amended complaint, Judge Gleason says the Plaintiff will not unjustifiably expand the scope of the case by alleging new unrelated claims. An amended complaint must not include any claims or defendants for which the Plaintiff lacks a sufficient legal or factual basis or any claims or defendants the Court has previously dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Plaintiff's Complaint at Docket 1. The Court grants the Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint in accordance with the guidance provided in this Order. He is accorded 60 days from the date of this order to file either: a. First Amended Complaint, in which he revises his complaint to address the deficiencies identified in this Order. An amended complaint should be on the Court's form, which is being provided to him with this order; or b. Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, in which he elects to close and end the case. If the Plaintiff does not file either an Amended Complaint or Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on the Court's form, the case may be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B) without further notice to him. The Plaintiff's application to waive prepayment of the filing fee at Docket 2 is granted. The Plaintiff is advised federal law only allows prisoners to waive prepayment of the fees associated with civil lawsuits. Should the Plaintiff proceed with this lawsuit and sufficiently plead a claim for relief in an amended complaint, the Court will issue a separate order on the collection of the filing fee. Judge Gleason reminds the Plaintiff that self-represented litigants are expected to review and comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Civil Rules, and all Court orders. Failure to do so may result in the imposition of sanctions authorized by law, including dismissal of the action. Self-represented litigants must be ready to diligently pursue each case to completion. Missing a deadline or otherwise failing to pursue a case may result in the dismissal of the action. If he is released while this case remains pending and the filing fee has not been paid in full, the Plaintiff must, within 30 days of his release, either (1) pay the unpaid balance of his filing fee or (2) file a Non-Prisoner Application to Waive the Filing Fee (Form PS11). Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this action. With this order, the Clerk is directed to send: (1) form PS01, with "FIRST AMENDED" written above the title "Prisoner's Complaint Under the Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. Section 1983"; (2) form PS09, Notice of Voluntary Dismissal; and (3) form PS23, Notice of Change of Address. A full-text copy of the Court's Screening Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2y4xr4vm from PacerMonitor.com. ALBERTA: Faces Whistle Stop Suit Over COVID-19 Restrictions ----------------------------------------------------------- Karyn Mulcahy of CTVNewsEdmonton.ca reports that The owner of the Whistle Stop Cafe is suing the Alberta government for imposing mandates on businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic. A class-action lawsuit on behalf of the business was certified by the Alberta Court of King's Bench on Wednesday. The lawsuit is open to all businesses in Alberta that were impacted by pandemic closures. "All individuals who owned, in whole or in part, a business or businesses in Alberta that was subject to full or partial closure, or operational restrictions, mandated by the CMOH (chief medical officer of health) orders between March 17, 2020, and the date of certification," court documents read. The province had argued against the certification of the lawsuit, asserting that "Alberta enjoys immunity for various reasons including that the CMOH orders were policy decisions." Additionally it said business owners had the right to pursue independent legal action, noting some businesses have already done just that. The Whistle Stop Cafe in Mirror, Alta., made national news in 2021 when it opened for dine-in service despite orders from Alberta's chief medical officer of health that prevented it from doing so. The cafe's owner, Christopher Scott, was charged with breaching the Public Health Act. Scott faced a total of 11 charges, nine of which fall under the Public Health Act. He was acquitted on all charges in 2023. [GN] ALBERTA: Judge Certifies Class Action Over COVID Business Losses ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo!News reports that a Calgary judge has certified a class action lawsuit for Alberta business owners seeking compensation for losses suffered due to pandemic-related public health restrictions. On Wednesday, October 30, Justice Colin Feasby released his 26-page decision certifying the proposed class action, with Whistle Stop Cafe owner Christopher Scott named as representative plaintiff. The lawsuit, filed by lawyer Jeffrey Rath, followed Justice Barbara Romaine's July 2023 "Ingram" decision. She found that health orders were made outside the scope of the province's Public Health Act. The act gives the chief medical officer of health (CMOH) the power to make public health orders. But during the pandemic, instead of Dr. Deena Hinshaw making the orders, politicians did, acting without legal authority. Rath's lawsuit alleges that because the orders were found to be unlawful, Alberta is liable for the class members' losses caused by the closures and restrictions imposed on businesses. "This is a huge day for Alberta businesses that were illegally harmed by [premier] Jason Kenny and Deena Hinshaw," said Rath in a written statement. "The court found that the action can proceed against the Government of Alberta on a number of grounds, including misfeasance in public office, allowing the plaintiffs to seek punitive damages against the Alberta government for wrongdoing." During the pandemic, representative plaintiff Chris Scott faced several charges, accused of breaching the Public Health Act when his restaurant, the Whistle Stop Cafe in Mirror, Alta., remained open despite restrictions banning large gatherings and in-person dining in January 2021. Scott's charges were stayed after Romaine's decision was released. Ideological objectives 'irrelevant' Feasby described Scott as "atypical of the proposed class because for much of the time in question, he refused to abide by the CMOH orders." But Feasby found that did not disqualify Scott from acting as representative plaintiff because even though he disobeyed the CMOH orders and profited from his disobedience, his business was forcibly closed for a period. The judge did raise concerns that Scott "may be inclined to use the litigation to pursue irrelevant ideological objectives, advance theories that COVID-19 was not a public health emergency, and re-litigate his personal battles with Alberta and Alberta Health Services." But, he said, those concerns can be managed by limiting the scope of the issues that the lawsuit can proceed on. Did Alberta act in bad faith? The lawsuit can proceed on six common issues. Those issues include whether Alberta acted in bad faith in making the CMOH orders and whether the Alberta Bill of Rights was breached by the unlawful orders. Feasby defined the class as "all individuals who owned, in whole or in part, a business or businesses in Alberta that was subject to full or partial closure, or operational restrictions, mandated by the CMOH orders between March 17, 2020, and the date of certification." The class does not include ownership as a shareholder in a corporation or as a member of a co-operative. In his decision, Feasby noted he was tasked with deciding if the lawsuit qualified for certification, not with ruling on the merits of the case. [GN] AMERICAN CRUISE: Parties Seek Dec. 13 Extension for Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARIU KIRK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN CRUISE LINES, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-01057-VAB (D. Conn.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an amended scheduling order to extend the class-certification deadlines as follows: -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification due by Dec. 13, 2024 -- Opposition to Class Certification due by Jan. 12, 2024 -- Reply re: Class Certification due on Feb. 11, 2024 -- Fact discovery shall be completed by Dec. 17, 2024 -- Disclosure of affirmative expert reports due by Jan. 17, 2025 -- Disclosure of rebuttal expert reports due by Feb. 14, 2025 -- Depositions of expert witnesses shall be completed by April 1, 2025 -- All discovery shall close by April 15, 2025 -- If, after the close of discovery, the parties wish to meet with a Magistrate Judge to discuss settlement, the parties may jointly file such a request by April 22, 2025 -- Dispositive motions due by May 13, 2025 -- Responses to dispositive motions due by June 10, 2025 -- Replies to dispositive motions due by July 1, 2025 -- Joint trial memorandum is due by August 29, 2025, or 30 days after the Court rules on any dispositive motions -- Trial ready date is September 29, 2025, or 30 days after the joint trial memorandum is filed. To allow Defendant time to finalize its data review, the Parties respectfully request a 45-day extension of the deadlines related to class certification briefing. The remaining deadlines in this action need not be changed. On Aug. 8, 2024, the Court granted the parties' joint motion to modify the scheduling order by sixty days to allow the parties additional time to complete discovery. On Sept. 9, 2024, the parties submitted a joint motion for an order pursuant to 15 U.S.C. section 1681b(a) that would allow third-party consumer reporting agencies Sterling Infosystems, Inc. and Accurate Information Systems to produce consumer reports in response to the subpoenas served on them by Plaintiff. American Cruise is the largest river and small-ship cruise line in the United States. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 28, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nAzbv2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey B. Sand, Esq. WEINER & SAND LLC 800 Battery Avenue SE, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (404) 205-5029 Facsimile: (866) 800-1482 E-mail: aw@wsjustice.com js@wsjustice.com - and - James A. Francis, Esq. Lauren KW Brennan, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Sarah Poriss, Esq. 777 Farmington Avenue West Hartford, CT 06119 Telephone: (860) 233-0336 Facsimile: (866) 424-4880 E-mail: sarahporiss@prodigy.net The Defendant is represented by: Michael J. Dugan, Esq. LITCHFIELD CAVO LLP 82 Hopmeadow Street, Suite 210 Simsbury, CT 06089 Telephone: (860) 413-2800 Facsimile: (860) 413-2801 E-mail: dugan@litchfieldcavo.com AMERICAN HOME: Has Until Nov. 20 to Answer to Robertson Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ERIN ROBERTSON, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN HOME SHIELD CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-01571-RFB-EJY (D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge Elayna Youchah of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada signed the parties' Stipulation and Order to extend time to Nov. 20, 2024, for the Defendant to respond to the class action complaint (second request). Plaintiff Erin Robertson, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated, and Defendant American Home Shield Corporation, stipulate that the Defendant will have additional thirty (30) days to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint filed in this matter. The Defendant's current response deadline was Oct. 21, 2024. With the requested thirty (30)-day extension, the Defendant's deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint is extended to Nov. 20, 2024. The parties assert that good cause exists for the extension set forth here. The parties and their counsel have been and are continuing to informally exchange information. Recently, the parties discovered new facts that impact the basis of the claims and defenses in this case and are analyzing the issues presented by this new information. The parties request an additional thirty (30) days to assess these new facts and discuss their respective positions. This request is made in good faith and is not intended for purposes of delay. A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulation and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5aze8v8f from PacerMonitor.com. Aleksandr "Sasha" Litvinov -- sasha@skclassactions.com -- SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC, in Boston, MA 02116; Yeremey O. Krivoshey -- yeremey@skclassactions.com -- SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC, in San Francisco, CA 94108; Craig K. Kerry -- cperry@craigperry.com -- CRAIG K. PERRY & ASSOCIATES, in Las Vegas, NV 89136, Attorneys for Plaintiff ERIN ROBERTSON, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated. Michael N. Feder -- MFeder@dickinsonwright.com -- Gabriel A. Blumberg -- GBlumberg@dickinsonwright.com -- DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC, in Las Vegas, NV 89169; Timothy W. Loose -- TLoose@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, in Los Angeles, CA 90071, Attorneys for Defendant AMERICAN HOME SHIELD CORPORATION. AMERICAN PAIN: Must Produce Requested Docs in Smith, et al. Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Amos L. Mazzant of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted the plaintiffs' motion to compel in the case captioned as RICHARD SMITH and SHAE LOFTICE on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN PAIN AND WELLNESS, PLLC Defendant, Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-295 (E.D. Tex.). This discovery dispute arises in the context of a class action lawsuit resulting from a purported data breach. Named Plaintiffs Richard Smith and Shae Loftice assert that American Pain and Wellness, PLLC's failure to secure highly sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information allowed cybercriminals to infiltrate its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. Plaintiffs contend that the data breach constituted an invasion of their privacy, causing a diminution in the value of their PII/PHI and exposing them to a greater risk of identity theft. Consequently, Plaintiffs purport to suffer from anxiety, sleep disruption, stress, fear, and frustration. On April 24, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Amended Class Action Complaint. Plaintiffs bring their Class Action Complaint on behalf of themselves and all others harmed by Defendant's alleged misconduct. According to Plaintiffs, the other members of the putative class are current and former patients of Defendant whose data was accessed in the data breach, and who subsequently received breach notices. Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint on May 18, 2023, on grounds that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their claims, and Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. While Defendant's Rule 12(b)(1) and (6) Motions to Dismiss were pending, this discovery dispute ensued. On July 29, 2024, the Court held a teleconference to resolve the dispute. However, during the teleconference, Defendant cited the Court's supposed lack of jurisdiction as a basis for resisting discovery. Having determined that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case -- thereby denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss -- the Court will now address the discovery dispute. Broadly speaking, Plaintiffs seek discovery to identify four categories of information. First, they seek information about the potential victims of the data breach. Second, they seek information related to Defendant's cybersecurity risks, policies, training, and budget. Third, they seek to discover information related to the data breach itself and potential PII/PHI accessed by cybercriminals. Fourth and finally, Plaintiffs seek to discover Defendant's communications with patients related to cybersecurity, including remedial measures taken after the data breach. Plaintiffs contend that Defendant has not been forthcoming in responding to discovery requests. As a result, the parties "are at an impasse on Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 5, 10, 13, and 14, and Request Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, and 22". The parties also disagree on whether Plaintiffs are entitled to depose Plaintiff Smith's treating physician, Dr. Kamlesh Sisodiya. In an effort to resolve the impasse, Plaintiffs filed this Motion to Compel on October 30, 2023. The parties have identified six discovery disputes that remain ripe for the Court's review. First, Plaintiffs assert that Defendant refuses to provide "class" discovery. Second, the parties disagree as to the temporal scope of discovery. Third, Defendant resists production of certain documents because it contends that no PII/PHI was accessed in the data breach. Fourth, Plaintiffs maintain that Defendant has too narrow a view of which cybersecurity measures are relevant to Plaintiffs' claims. Fifth, Defendant objects to one of Plaintiffs' discovery requests as vague and ambiguous. Sixth and finally, Plaintiffs seek to compel the deposition of Dr. Kamlesh Sisodiya, while Defendant alleges that Dr. Sisodiya's deposition would be "unnecessary and harassing". I. "Class" Discovery: Request Nos. 1, 4, 22, and Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 5 In Request Nos. 1, 4, and 22, Plaintiffs seek to discover the number of patients whose data was accessed in the data breach, representations made to current and former patients concerning data protection and security, and reports of suspicious activity from patients after the data breach. In Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 5, Plaintiffs request the citizenship of data breach victims for class certification purposes, as well as any representations Defendant made to data breach victims regarding data protection and security in Defendant's systems. Defendant objects to these Requests and Interrogatories by asserting that only discovery about the two named Plaintiffs is relevant at this stage. The Court disagrees and instead finds that Plaintiffs have established a right to any documents that Defendant has yet to produce related to the Requests and Interrogatories. In short, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs' position that the requests above seek information relevant for class certification, jurisdictional questions, and damages analyses. Defendant claims that its discovery obligations extend only to the named plaintiffs. The Court concludes that the documents and responses sought by Plaintiffs are relevant and proportional to this case. Thus, the Court orders Defendant to produce or make available to Plaintiffs all unproduced documents responsive to Request Nos. 1, 4, and 22 that are in its possession, and to adequately respond to Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 5. To the extent that Defendant contends that it has no documents to produce, it must indicate to Plaintiffs whether it lacks possession, custody, or control of the documents, or alternatively, whether the requested documents do not exist or have already been produced. II. Temporal Scope: Request Nos. 2, 3, 8, 15, and 17 The second discovery dispute before the Court centers around a disagreement between the parties regarding how far back in time before the data breach Plaintiffs may reach through their Requests and Interrogatories. Specifically, Request Nos. 2, 3, 8, 15, and 17 seek documents identifying the cybersecurity training, policies, and procedures that Defendant implemented to protect its patients' PII/PHI. Defendant objects to each request as overbroad because the requests are not limited in time. While the Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiffs' requests are too broad because they lack a time limitation, the Court disagrees with Defendant about the relevant time period for these requests. Accordingly, the Court finds that the appropriate remedy is to modify each request to include a time limitation. On September 19, 2023, Plaintiffs supplemented their requests and interrogatories. Plaintiffs proposed reasonable time periods for certain requests, seeking documents from "November 1, 2020, through present" The Court finds that Plaintiffs' proposed time frame is relevant and proportional to the claims at issue. Therefore, the Court orders Defendant to produce documents responsive to Plaintiffs' Request Nos. 2, 3, 8, 15, and 17 from November 1, 2020, through September 19, 2023. III. Access to PII/PHI: Request No. 1 and Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 10, and 13 Next, Defendant takes issue with Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 10, 13, and Request No. 1. Plaintiffs seek responses and documents identifying what information may have been accessed in the data breach, which patients had their data accessed, and whether that information was misused. Defendant objected to these requests on the basis that no PII/PHI was accessed by an unauthorized party during the Data Breach. Accordingly, the Court orders that Defendant provide fulsome responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 10, and 13, and produce responsive documents to Request No. 1, to the extent that Defendant has any such documents in its possession, custody, or control IV. Relevant Cybersecurity Policies: Request Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 21 The parties have also reached an impasse on Request Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 21. These requests seek documents related to the cybersecurity measures that Defendant employed to protect its patients' PII/PHI. Defendant's objections to each request fall into two categories. First, Defendant raises a general objection to relevance, asserting that Plaintiffs seek documents and tangible things that are not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party. Second, Defendant argues that the only cybersecurity measures that are at issue in this case are those that were in effect on the date of the Data Breach. The Court finds the relevant time period for discovery extends after the date of the data breach. Hence, the Court orders Defendant to produce documents responsive to Plaintiffs' Request Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 21 from November 1, 2020, through September 19, 2023. V. Vague and Ambiguous: Request No. 7 Defendant next contests Request No. 7, which seeks all documents regarding Defendant's compliance or noncompliance with any applicable data security guidelines or standards. Defendant objects to this request as vague and ambiguous because there is no way for Defendant to determine what documents it is being asked to produce. The Court disagrees. Even after a cursory review of Plaintiffs' Complaint, it is clear which standards Plaintiffs are referencing, the Court notes. Therefore, in response to Request No. 7, the Court orders Defendant to produce documents related to Defendant's compliance or noncompliance with any applicable data security guidelines or standards defined in Plaintiffs' Complaint. VI. Deposition of Dr. Sisodiya Finally, the parties disagree on whether Plaintiffs are entitled to depose Dr. Sisodiya, Smith's treating physician. Defendant, maintains that "Plaintiffs have no basis for compelling the deposition of Dr. Sisodiya" because neither Plaintiffs nor Defendant have disclosed Dr. Sisodiya as a person with knowledge of relevant facts" Therefore, according to Defendant, Dr. Sisodiya's deposition is outside the scope of discovery. The Court is not persuaded. Dr. Sisodiya has relevant knowledge about the data breach, as indicated by his suggestion that Smith speak with Defendant's employees Maxine Collins and Andrew Morgan about the data breach. Dr. Sisodiya thus possesses information that would have some "possible bearing" on Plaintiffs' claim. Consequently, the Court orders Defendant to produce Dr. Sisodiya for deposition. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xAhc7R AMERICAN WATER: Continues to Defend West Va. Main Break Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ American Water Works Co. Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from West Virginia Main Break class suit. On the evening of June 23, 2015, a 36-inch pre-stressed concrete transmission water main, installed in the early 1970s, failed. The water main is part of the West Relay pumping station located in the City of Dunbar, West Virginia and owned by the Company's West Virginia subsidiary ("WVAWC"). The failure of the main caused water outages and low pressure for up to approximately 25,000 WVAWC customers. In the early morning hours of June 25, 2015, crews completed a repair, but that same day, the repair developed a leak. On June 26, 2015, a second repair was completed, and service was restored that day to approximately 80% of the impacted customers, and to the remaining approximately 20% by the next morning. The second repair showed signs of leaking, but the water main was usable until June 29, 2015, to allow tanks to refill. The system was reconfigured to maintain service to all but approximately 3,000 customers while a final repair was being completed safely on June 30, 2015. Water service was fully restored by July 1, 2015, to all customers affected by this event. On June 2, 2017, a complaint captioned Jeffries, et al. v. West Virginia-American Water Company was filed in West Virginia Circuit Court in Kanawha County on behalf of an alleged class of residents and business owners who lost water service or pressure as a result of the Dunbar main break. The complaint alleges breach of contract by WVAWC for failure to supply water, violation of West Virginia law regarding the sufficiency of WVAWC's facilities and negligence by WVAWC in the design, maintenance and operation of the water system. The Jeffries plaintiffs seek unspecified alleged damages on behalf of the class for lost profits, annoyance and inconvenience, and loss of use, as well as punitive damages for willful, reckless and wanton behavior in not addressing the risk of pipe failure and a large outage. In February 2020, the Jeffries plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class certification on the issues of breach of contract and negligence, and to determine the applicability of punitive damages and a multiplier for those damages if imposed. In July 2020, the Circuit Court entered an order granting the Jeffries plaintiffs' motion for certification of a class regarding certain liability issues but denying certification of a class to determine a punitive damages multiplier. In August 2020, WVAWC filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia seeking to vacate or remand the Circuit Court’s order certifying the issues class. In January 2021, the Supreme Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the Circuit Court for further consideration in light of a decision issued in another case relating to the class certification issues raised on appeal. In July 2022, the Circuit Court entered an order again certifying a class to address at trial certain liability issues but not to consider damages. In August 2022, WVAWC filed another Petition for Writ of Prohibition in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia challenging the West Virginia Circuit Court’s July 2022 order, which petition was denied on June 8, 2023. By order dated June 28, 2024, the Circuit Court set a new date of December 3, 2024, for a class trial on issues relating to duty and breach of that duty. This trial will not find class-wide or punitive damages. Before trial begins, mediation is scheduled to take place during the fourth quarter of 2024. The Company and WVAWC believe that WVAWC has valid, meritorious defenses to the claims raised in this class action complaint. WVAWC is vigorously defending itself against these allegations. American Water Works Company, Inc. is a water and wastewater services provider with its principal place of business in Camden, New Jersey. [BN] AMPAM PARKS: Ramirez Seeks to Certify ERISA Class ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alfredo Ramirez, Ramón Santos Castro and Ivan Fernandez, individually and as representatives of a class of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, v. AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Inc., Charles E. Parks III, John D. Parks, John G. Mavredakis, Kushal B. Kapadia, the AMPAM Board of Directors, Neil Brozen, Ventura Trust Company, James C. Wright III, Kevin Dow, James Ellis, Steve Grosslight, and Mike Matkins, Case No. 5:24-cv-01038-KK-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move to certify an Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) class under Federal Rule 23 on Dec. 5, 2024. AMPAM provides mechanical contracting services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IyttrV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shaun P. Martin, Esq. 5998 Alcala Park, Warren Hall San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 260-2347 Facsimile: (619) 260-7933 E-mail: smartin@sandiego.edu - and - Eleanor Frisch, Esq. Jacob T. Schutz, Esq. Michelle C. Yau, Esq. Ryan A. Wheeler, Esq. Allison C. Pienta, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 400 South 4th Street # 401-27 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: efrisch@cohenmilstein.com jschutz@cohenmilstein.com myau@cohenmilstein.com rwheeler@cohenmilstein.com apienta@cohenmilstein.com AMPAM PARKS: Ramirez Seeks to File Certain Exhibits Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alfredo Ramirez, Ramon Santos Castro and Ivan Fernandez, individually and as representatives of a class of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the "AMPAM ESOP" or the "ESOP"), v. AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Inc., Charles E. Parks III, John D. Parks, John G. Mavredakis, Kushal B. Kapadia, the AMPAM Board of Directors, Neil Brozen, Ventura Trust Company, James C. Wright III, Kevin Dow, James Ellis, Steve Grosslight, and Mike Matkins, Case No. 5:24-cv-01038-KK-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their application for leave to file under Seal certain exhibits in support of their motion for class certification, and related citations in their supporting memorandum. The Plaintiffs seek leave to file under seal only the exhibits and related citations in their memorandum that nonparties Chartwell Financial Advisory, Inc. and ButcherJoseph & Co. objected to the Plaintiffs publicly filing. Chartwell produced the document submitted as Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of Michelle Yau dated Oct. 25, 2024, and ButcherJoseph produced the documents submitted as Exhibit 5 to the Yau Declaration. The Plaintiffs seek leave to file unredacted copies of these exhibits under seal, and related citations in their supporting memorandum. This Application is based on the attached Declaration of Jacob T. Schutz and all other materials in the Court filed in this Action AMPAM Parks provides mechanical contracting services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lDeYvo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shaun P. Martin, Esq. 5998 Alcala Park, Warren Hall San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 260-2347 Facsimile: (619) 260-7933 E-mail: smartin@sandiego.edu - and - Michelle C. Yau, Esq. Ryan A. Wheeler, Esq. Allison C. Pienta, Esq. Eleanor Frisch, Esq. Jacob T. Schutz, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 400 South 4th Street # 401-27 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: efrisch@cohenmilstein.com jschutz@cohenmilstein.com myau@cohenmilstein.com rwheeler@cohenmilstein.com apienta@cohenmilstein.com ASHLYNN MARKETING: Deceptively Sells Kratom Products, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- J.T., J.B., and D.F., individually on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ASHLYNN MARKETING GROUP, INC., doing business as KRAVE KRATOM, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-02005-DMS-MSB (S.D. Cal., Oct. 28, 2024) is a civil class action against the Defendant for its false, misleading, deceptive, and negligent sales practices regarding its kratom powder, capsule, and liquid extract products. Kratom is both a plant and a drug and originates from Southeast Asia where its leaves have long been ingested to produce stimulant and opiate-like effects. 7-Hydroxymitragynine and Mitragynine found in the kratom plant activates the same opioid receptors in the human brain as morphine, heroin, and other opiates. Kratom is extremely addictive, and as a result, tens of thousands of unsuspecting consumers have developed kratom dependencies that cause them serious physical, psychological, and financial harm, the suit says. The Defendant has intentionally failed to disclose these material facts regarding the ngers of kratom consumption anywhere on its Products' labeling, packaging, or marketing material. As a result, the Defendant has violated warranty law and state consumer protection laws, the suit asserts. The Plaintiffs seek relief in their action individually, and as a class action, on behalf of similarly situated purchasers of Defendant's Products, for the following violations of: California's Unfair Competition Law, California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's False Advertising Law, Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act, New York Consumer Protection from Deceptive Acts and Practices Act, New York False Advertising Act, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and fraud by omission. In 2022, J.T. first heard about Krave from a friend and thought it would help treat his anxiety. J.T. was never warned about any risks of taking kratom from his friend or from reading Krave's packaging. The Plaintiff J.T.'s use of Krave is currently at its worst, and has been for the past year, as he has been consuming a $10 bag of Krave powder daily. Ashlynn Marketing specializes in the marketing and distribution of tobacco products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. Scott G. Braden, Esq. James B. Drimmer, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1234 Camino Del Mar Del Mar, CA 92014 Telephone: (619) 762-1910 Facsimile: (858) 313-1850 E-mail: todd@lcllp.com scott@lcllp.com jim@lcllp.com AT&T INC: Plaintiffs' Supplemental Briefing Due Nov. 12 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Scott v. AT&T Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-07094 (N.D. Cal., Filed Oct. 12, 2020), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order denying request for supplemental briefing in connection with defendants' pending Daubert motions. -- The Plaintiffs' supplemental briefing Nov. 12, 2024 is due no later than: -- Defendants' opposition is due no Nov. 19, 2024 later than: -- Defendants' supplemental briefing is Nov. 12, 2024 due no later than: -- Plaintiffs' opposition is due no Nov. 19, 2024 later than: The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. AT&T operates as a communications holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries and affiliates, provides local and long-distance phone, wireless and data communications, Internet access and messaging, IP-based and satellite television, telecommunications equipment, and directory advertising and publishing services.[CC] B.S.D. CAPITAL: Faces Class Action Suit Over AI Data Harvesting --------------------------------------------------------------- Kat Black, writing for The Recorder, reports that Los Angeles-based loan agency B.S.D. Capital, doing business as Lendistry, was slapped with a putative class action on Monday, October 28, for allegedly siphoning confidential data via third-party artificial intelligence software that it used to administer a statewide grant program. The complaint, filed Oct. 28 in the California Superior Court for Los Angeles County by the Law Office of J.R. Howell, alleges breach of contract and violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the California Unfair Competition Law, among other claims. Class members include intended beneficiaries of a lending contract established by the California state government and Lendistry to compensate businesses impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Counsel has not yet appeared for the defendant. This action was surfaced by Law.com Radar. J.R. Howell, who is representing the plaintiffs, said he first became aware of the use of AI and advanced machine learning technologies after settling a nationwide class action against interactive fitness tech company Peloton, which was hit with another proposed lawsuit predicated on similar privacy concerns. "When small businesses began complaining about problems in Lendistry's administration of the grant program -- glitchy websites, communication lapses, improper application rejections -- an investigation revealed more serious issues than solely faulty program administration, namely the host of systematic privacy violations across the Lendistry platform, as the lawsuit alleges," he said. According to the complaint, Lendistry contracted with the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development in April 2023 to reimburse approximately 17,685 small businesses and nonprofits for state-mandated sick leave during the pandemic. Lendistry received $12.5 million in state funds for this purpose, it said. The suit accuses Lendistry of breaching a contractual obligation to protect the beneficiaries' data privacy by deploying AI technologies that harvested class members' business, behavioral and biometric data and transmitted it to third-party companies without adequate disclosures -- most notably by partnering with fintech company Plaid to verify their banking information. "Among the more egregious allegations is Lendistry's partnership with a fintech (Plaid) that used piggybacked-on user connections with their bank accounts to covertly create its own login credentials -- to drain the user bank accounts of all accessible transactional records and to continue returning to those same accounts daily on an automated basis in increments of hours," said Howell. "That same fintech settled a related privacy lawsuit for $58 Million in (2021)." Lendistry declined to comment on the case. Howell said that the use of AI and advanced machine learning technologies have "far outpaced state and federal regulations regarding their use." "As Big Tech exerts its extraordinary financial influence to blunt efforts at regulation, as was the case behind Governor Newsom's recent veto of the widely popular AI safety bill, the general public and other businesses are on their own to navigate the legal and ethical boundaries that these otherwise promising technologies are pushing," he said. California Governor Gavin Newsom blocked the passage of bill SB 1047, which would have introduced some of the nation's most robust safety regulations on the AI industry, in September. "Lendistry was operating in its capacity as the sole agent of the government to administer this program. Imagine if the Social Security Administration or Department of Education had done this with the public's private data. This breach of public trust is egregious." [GN] BASSETT HEALTHCARE: Browning Seeks Conditional Status of Action --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BILLYJOE BROWNING, Individually and on behalf of all others Similarly Situated. v. BASSETT HEALTHCARE NETWORK, Case No. 6:23-cv-01514-LEK-MJK (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff shall move the Court upon submission of the papers before the Honorable Lawrence E. Kahn, U.S.D.J., for an Order: (a) granting conditional certification of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action; (b) authorizing issuance of Court-authorized notice to the potential opt-in plaintiffs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); (c) approving Plaintiff’s proposed notice plan; and (d) for such other and further relief in favor of Plaintiff as the Court deems appropriate. Bassett is an integrated health system. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ivqiRr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - David I. Iverson, Esq. E. STEWART JONES HACKER MURPHY, LLP 28 Second Street Troy, NY 12180 Telephone: (518) 274-5820 Facsimile: (518) 274-5875 E-mail: diversen@joneshacker.com BAYER HEALTHCARE: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due June 28, 2025 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRAVETTE COPELAND, et al., v. BAYER HEALTHCARE PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Case No. 5:24-cv-03042-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered a case management order as follows: (1) The presumptive limits on discovery set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply to this case unless otherwise ordered by the Court. (2) The deadline for joinder of any additional parties, or other amendments to the pleadings, is sixty days after entry of this order unless stated otherwise below. (3) The deadline for the parties to meet, confer, and submit a stipulation and order setting all deadlines not set by the Court below, including discovery cut-offs and expert disclosure deadlines, is Nov. 18, 2024. (4) All disputes with respect to disclosures or discovery are referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge. (5) Unless otherwise ordered or stipulated, the parties shall meet and confer further in order to reach an agreement on an ADR process within 10 days of the date of this Order. Event Date Or Deadline Last Day to Request Leave to Amend 60 Days from Date of the Pleadings per F.R.Civ.P 15 this Order Last Day File Motion Class Certification June 28, 2025 Last Day to Hear Dispositive Motions June 4, 2026 Final Pretrial Conference Oct. 1, 2026 Trial Nov. 16, 2026 Bayer manufactures products relating to health and pharmaceuticals. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dSMoIM at no extra charge.[CC] BECHTEL GLOBAL: Class Cert. Filing in Hanigan Extended to Nov. 15 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBRAD. HANIGAN, individually, and as a representative of a Class of Participants and Beneficiaries of the Bechtel Trust and Thrift Plan, V. BECHTEL GLOBAL CORPORATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-00875-AJT-LRV (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Lindsey Robinson Vaala entered an order granting the joint motion for extension of time to file class certification briefing. The Court's Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order is amended as follows: -- The deadline for Plaintiff's motion for class certification is extended from Oct. 28, 2024 to Nov. 15, 2024; -- The deadline for Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification is extended from Nov. 18, 2024 to Dec. 6, 2024; and -- The deadline for Plaintiff's Reply in Support of the Motion for Class Certification is extended from Dec. 2, 2024 to Dec. 20, 2024. All other deadlines in the Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order remain unchanged. Bechtel is a provider of engineering, construction, and project management services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MmEvc9 at no extra charge.[CC] BERRY'S RELIABLE: 5th Cir. Affirms Ruling in Wage Dispute Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the consolidated case captioned as Stacey Badon, on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated; Altravese Gardner; Bernette Kinard; Chanell K. Wilson; Deborah Ann Carson; Dereinisha N. Johnson; Diane Jones; Gloria Williams; Helen Hudson; Kwane Harris; Rachel Williams; Shena Day; Sheneatha Baptiste; Tineka Benn; Treonda Irvin; Francis F. Paz Pessoa; Francine Veal Dixon; Mary Morgan; Rena Lyons; Terry Watson; Chandonais Banks, Plaintiffs-Appellees, versus Berry's Reliable Resources, L.L.C.; Rhonda Williams, Defendants-Appellants; Anthony Badon, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus Berry's Reliable Resources, L.L.C.; Rhonda Williams, Defendants-Appellants; and Francine Dixon, on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus Berry's Reliable Resources, L.L.C.; Rhonda Williams; Tyese Berry; Raeon Williams, Defendants-Appellants, No. 22-30547 (5th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the ruling of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana that certified one of the claims as a collective action and determined, on summary judgment, that the workers were employees of the company. Berry's Reliable Resources, L.L.C. is a provider of personal care services in the Greater New Orleans area. The company contracts with the State of Louisiana to provide members of the community at-home support -- assisting individuals with disabilities and the elderly with a variety of personal needs. Services include housekeeping, handling medications, preparing food, helping clients with bathing, and taking clients to medical appointments. BRR provides these services to clients through a network of Direct Service Workers (DSWs), who follow a client-specific plan of care provided by the Louisiana Department of Health. Each DSW contracts with BRR to provide personal care services to clients. The contract sets out the hourly wage, duration of service, and duties and training requirements associated with the service. The DSWs do not contract with or receive payments from the State of Louisiana. Instead, BRR fully supervises the workers. The company collects the workers' timesheets, sets the workers' rates of pay, and pays the workers through direct deposit. BRR is then reimbursed by the Louisiana Department of Health for the services it provides. This case involves a dispute over unpaid wages and arises from three actions commenced by former DSWs. First, Stacey Badon filed a collective action claim against BRR in 2019. She alleged that the company failed to pay her and similarly situated DSWs overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The district court conditionally certified her collective action in September 2020. It denied BRR's motion for decertification in March 2021. Next, Anthony Badon filed an individual claim in 2020 alleging that he was entitled to unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the FLSA and unpaid final wages in accordance with the Louisiana Wage Payment Act. He further asserted an individual claim for retaliatory termination under the FLSA. Finally, in 2021, Francine Dixon filed a claim for unpaid wages under the FLSA, which was amended to allow Altravese Gardner, Treonda Irvin, Dereinisha Johnson, Rena Lyons, Francis Pessoa, and Gloria Williams to join as plaintiffs. Francine Dixon also asserted an individual claim for retaliatory termination. The district court consolidated these three cases for purposes of trial. The central question underlying the claims is whether the DSWs were employees or independent contractors. Prior to trial, the district court determined that the workers were employees covered under the FLSA and the LWPA. At trial, the jury found in favor of the DSWs on all claims but one—the jury did not find that the evidence supported Anthony Badon's individual claim for retaliatory termination. BRR timely appealed. BRR asserts a variety of constitutional, statutory, and evidentiary challenges to the pretrial orders of the district court and the verdicts awarded by the jury. Under the FLSA, the company challenges the district court's certification of Stacey Badon's collective action and the determination that the DSWs were employees. It further contends that the DSWs were not covered by the FLSA because the company did not engage in interstate commerce. First, the company contends that the FLSA's statute of limitations bars Stacey Badon's action. While violations of the FLSA are ordinarily subject to a two-year statute of limitations, the time is extended to three years when the defendant's conduct is "willful." In this case, Stacey Badon filed her action within three years of her employment end date, and the jury concluded that BRR willfully engaged in misconduct. Accordingly, the statute of limitations did not bar her claim, the Fifth Circuit finds. Second, BRR asserts that the district court abused its discretion when denying the company's motion to compel Stacey Badon's tax returns. It argues that the tax returns were relevant to whether she was an employee or independent contractor. The Fifth Circuit disagrees. The district court "is afforded broad discretion when deciding discovery matters," and on appeal the company fails to show how the district court abused that discretion. While tax returns may be relevant for other purposes in wage disputes, the district court did not abuse its "broad discretion" in this case, the Fifth Circuit finds. Third, the company argues that the district court abused its discretion in excluding certain witness testimony from trial. It maintains that the testimony of Wanda Rodney-Warner and Terry Cooper, representatives of the Louisiana Department of Health, was relevant to the employment-status question. The company contends that the state agency permitted the use of independent contractors. But such evidence does not facilitate the employment-status inquiry, the Fifth Circuit finds. The "touchstone" of that inquiry is "an assessment of the 'economic dependence' of the putative employees." Facile labels and subjective factors are only relevant to the extent that they mirror economic reality. The district court did not abuse its discretion when determining that the "labels" assigned by the Louisiana of Department of Health were irrelevant to the DSWs' employment status, the Fifth Circuit concludes. Finally, the company takes issue with the jury's verdicts and makes broad proclamations about violations of its constitutional rights. The Fifth Circuit says such arguments are unfounded. The determination that the DSWs are employees is a legal conclusion.13 The jury—a finder of facts—was correctly empowered to weigh conflicting evidence as to the remaining factual issues in the case, the Appellate Court states. BRR moved to decertify Stacey Badon's collective action. The district court denied the motion and the certified collective went to trial. On appeal, the company argues that the district court failed to rigorously enforce" the requirements announced in Swales v. KLLM Transport Services. The company contends that the DSWs are not similarly situated and that the district court improperly certified the collective action. The Fifth Circuit disagrees. The district court considered and applied the standards announced in Swales when evaluating the company's motion for decertification. The court specifically assessed whether the individuals in the collective action are 'similarly situated' such that they may be collectively determined to be employees or independent contractors. Put differently, the court evaluated whether the "merits question" -- the employment status of the DSWs -- could be answered on a collective basis, just as Swales demands. Accordingly, BRR has not demonstrated that the district court applied the wrong legal standard when considering the company's motion for decertification. BRR next asserts that even if the district court applied the correct legal standard, the court improperly certified the collective action. The company argues that the collective action should be decertified on appeal because the DSWs failed to provide evidence showing that they were similarly situated. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the district court may determine that the KLLM workers were "too diverse a group to be 'similarly situated.'" Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion when finding the workers to be similarly situated. The district court properly certified the collective action. Next, BRR contends that the district court improperly determined the DSWs to be employees covered by the FLSA. BRR asserts that the DSWs are independent contractors, and therefore have no cause of action under the Act. The company further maintains that the workers cannot seek redress under the FLSA because BRR is not engaged in interstate commerce. The district court disagreed on both issues. The court determined -- on cross-motions for summary judgment -- that the workers were employees of the company. It also denied BRR's motion for summary judgment as to the interstate-commerce defense because the company falls within the scope of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 207(a)(1)'s enterprise coverage provision. The Fifth Circuit notes that in this case, there is no fact that is both genuinely disputed and material. Both parties agree that the DSWs contracted with the company and worked according to a client-specific plan of care provided by the Louisiana Department of Health. Accordingly, the district court properly considered the question of law: whether the DSWs were employees of the company. the Appellate Court finds. When determining the employment status of workers under the FLSA, the pertinent question is whether the alleged employees, as a matter of economic reality, are economically dependent on the business to which they supply their labor and services, or are in business for themselves. To answer that question, courts consider five non-exhaustive factors originally announced in United States v. Silk. Those factors include: (1) the degree of control exercised by the alleged employer; (2) the extent of the relative investments of the worker and the alleged employer; (3) the degree to which the worker's opportunity for profit or loss is determined by the alleged employer; (4) the skill and initiative required in performing the job; and (5) the permanency of the relationship. BRR contends that the district court misapplied those factors, and, as a result, incorrectly found the DSWs to be employees under the FLSA. In determining that the company controlled the DSWs' work, the district court focused on the supervisory role of the company, the workers' dependence on the company for payment, and contractual provisions preventing the workers from altering the "type, scope or duration" of the services they provided. The Fifth Circuit agrees with the district court. These uncontested facts are sufficient to find that BRR meaningfully controlled the DSWs. Accordingly, BRR and the DSWs cannot be considered "separate economic entities." The control factor strongly favors the DSWs' employee status. The district court considered the second factor neutral, or slightly favoring the DSWs, because it was unclear the extent to which the workers supplied their own equipment or materials. The Fifth Circuit reaches the same conclusion. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit agrees with the district court's determination that the third factor weighs in favor of the workers. The fourth factor weighs in favor of the DSWs' employee status. The fifth factor is neutral. After careful review of the record and with these five factors in mind, the Fifth Circuit agrees with the district court. The DSWs were employees of the company. Accordingly, the Appellate Court affirms the district court's grant of summary judgment on the issue. A copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=P0yVjn BIOGEN INC: Bid to Transfer Gray Suit to Mass. Court Granted ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted the defendants' unopposed motion to transfer the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS ALLEN GRAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situation, Plaintiff, v. BIOGEN INC., CHRISTOPHER A. VIEHBACHER, MICHEL VOUNATSOS, and MICHAEL R. MCDONNELL, Defendants, Civil Action No. 24-cv-01444-PAB-KAS (D. Colo.), to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On May 22, 2024, plaintiff Thomas Gray initiated this class action lawsuit, alleging that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On September 4, 2024, Magistrate Judge Kathryn Starnella granted Ms. Stokes' motion and appointed her as lead plaintiff in this case. On September 9, 2024, defendants filed the motion to transfer the case to the District of Massachusetts. Defendants argue that this case could have been brought in the District of Massachusetts because the defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in that district. Defendants also contend that the District of Massachusetts is a more appropriate forum. They state that a substantial part of the events giving rise to plaintiff's claims occurred in Massachusetts. Furthermore, defendants assert that the majority of witnesses and documents expected to be needed in this action are located in Massachusetts, whereas there "is no known evidence" located in Colorado. Finally, defendants state that plaintiff "does not oppose the relief requested." As such, defendants maintain that, under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1404, this case should be transferred to the District of Massachusetts. The Court is satisfied that this action could have been brought in the District of Massachusetts based on defendants' representations that: (1) Biogen has its corporate headquarters in Massachusetts, (2) the individual defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in the District of Massachusetts, and (3) Mr. Vounatsos consents to personal jurisdiction in the District of Massachusetts. Regarding the inconvenience of the existing forum, defendants state that neither lead plaintiff nor any defendant is located in Colorado and that the critical witnesses are located in Massachusetts. The Court finds that the District of Massachusetts is the more convenient venue. Finally, because the motion to transfer is unopposed, the Court finds that the interests of justice and judicial efficiency favor the transfer of this case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The Court will grant the unopposed motion to transfer. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HYoboi BLACKLANE NORTH: Almandalawi Suit Removed from State Ct. to D.N.J. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned as YOUSIF ALMANDALAWI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BLACKLANE NORTH AMERICA INC.; JOHN DOES 1-10 (fictitious names), and ABC CORPORATIONS 1-10 (fictitious NAMES), Case No. GLO-L-001178-24 (Filed Sept. 19, 2024), was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, on Oct. 28, 2024. The New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-10124 to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of New Jersey's wage laws. Blacklane is a provider of chauffeur services that offer carbon-neutral vehicles for traveling.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Robert T. Szyba, Esq. Barry J. Miller, Esq. Anthony S. Califano, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 620 Eighth Avenue, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 218-5500 E-mail: rszyba@seyfarth.com bmiller@seyfarth.com acalifano@seyfarth.com BLUE APRON: Parties Seek to Amend Class Cert Briefing Schedule -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORTEZ MITCHELL, as an individual and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. BLUE APRON, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-100 inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-05131-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order amending the briefing schedule and hearing date for Plaintiff's motion for class certification as follows: 1. Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be due on June 16, 2025. 2. Defendant's opposition to Plaintiff's motion shall be due on July 16, 2025. 3. Plaintiff's reply in support of his motion for class certification shall be due on Aug. 15, 2025. 4. The hearing shall be rescheduled for Tuesday, Sept. 16, 2025, or as soon thereafter as the Court may hear this matter. The Parties have encountered obstacles to the discovery and BelaireWest processes, including disagreement as to whether individuals who were employed by staffing agencies are properly included in the putative class, which have led to unforeseen delays. Because the Parties have encountered setbacks despite their diligence, good cause exists to continue the class certification hearing and amend the briefing schedule. Counsel for Defendant has upcoming and conflicting deadlines, including: (1) an arbitration in January of 2025; (2) a mediation in February of 2025; and (3) four trials throughout April and June of 2025. Blue Apron operates as an e-commerce business that delivers fresh ingredients and recipes to make meals for homes. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 28, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yYdNJs at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon Brouillette, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. Jamie K. Serb, Esq. Raymond Wendell, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, PC 9440 Santa Monica Bld. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: bbrouillette@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com jamie@crosnerlegal.com rwendell@crosnerlegal.com (SBN 298333) The Defendants are represented by: Ellen M. Bronchetti, Esq. Priya E. Singh, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 655-1300 Facsimile: (415) 707-2010 E-mail: Ellen.Bronchetti@gtlaw.com Priya.Singh@gtlaw.com BOAR'S HEAD: Products Contain Listeria Monocytogenes, Pompilio Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- Frank Pompilio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Boar's Head Provisions Co. Inc., Case No. 7:24-cv-08220 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2024) contends that the Defendant has improperly, deceptively, and misleadingly labeled and marketed its Boar's Head Brand Products by omitting and not disclosing to consumers on its packaging that the Products are contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes. According to the complaint, the products contain Listeria monocytogenes, which could lead to serious and life-threatening adverse health consequences. The risk of serious infection is particularly concerning for pregnant mothers, infants, the elderly, and immunocompromised individuals, who are highly susceptible to severe infection and even death from Listeria monocytogenes, the lawsuit alleges. The Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions of the safety of the Products and what is in the Products was material to the Plaintiff and Class Members. Consequently, the Plaintiff and Class Members lost the entire benefit of their bargain when what they received was a food product contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes that is harmful to consumers' health. Accordingly, the Defendant's conduct violated and continues to violate New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350. The Defendant also breached and continues to breach its warranties regarding the Products, says the lawsuit. The Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant on behalf of himself and Class Members who purchased the Products during the applicable statute of limitations period. Boar's Head is a supplier of delicatessen meats, cheeses and condiments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Philip J. Furia, Esq. Daniel Markowitz, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com BRAINXCAPE LLC: Blind Can't Access Website, Reid Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- MONIQUE REID, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRAINXCAPE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07453 (E.D.N.Y., October 25, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, http//:www.brainxcape.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible dropdown menus, the lack of navigation links, the lack of adequate prompting and labeling, the denial of keyboard access, empty links that contain no text, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. BrainXcape LLC is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Telephone: (917) 373-9128 Email: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com BYTEDANCE INC: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Opposition in Young Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REECE YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BYTEDANCE INC. and TIKTOK INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-01883-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order permanently sealing limited portions of Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification. -- The Defendants ask to seal only information that is protected as proprietary and confidential and that would cause Defendants the harms described above simply by being made publicly available. -- The Defendants do not seek to seal any information beyond or tangential to this confidential information. The limited information Defendants seek to permanently seal pertains to confidential contracts, wellbeing practices, proprietary software, and internal processes related to content moderation. The Defendants consider this type of information proprietary and competitively sensitive because publicizing the information would likely lead to Defendants' competitors. As a result, publicizing such information would cause Defendants significant competitive harm. ByteDance is a technology company operating a range of content platforms that inform, educate, entertain and inspire people. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 28, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4fv2rC at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jesse A. Cripps, Esq. Lauren M. Blas, Esq. Leonora Cohen, Esq. Viola H. Li, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213.229.7000 Facsimile: 213.229.7520 E-mail: JCripps@gibsondunn.com LBlas@gibsondunn.com LCohen@gibsondunn.com VHLi@gibsondunn.com CAKE 5332: Plaintiffs Seek Amendment of August 19 Order ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSANGELICA ALVAREZ and SHAHRAM SHAHANDEH, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CAKE 5332, LLC, and ABDUL HAMIDEH, Case No. 4:22-cv-00697-FJG (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask that the Court either: -- amend/correct its Aug. 19, 2024, Order to grant nationwide conditional certification of a class specified in the claims for relief, -- or alternatively, compel the Defendants to produce the entire class list for notice purposes, and grant an additional time for which notice will be issued and the opt in period extended accordingly. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs request additional time to issue notice, pending resolution of this issue. In the alternative to amending/correcting the Court's Order (in the event that the Court did in fact Order a nationwide collective), Plaintiffs request that the Court compel Defendants to produce the entire class list for the issuance of notice. The Plaintiffs met and conferred about the instant motion with Counsel for the Defendant and Defense counsel stated that they do not oppose the instant motion as drafted. On April 12, 2024, Plaintiffs sought to amend the complaint to add AJTX Management, LLC as an additional party, and include nationwide claims for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. On May 9, 2024, this Court granted Plaintiffs' motion. On May 30, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification, seeking to certify a conditional class of: "all current and former servers of AJTX Management, LLC, Cake 5332, LLC and Abdul Hamideh who worked for the Defendants at any time from Oct. 28, 2022 to the Present." A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aycFg8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Hodgson, Esq. THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC 3609 SW Pryor Rd. Lee's Summit, MO 64082 Telephone: (816) 600-0117 E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com - and - Barry R. Grissom, Esq. GRISSOM & MILLER LAW FIRM, LLC 1600 Genessee Street, Suite 460 Kansas City, MO 64102 Telephone: (816) 336-1213 Facsimile: (816) 384-1623 E-mail: barry@grissommiller.com CANADA: Veterans Affairs May Face Suit Over Long-Term Care Charges ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kate McKenna of CBC News reports that a misinterpretation of federal rules may have caused tens of thousands of Canadian veterans to be overcharged for long-term care since at least 2005. Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) says it's investigating -- and some lawyers have filed a new class-action lawsuit application -- after an analysis by CBC News uncovered a possible error in how the department calculates what veterans pay for long-term care. "It's just kind of a slap in the face [to] these veterans, who've given all they had during the Second World War, the Korean War . . . then to not be looked after properly, and not to be looked after the way Parliament wanted them to be," said retired colonel Michel Drapeau, who now practices law in Ottawa. With some exceptions, veterans in the department's long-term care program are required to cover only the cost of their accommodation and meals. That cost is supposed to be set at a level equal to the lowest cost of room and board in the least expensive province. Figures provided by Veterans Affairs Canada show that for this year, veterans in the program pay a maximum of $1,236.90 monthly for long-term care -- roughly equivalent to the lowest available cost in Manitoba. But the federal law that governs how other laws are interpreted defines "province" as "province or territory" -- and long-term care fees are significantly cheaper in the Northwest Territories. The long-term care rate in the Northwest Territories for this year is $976 -- meaning veterans could be getting overcharged by more than $260 per month, or $3,130 annually. Figures obtained by CBC News from provinces, territories and VAC show that some veterans in the long-term care program have been paying more than the lowest cost in the lowest province or territory (which consistently has been the Northwest Territories) for at least 19 years. Drapeau said that publicly available information indicates only a small number of veterans are in long-term care right now -- about 1,500. Ten years ago, he said, there were far more of them in care -- between 6,000 and 14,000. "We're not talking about millionaires here," he said, adding that many veterans are on pensions. "I think the average Canadian would say, 'Wow, that's $3,000 a year. It is significant.'" Drapeau's firm and four other firms represented 330,000 CAF and RCMP veterans in a recent class action over pension and disability payments. Those firms successfully argued Veterans Affairs Canada made a similar error in law in calculating monthly disability benefits. In that case, Manuge v. Canada, the court concluded that the federal government undervalued a pension adjustment based on the income tax rate for the province with the lowest combined federal/provincial rate, and failed to consider that Nunavut had the lowest rate. The settlement ordered the federal government to repay the class action members the $528.5 million they'd lost to the error, plus millions of dollars in interest dating back to 2003. Two sources with ties to Veterans Affairs Canada told CBC News that the question of veterans being overcharged for long-term care had been flagged internally. Both sources said the department has known about this discrepancy "for years." One source said the question of whether the issue would become public was a matter of "when, not if." CBC News asked the department why territories aren't included in the calculation of the cost for long-term care for veterans, and when VAC was first told of this issue. The department responded with a media statement. "At Veterans Affairs Canada, we are working to ensure that all veterans have equitable access to our programs and services. We have been asked to investigate this matter," said the statement. The office of Veterans Affairs Minister Ginette Petitpas Taylor declined an interview request but issued a statement. "I have been briefed by my department officials regarding the meals and accommodations matter, and I have tasked the department to investigate it further," she said in the statement. "We have been there for veterans, and we remain committed to supporting them. As there is pending litigation, it would be inappropriate to comment on the subject beyond this." A spokesperson for the Veterans Legal Assistance Foundation, a charity established to provide Canada's veterans with funding to obtain legal counsel, said she hopes this matter gets settled and veterans and their estates get justice. "Veterans Affairs Canada has one job, which is to support these veterans and their families, and they fail miserably, time and again," said Sandra Goodwin. "Veterans and their families shouldn't have to use lawyers, they shouldn't have to access the judicial system to get the benefits they've earned." Class action application filed After being asked about this issue by CBC News, some lawyers involved in the Manuge class action said they were going to file another class-action application alleging that VAC is overcharging veterans for long-term care. Drapeau said he believes the government made the same mistake by not taking territorial rates into account. "As far as I can see, this time we're dealing with something similar again, a rate not being applied properly," he said. "Fundamentally, it's the same issue and the same principle." A statement of claim was filed in federal court on Monday, October 28, on behalf of the estate of Gordon Allan. The claim says the Second World War veteran died in 2022 after being admitted to a long-term care facility in 2019, and that he paid the maximum accommodation and meal charges for his care. He participated in the Normandy invasion in June 1944 and was discharged from the military in 1946, says the statement of claim. The claim was filed by Drapeau's firm and Gowling WLG. [GN] CAPITAL ONE: Wins Bid to Stay Discovery in Jensen Consumer Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Kymberly K. Evanson of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants the Defendant's motion to stay discovery in the lawsuit titled TAMIE JENSEN, Plaintiff(s) v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Defendant(s), Case No. 2:24-cv-00727-KKE (W.D. Wash.). Plaintiff Tamie Jensen filed this putative class action in May 2024, alleging that by initiating the transmission of commercial text messages to Washington residents, who did not clearly and affirmatively consent in advance to receive the text messages via its "Refer a Friend" program, Defendant Capital One Financial Corporation violated Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA") and Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"). In August 2024, Capital One filed a motion to dismiss, contending that Jensen's CEMA claim is preempted and that (in the alternative) Jensen has failed to state a claim for a CEMA or CPA violation, and that even if the Court disagrees with either of those contentions, the class allegations should be stricken from the complaint. While the motion to dismiss was pending, Capital One also filed a motion to stay discovery until the motion to dismiss is resolved. According to Capital One, requiring it to respond to discovery requests while a potentially dispositive or case-narrowing motion is pending would be needlessly expensive and wasteful. Jensen opposes the motion, noting that discovery stays pending a motion to dismiss are the exception, not the rule, and that Capital One is not necessarily likely to prevail on its motion to dismiss. At oral argument, Jensen acknowledged that no harm would result from a brief stay of discovery, but nonetheless asked the Court to review her forthcoming opposition brief to assure itself that her complaint could withstand Capital One's motion to dismiss. The Court has reviewed Capital One's motion, as well as Jensen's opposition brief, which reveal that the issues in the motion are fully and vigorously contested, although Capital One has presented multiple potential grounds for dismissing or narrowing the claims raised in the complaint. Capital One has explained how discovery in this case will be particularly challenging and expensive, given that Jensen contends that the putative class includes tens of thousands or more people. Judge Evanson finds that no harm will result from a brief stay. On balance, the Court finds that the circumstances here warrant an exercise of discretion to stay discovery until the pending motion to dismiss is resolved. Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendant's motion. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/49kppwzc from PacerMonitor.com. CASSAVA SCIENCES: Bid to Strike Expert Sur-Reply Report Granted --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re Cassava Sciences, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-00751-DAE (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Susan Hightower entered an order clarifying its ruling in its Oct. 24, 2024, Order as follows: -- Plaintiffs' motion to strike the expert sur-reply report of Rene M. Stulz, is granted. -- The Court orders the clerk to strike from the record the Expert Sur-Reply Report of Rene M. Stulz, Ph.D.. -- The Court further orders Defendants to file a redacted version of Defendants' Sealed Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and associated Exhibits by Oct. 31, 2024. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nT4Qw1 at no extra charge.[CC] CHICO'S FAS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Gaspa Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- VERONICA GASPA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CHICO'S FAS, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-10170 (D.N.J., Oct. 30, 2024) is an action arising from Defendant's failure to make its website, https://www.chicosofftherack.com, accessible to legally blind individuals, which violates the effective communication and equal access requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visit to the Website, on Aug. 9, 2024, she attempted to purchase a sweater or a similar alternative from the Defendant. The Plaintiff acquired actual knowledge of and encountered multiple access barriers that denied her a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public, the suit says. Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.2 Guidelines would provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the Website, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Chico's FAS offers women's apparel, accessories, and jewelry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. HORWITZ LAW, PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com CITI GROUP: Nusbaum FCRA Class Suit Removed to E.D. Ky. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled KAREN NUSBAUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CITI GROUP, INC. d/b/a CITI BANK, Case No. 20-CI-01393, was removed from the Kenton County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky on October 25, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00175-DLB-CJS to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, unjust enrichment, fraud, and fraudulent misrepresentations. Citi Group, Inc., doing business as Citi Bank, is an American multinational investment bank and financial services company in New York, New York. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Shannon O'Connell Egan, Esq. 255 East Fifth Street, Suite 1900 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 977-8261 Facsimile: (513) 977-8141 Email: shanon.egan@dinsmore.com CODY CADJEW: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Jan. 21, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hernandez v. Cadjew, et al., Case No. 7:23-cv-00148 (W.D. Tex., Filed Sept. 21, 2023), the Hon. Judge David Counts entered an order extending scheduling order deadlines: -- The Plaintiff's time to file a motion to certify class under Rule 23 is extended to Jan. 21, 2025. -- All other deadlines in the Court's Scheduling Order remain unchanged. The suit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).[CC] COLSEN FIRE: Faces Barnhart Suit Over Fire Pits' Deceptive Ads -------------------------------------------------------------- Shaneka Barnhart, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COLSEN FIRE PITS LLC, Case No. (W.D.N.C., Oct. 28, 2024) alleges that the Defendant engaged in fraudulent, unfair, deceptive, misleading, and/or unlawful conduct stemming from its omissions surrounding the risk of burns affecting its Colsen Fire Pit. According to the complaint, the product is unfit for its intended use because there's a risk for a significant burn injury. Nowhere in the packaging of the Product did the Defendant disclose that the product could cause severe burns. The Product is a tabletop fire pit that is being recalled by a government regulator after numerous reports of injuries. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) issued the recall on October 17 of 89,500 Colsen brand fire pits, the suit says. The Plaintiff purchased the product, while lacking the knowledge that the Product could cause serious injury. The Plaintiff and the Classes purchased the worthless and dangerous Product, which they purchased under the presumption that the Product was safe. As a result, they have suffered losses, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff purchased a Colsen Fire Pit from Walmart on Oct. 16, 2024. Colsen Fire Pits is a company that specializes in crafting fire pits for indoor and outdoor spaces.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Lawson, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 E-mail: Tiffany.lawson@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com COMERICA BANK: Sparkman Seeks to Certify Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAULA SPARKMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. COMERICA BANK, a foreign corporation, CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, and CONDUENT STATE & LOCAL SOLUTIONS, INC., a foreign corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-01206-DJC-DMC (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Dec. 19, 2024, will move for class certification. Ms. Sparkman makes a claim for violation of the California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) on behalf of a proposed class of child support recipients Conduent charged for use of its interactive voice response (IVR) phone system: IVR Surcharge Class: "All persons issued a California Way2Go Card (TM) Prepaid Mastercard (TM) whose accounts the Defendants charged at least one $0.50 fee for calling Defendants' IVR telephone system." Because the proposed class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3), Ms. Sparkman respectfully requests that the Court grant her motion, appoint her to serve as class representative, and appoint her counsel to serve as class counsel. Comerica is a regional commercial bank with 413 branches in the U.S. states of Texas, Michigan, California, Florida and Arizona. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a2XPZ7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beth E. Terrell, Esq. Blythe H. Chandler, Esq. Jasmin Rezaie-Tirabadi, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com bchandler@terrellmarshall.com jrezaie@terrellmarshall.com - and - Sophia M. Rios, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 8241 La Mesa Blvd., Suite A La Mesa, CA 91942 Telephone: (619) 489-0300 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: srios@bm.net - and - Daniel A. Schlanger, Esq. SCHLANGER LAW GROUP LLP 80 Broad Street, Suite 1301 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 500-6114 Facsimile: (646) 612-7996 E-mail: dschlanger@consumerprotection.net The Defendant is represented by: Mitchell Turbenson, Esq. Jenny N. Perkins, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 204-4400 E-mail: turbensonm@ballardspahr.com perkinsj@ballardspahr.com ebersolej@ballardspahr.com - and - John C. Grugan, Esq. Ana Dragojevic, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 1650 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 252-9610 E-mail: john.grugan@hklaw.com ana.dragojevic@hklaw.com danielle.caimona@hklaw.com COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES: Drake Suit Seeks Unpaid Earned Commissions ------------------------------------------------------------------ JUSTIN DRAKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-00233 (W.D.N.C., Oct. 30, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid commissions for himself and any similarly situated employees to remedy CommScope's practice and policy of willfully failing and refusing to pay Drake and the Class Members all their earned and accrued commissions under the CommScope "Sales Incentive Plan" and the CommScope "Global Sales Incentive Compensation Policy." The Plaintiff contends that CommScope breached its contract with the Plaintiff and the Class Members by failing to pay them all promised and earned commissions. CommScope is unable to accurately credit all revenue generated by the CCS Group because the raw revenue sales data cannot accurately be matched to the corresponding CCS Group customer account, the suit says. Further, CommScope's revenue tracking and reporting systems do not accurately identify, track, and record all revenue generated by Drake and the Class Members. As a result, CommScope fails to include a significant amount of revenue generated by the CCS Group when calculating the commissions owed to Drake and the Class Members, the suit alleges. Drake was employed by CommScope in its Cable and Connectivity Solutions Group ("CCS Group") in the position of "Commercial Lead" from July 2014 through July 19, 2024. CommScope designs, manufactures, installs, and supports broadband, enterprise, and wireless network solutions throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq. Corey M. Stanton, Esq. GIBBONS LAW GROUP, PLLC 14045 Ballantyne Corporate Place, Suite 325 Charlotte, NC 28277 Telephone: (704) 612-0038 E-mail: phil@gibbonslg.com corey@gibbonslg.com COUNTRY MUTUAL: Court Dismisses Cameron Class Suit W/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Mary K. Dimke of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington dismisses, without prejudice, the lawsuit titled GEORGE CAMERON AND JANIN CAMERON, Country Mutual Insurance Company claimants, and all others similarly situated throughout Washington State and the United States of America, Plaintiffs v. COUNTRY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an insurance company; COUNTRY FINANCIAL, an insurance conglomerate; COUNTRY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, an insurance company; COUNTRY PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, an insurance company; COUNTRY INVESTOR LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY, an insurance company; and COUNTRY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an insurance company, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-03075-MKD (E.D. Wash.). Before the Court are three motions: (1) Defendant Country Mutual Insurance's ("CMIC") Motion to Dismiss and to Strike Plaintiffs' Class Allegations; (2) the other appearing Defendants' (the "Country Affiliates") Joint Motion to Dismiss; and (3) Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a Class. The Country Affiliates include (1) Country Casualty Insurance Company, (2) Country Preferred Insurance Company, (3) Country Investor Life Assurance Company, and (4) Country Life Insurance Company. For the reasons explained in this Order, the Court dismisses the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Complaint asserts claims for unfair or deceptive practices in violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA). The Plaintiffs named CMIC, the Country Affiliates, and Country Financial as Defendants. All claims stem from the Plaintiffs' "Agriplus" farm insurance policy issued by CMIC. The Plaintiffs contend that this policy was also issued by Country Financial. In brief, the Plaintiffs allege that CMIC and Country Financial violated various provisions of the Washington Administrative Code in handling the Plaintiffs' insurance claim for losses sustained in a January 2022 fire. The Plaintiffs indicated that they intend to bring a class action alleging a violation of the Washington CPA on behalf of "all individuals throughout Washington State and throughout the United States who have submitted a claim to [CMIC] or Country Financial which was partially or totally denied." The Plaintiffs also bring claims against the Country Affiliates, ostensibly on the basis that they are wholly owned and controlled by Country Financial and implement the same settlement practices as CMIC. The Plaintiffs filed a proof of service for CMIC and waivers of service from the Country Affiliates. To date, the Plaintiffs have not served Country Financial, and Country Financial has not otherwise appeared in this matter. The parties dispute whether Country Financial is a legal entity that may be subject to suit; the Plaintiffs contend that their failure to serve this entity in the time required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) should be excused until this dispute is resolved. CMIC moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and to strike the class allegations. The Country Affiliates moved to dismiss the Complaint for lack of Article III standing and incorporate the arguments in CMIC's motion. Shortly thereafter, the Plaintiffs moved to certify a class. Although the Defendants had not raised the issue, the Court observed that the Plaintiffs had not alleged subject matter jurisdiction in the Complaint. In advance of the motion hearing, the Court directed the Plaintiffs to file a brief containing the legal and factual grounds for federal subject matter jurisdiction and ordered them to show cause why Defendant Country Financial had not been served in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The Plaintiffs submitted a brief regarding the service issue but did not file any briefing on subject matter jurisdiction before the hearing. At the hearing, the Plaintiffs' counsel acknowledged that he had overlooked the Court's order requesting further briefing on subject matter jurisdiction and that the Complaint did not contain a jurisdictional statement. The Plaintiffs' counsel stated that the Plaintiffs intended to invoke diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) and conceded that they could not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement for ordinary diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a). After the hearing, the Plaintiffs' counsel filed a supplemental brief memorializing these arguments and proposing language for an amended complaint to correct the lack of a jurisdictional statement. In their post-hearing brief, the Plaintiffs confirm that their "sole justification for Federal jurisdiction is 28 USC 1332(d)(2)(A)," i.e., under CAFA. The record provides no plausible indication that CAFA jurisdiction exists, and this and other legal deficiencies in the Plaintiffs' claims demonstrate that amendment would be futile, Judge Dimke says. In summary, Judge Dimke finds the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate plausible grounds to conclude that the proposed class would meet the class-member and amount-in-controversy requirements for CAFA jurisdiction, even if the Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend. Judge Dimke also finds the Plaintiffs have also failed to address how they have Article III standing to bring CPA claims against the Country Affiliates, which requires dismissal of those claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court finds Lee v. Am. Nat'l Ins. Co., 260 F.3d 997, 1001-02 (9th Cir. 2001), dispositive here--the Plaintiffs have not suffered any Article III injury caused by the Country Affiliates' challenged insurance practices where the Plaintiffs have not bought any insurance policy from the Country Affiliates. The fact that the Plaintiffs might have a viable CPA claim against the Country Affiliates in state court does not change the Article III analysis for proceedings in federal court, Judge Dimke explains. Nor can a class action against the Country Affiliates proceed in federal court where no named plaintiff has standing to bring a claim against the Country Affiliates. Judge Dimke finds the Plaintiffs have failed to state a legally cognizable basis in the Complaint or the proposed amendment for the out-of-state class members to bring a Washington CPA claim against the Defendants. This also casts doubt on whether any out-of-state class members and claims can be counted to meet the 100-class member and $5 million amount-in-controversy thresholds for CAFA jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claims. The Court concludes that the Complaint lacks any jurisdictional statement sufficient under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) and must be dismissed. Neither the Plaintiffs' proposed amendments nor the other materials in the record provide any plausible basis for CAFA jurisdiction, Article III standing to bring claims against the Country Affiliates, or a legally cognizable basis for out-of-state class claims based on the Washington CPA. Therefore, amendment would be futile. The Court dismisses all claims in the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The federal courts are not the proper forum for adjudication of the Plaintiffs' claims. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. All pending motions are denied as moot. The District Court Executive is directed to file this Order, enter judgment accordingly, provide copies to counsel, and close the file. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydsb335e from PacerMonitor.com. CPO SERVICES: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Bishop -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bishop v. CPO Services, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01182-MMM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows: -- Rule 16 scheduling conference The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference approximately 30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is filed. The conference will generally be conducted by telephone. -- Discovery plan The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least three calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference. -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference If the parties agree on all matters contained in the discovery plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16 scheduling conference be cancelled. -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most hearings by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to appear for an in-person hearing. -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the discovery deadline has already passed The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all discovery disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even if the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to conduct discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the Court, they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived. -- Settlement conferences and mediation The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to Judge Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or mediation. CPO is an orthotic and prosthetic service provider. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ta46wv at no extra charge.[CC] CRICKET WIRELESS: Faces Cao Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages --------------------------------------------------------------- JIEBO CAO, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. CRICKET WIRELESS LLC., Case No. 5:24-cv-02293 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 28, 2024) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On March 23, 2024, the Plaintiff requested to opt-out of the Defendant's text messages by replying with "stop" to end marketing messages. However, the Defendant ignored the Plaintiff's request and continued text messaging the Plaintiff. The Defendant's text messages caused the Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including statutory damages, inconvenience, invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, and violation of their statutory privacy rights, the lawsuit asserts. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of the Plaintiff and the Class members. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Cricket Wireless is an American prepaid wireless service provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com CROWDSTRIKE HOLDINGS: DiNapoli Named Lead Plaintiff in Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, as trustee of the New York State Common Retirement Fund (Fund), has been appointed lead plaintiff in a securities fraud class action lawsuit filed against the global cybersecurity company Crowdstrike Holdings Inc. The suit filed against Crowdstrike, its chief executive officer and chief financial officer, centers on false statements made by the defendants regarding quality assurance leading up to the July 19, 2024, worldwide IT outage caused by the Austin, Texas-based company’s failed software updates and resulting plummet in share value. "Crowdstrike misled investors by falsely touting its safeguards and quality assurance," DiNapoli said. "Its actual failure to meet industry standards and deficient software testing and security processes were exposed after it caused one of the largest cyber-disasters in history leading to a worldwide shutdown and billions in losses to investors. As lead plaintiff, we look to hold company leadership accountable for misleading investors. Moreover, this action may present opportunities for corporate governance reforms to strengthen the company and protect shareholder value." The class in this action will be represented by Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman and local Texas counsel Martin & Drought. The Fund held shares of Crowdstrike valued at approximately $72 million as of Sept. 30, 2024.[GN] DAVITA INC: Teodosio Suit Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOURDES M. TEODOSIO, AMBER BROCK, GAROON J. GIBBS-RACHO, and DAMON A. PARKS, SR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DAVITA, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF DAVITA, INC., THE PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF DAVITA, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-30., Case No. 1:22-cv-00712-WJM-MDB (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting final approval of the Settlement and enter the proposed Final Approval Order and Judgment. The proposed class meets the requirements of Rule 23(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiff contends. To avoid unnecessary repetition, the Plaintiffs incorporate their arguments from their memorandum in support of preliminary approval and request the Court make the same findings it did in preliminarily certifying a settlement class and certify the following Class for settlement purposes only: "All persons who participated in the Plan at any time from March 23, 2016, through July 1, 2024, including any Beneficiary of a deceased Person who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a QDRO who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period." Excluded from the Settlement Class are the members of the Plan Administrative Committee of DaVita, Inc. during the Class Period. The proposed Settlement provides DaVita (or its insurers) will pay $2,000,000.00 – the Gross Settlement Amount – to be allocated to participants on a pro-rata basis pursuant to the proposed Plan of Allocation in exchange for releases and dismissal of this action. DaVita Inc. provides kidney dialysis services through a network of 2,675 outpatient centers in the United States. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 28, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e3J5tO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, 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 DBMB 18 II: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO v. DBMB 18 II LLC, and MI ISLA BAKERY 2, LLC D/B/A DAILY'S BAKERY LLC AKA DAILYS BAKERY, Case No. 1:24-cv-24199 (S.D. Fla., Oct. 29, 2024) is an action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and 28 U.S.C. sections 2201 and 2202. The suit alleges that the Defendant has discriminated, and continues to discriminate, against the Plaintiff in violation of the ADA by failing to have accessible facilities. The individual Plaintiff visits the commercial property, to include visits to the commercial property and business located within the commercial property on July 30, 2024 and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the commercial property. He often visits the Commercial property and business located within it in order to avail himself of the goods and services offered there, and because it is less than two (2) miles from his residence and is near other business and bakery he frequents as a patron. The barriers to access at Defendants' commercial property and commercial bakery business have each denied or diminished the Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to the Plaintiff and others similarly situated, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities as defined by and pursuant to the ADA. He uses a wheelchair to ambulate. DBMB 18 owns, operates and oversees the Commercial property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com DICKINSON COLLEGE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Jurek Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Julia K. Munley of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied Dickinson College's motion to dismiss Avery Jurek's putative class action complaint. The case is styled AVERY JUREK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff V. DICKINSON COLLEGE, Defendant, Case No. 1:24cv408 (M.D. Pa.). Dickinson College is a private liberal arts college in Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff Avery Jurek, a Massachusetts resident, was an undergraduate student enrolled in Dickinson's on-campus, in-person education program during the spring 2020 semester. This matter concerns Dickinson's transition to online classes during the spring 2020 semester as the COVID-19 pandemic led to college campus closures across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Jurek alleges that Dickinson charged $28,249.00 in tuition and fees for the spring 2020 semester. In March 2020, and in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Dickinson transitioned to remote, online-only education and cancelled on-campus recreational and student activity events. Dickinson closed its campus and ordered students out of the residence halls. Thus, for the remainder of the spring 2020 semester, no on-campus education, services, and amenities were available to students. Per the complaint, Dickinson students lost the services and experience for which they had paid. Although Dickinson provided prorated refunds for residence hall charges and dining hall plans, the college refused to refund a portion of tuition and fees related to on-campus education, services, and amenities even though they were not available to students for a significant part of the spring 2020 semester. Based upon these allegations, Jurek filed the instant complaint with claims for breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment. Jurek seeks to bring the complaint on her behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated Dickinson students enrolled during the spring 2020 semester. In response to the Jurek's complaint, Dickinson filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b )(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Based on the allegation that "thousands" of undergraduates were enrolled for the spring 2020 semester and that a half-semester of education at Dickinson cost in excess of $14,000, the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied on the basis of plaintiff's averments as aggregated across all individual claims. Dickinson's arguments to dismiss Jurek's action can be boiled down to three main points: 1) her breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment claims fail due to a written contract between the parties; 2) the complaint does not contain a plausible implied contract claim; and 3) Dickinson's actions are excused under the unprecedented circumstances of COVID-19. According to the Court, the existence of express contracts regarding tuition and fee obligations in the ordinary course of registration does not preclude on-campus, in-person students impacted by COVID-19 closures either from asserting breach of an implied contract based on an alleged university obligation (to provide in-person classes and services) not addressed in the express contracts, or from seeking damages in the form of a partial tuition or fee refund. As for the dueling unjust enrichment claim, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit such claims to be pled in the alternative where the existence or applicability of an express or implied contract is in dispute. The Court finds Jurek's complaint avers facts supporting the elements of an unjust enrichment claim as a secondary possible means of recovery. Accordingly, Dickinson's arguments to dismiss Jurek's complaint based on a written contract fall short at this stage. Dickinson also argues that the alternative sources of the implied contract, i.e., the marketing materials, bulletins, and website content, that were used to solicit students do not establish contract terms between the parties that could have been breached. Dickinson further advances that plaintiff has not alleged cognizable damages. The Court finds Jurek's complaint has sufficiently averred facts that the parties had an implied contract for in-person education and that the contract was breached. Jurek has also alleged cognizable damages, the Court notes. Judge Munley says Jurek seeks to recover the difference in value between the in-person education that the parties bargained for and the online education that she received instead. Per the allegations, this includes the loss of different benefits that come with in-person education, as well as access to university services and facilities that were not available while Dickinson's campus was closed. Jurek has thus plausibly alleged that she and the putative class have sustained some damages in an amount that could become clearer as the case proceeds. Finally, Dickinson advances that "although any promises to provide in-person services are denied, even if they existed, Dickinson was excused as a matter of law from providing educational services in that manner" based on supervening impracticability and prevention by governmental orders. Jurek counters that such impracticability or impossibility defenses are premature and ultimately do not permit Dickinson's retention of tuition and fees. Jurek's arguments in this matter follow the other district courts' decisions. Even if a breach of an implied contract is ultimately excused, defendant may have to pay damages in the form of restitution, the Court concludes. A copy of the Court's Memorandum is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cHJkvh DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Bid to Extend Class Cert Filing Partly OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERVIN et al v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:23-cv-03678 (D.C.C., Filed Dec. 11, 2023), the Hon. Judge Randolph D. Moss entered an order granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion for extension of time to file motion for class certification. -- Plaintiffs may file their motion for class certification in an accordance with a schedule set by the Court following the Court's ruling on Defendant's motion to dismiss. -- The Court will defer ruling on Plaintiffs' motion for leave to conduct pre-certification discovery until that time. The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Job Discrimination (Employment).[CC] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Bid to Extend Discovery Deadlines Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OLIVIA PARROTT, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:21-cv-02930-RCL (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Royce Lamberth entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to extend discovery deadlines. The fact discovery on liability and class issues are to be completed by March 15, 2025. The parties are to meet and confer and propose a schedule expert discovery by March 15, 2025 The parties are to meet and confer and propose a schedule for class certification and summary judgment motions by March 15, 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QZag7F at no extra charge.[CC] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Fails to Meet Children's Rehabilitative Needs ------------------------------------------------------------------- K.Y., a minor, by and through his next friend, and D.J., a minor, by and through his next friend; on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, a municipal corporation, and SAM ABED, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services, Case No. 1:24-cv-03056 (D.D.C., Oct. 28, 2024) sues the Defendants for their failure to meet the rehabilitative and treatment needs of children in its custody and their practice of needlessly and unlawfully extending the time children spend in jail-like settings. According to the complaint, the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services violates Plaintiffs' and putative class members' due process rights to rehabilitative services and treatment by failing to timely place them in the appropriate low-, medium-, and high-level placements that can meet their identified rehabilitative needs, and instead keeping them at YSC—a jail-like facility that is crowded, dangerous, and does not and cannot provide for children's rehabilitative needs. Further, requiring Plaintiffs and putative class members to spend additional time in secure detention for no reason is unreasonable and thus amounts to prohibited punishment of people who have not been convicted of a crime. As a result of Defendants' actions, the Plaintiffs and class members are experiencing irreparable harm. On an ongoing basis, the extended detention in YSC that Plaintiffs and class members are experiencing harms their mental, emotional, and physical well-being, deprives them of their liberty by subjecting them to more restrictive settings than necessary, denies them rehabilitative services to which they are entitled, and hinders the developmental process, the suit asserts. Plaintiff K.Y. is sixteen years old and has been held in awaiting placement status at YSC since July 29, 2024. He sues by and through his next friend, his mother Jane Doe. District of Columbia operates and governs DYRS.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Megan Yan, Esq. Hanna Perry, Esq. Maya Chaudhuri, Esq. PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 633 3rd Street N.W. Washington DC 20001 Telephone: (202)-824-2201 E-mail: myan@pdsdc.org hperry@pdsdc.org mchaudhuri@pdsdc.org - and - Scott Michelman, Esq. Aditi Shah, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 529 14th Street NW, Suite 722 Washington, DC 20045 Telephone: (202) 457-0800 E-mail: smichelman@acludc.org ashah@acludc.org DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: K.Y. Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as K.Y., a minor, et al., v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-03056-CJN (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- certifying a class as to all claims in this action, as defined as follows: "Youth who are currently or will be (1) committed to the custody of the D.C. Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services; (2) detained at the Youth Services Center; and (3) awaiting placement"; -- certifying K.Y., a minor, by and through his next friend Jane Doe; and D.J., a minor, by and through his next friend Jane Roe, as class representatives; and -- appointing Megan Yan, Hanna Perry, and Maya Chaudhuri from the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia and Scott Michelman and Aditi Shah from the American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia as class counsel. District of Columbia is a compact city on the Potomac River, bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 28, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k8qIbb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Megan Yan, Esq. Hanna Perry, Esq. Maya Chaudhuri, Esq. PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 633 3rd Street N.W. Washington DC 20001 Telephone: (202)-824-2201 E-mail: myan@pdsdc.org hperry@pdsdc.org mchaudhuri@pdsdc.org - and - Scott Michelman, Esq. Aditi Shah, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 529 14th Street NW Suite 722 Washington, DC 20045 Telephone: (202) 457-0800 E-mail: smichelman@acludc.org ashah@acludc.org DOT TRANSPORTATION: Hoffman Class Claims Dismissed w/o Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hoffman v. DOT Transportation, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00059 (E.D. Cal., Jan. 5, 2024), the Hon. Judge Chi Soo Kim entered an order that the Plaintiff's putative class claims in this action are dismissed without prejudice and a court order is not required pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The Court further notes that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)'s requirement for judicial approval of dismissals of class claims does not apply before class certification. Here, a class has not been certified and therefore, Rule 23(e) does not apply. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC] EATON CORPORATION: Parties in Chambers Must Submit Joint Brief ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL CHAMBERS, v. EATON CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-08298-FMO-AJR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Olguin entered an order on motions for class certification: 1. The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single, fully integrated joint brief covering each party's position, in which each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a party is immediately followed by the opposing party's/parties' response. 2. The parties need not include a "procedural history" section, since the court will be familiar with the procedural history. The court is also familiar with the general standard for class certification, so that need not be argued. 3. In order for a motion for class certification to be filed in a timely manner, the meet and confer must take place no later than 35 days before the deadline for class certification motions set forth in the Court's Case Management and Scheduling Order. Eaton is an American-Irish-domiciled multinational power management company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3grRRO at no extra charge.[CC] EL HOGAR COMMUNITY: Faces Pauline Labor Suit in Cal. Super. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against El Hogar Community Services, Inc. The case is captioned as SIMONE NICOLE PAULINE, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EL HOGAR COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC., a California nonprofit corporation, Case No. 24CV018116 (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., September 12, 2024). The case is brought over Defendant's alleged employment violations. A case management conference is set for June 20, 2025 before Hon. Lauri A. Damrell. El Hogar Community Services, Inc. offers mental health and drug or alcohol addiction community outreach programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Bibiyan Law Group, P.C. 1460 Westwood Blvd, Ste 300 Los Angeles, CA 90024-4937 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com EMORY UNIVERSITY: 11th Circuit Vacates, Remands Schultz Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded the case captioned as MARC SCHULTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus EMORY UNIVERSITY, Defendant-Appellant, No. 23-12929 (11th Cir.), for further proceedings. Emory University is an institution of higher learning, operating nine academic units with 250 different degree programs and 15,000 students across two campuses. While tuition and fees for its students vary across units and by degree, Emory historically charged students the same tuition for courses offered both in-person and remotely. Emory receives payments for tuition and other fees via online ACH payments, third-party services, wire transfers, and occasionally written checks. At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, leaders across many states issued stay-at-home orders to contain the spread of the virus. Businesses, universities, schools, and places of public accommodation alike closed their doors and, where possible, transitioned their operations online. Emory University proved no exception, and the institution held classes online for the remaining seven weeks of the Spring 2020 semester. In response, Marc Schultz filed this suit. A father of a now-graduated Emory student, he seeks to certify this putative class action on behalf of all tuition payors under a theory of implied contract. Essentially, Schultz alleges that tuition payors received a lower-valued remote education than an in-person experience for which they bargained. The district court certified this class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), which Emory challenges on appeal. Emory contends that the district court abused its discretion in: (1) finding predominance by common evidence that Emory impliedly contracted with all tuition payors to provide in-person education during a pandemic; (2) holding damages measurable on a class-wide basis by a common methodology; and (3) addressing manageability in a subsequent case management plan. Meanwhile, Schultz posits that this appeal is procedurally premature given the pending motion to decertify. The Eleventh Circuit notes it is Schultz's burden to prove that common issues predominate over individualized ones. Insofar as the district court believes a class-wide damages calculation is necessary for common issues to predominate, it is Schultz's burden to show that the damages issue is capable of class-wide resolution. After careful review and with the benefit of oral argument, the Eleventh Circuit concludes that the district court abused its discretion in its common methodology analysis. Accordingly, it vacates and remands the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. On remand, the district court may properly consider any new materials subsequently supplemented by the pending motion to decertify and their applicability to any of Rule 23(b)(3)'s requirement. A copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=r0tsEJ EMPLOYERS PERSONNEL: Faces Velasquez Class Suit in Cal. Super. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Employers Personnel, LLC. The case is captioned as CARMEN VELASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EMPLOYERS PERSONNEL, LLC; SHINE FOOD, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 24STCV24284 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 19, 2024). The case is assigned to Judge William F. Highberger. Employers Personnel, LLC provide companies and employees with HR solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Mahoney Law Group 249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Tel: (562) 590-5550 Fax: (562) 590-8400 EQUINIX INC: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit in Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Equinix Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from putative stockholder class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On May 2, 2024, a putative stockholder class action was filed against us and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The named plaintiff alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, on the basis that the defendants allegedly made false and misleading statements about its business, results, internal controls, and accounting practices between May 3, 2019 and March 24, 2024. The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, a determination that the alleged claims may be asserted on a class-wide basis, unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, other expenses and costs. The Company intends to defend the lawsuit and filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on October 10, 2024. Headquartered in Redwood City, CA, Equinix, Inc. is the largest publicly traded carrier-neutral data center hosting provider in the world with operations in 44 markets across the Americas, EMEA and Asia-Pacific. ERIC ARMEL: Parties Must Complete Class Discovery by Feb. 26, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as XAVIAR PAGAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; RONNIE E. JOHNSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; KAREEM MAZYCK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; ANGEL MALDONADO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; AND T. MONTANA BELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; v. SUPERINTENDENT ERIC ARMEL, FORMER SUPERINTENDENT, SCI FAYETTE; et al. Case No. 2:22-cv-01516-CBB (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Christopher Brown entered a second amended case management order: 1. The parties shall complete class certification discovery by Feb. 26, 2025. 2. Plaintiff's Expert Reports related to class certification are due on or before April 1, 2025. Defendant's Expert Reports related to class certification are due on or before May 1, 2025. Depositions of all experts related to class certification shall be on or before June 2, 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MyT3K7 at no extra charge.[CC] EXCELSIOR MINING: Announces Dismissal of MM Fund Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Newsfile Corp. reports that Excelsior Mining Corp. (TSX: MIN) (OTCQB: EXMGF) (FSE: 3XS) ("Excelsior" or the "Company") is pleased to announce the proceedings brought by MM Fund (as plaintiff) in British Columbia and Ontario have been dismissed with prejudice. Excelsior and the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the proceedings on a no cost basis. ABOUT EXCELSIOR MINING Excelsior is a mineral exploration and development company that owns the Gunnison Copper Deposit, the Johnson Camp Mine, and a portfolio of exploration projects, including the Peabody Sill and the Strong and Harris deposits, in Cochise County, Arizona. The past producing Johnson Camp Mine is in Stage 2 of a process with Nuton LLC, a Rio Tinto Venture to restart the mine using Nuton technologies, with first copper expected to be produced in 2025. For more information on Excelsior, please visit our website at www.excelsiormining.com. For further information regarding this press release, please contact: Excelsior Mining Corp. Concord Place, Suite 300, 2999 North 44th Street, Phoenix, AZ, 85018. Shawn Westcott Telephone: (604) 365-6681 E-mail: info@excelsiormining.com www.excelsiormining.com [GN] FAMILY DOLLAR: Lindsey Dismisses All Claims Against Two Defendants ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chief District Judge Sheryl H. Lipman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, dismisses Defendants Family Dollar Stores, Inc., and Dollar Tree Family Dollar, LLC, from the lawsuit styled LEQUINTIN LINDSEY, individually and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02254-SHL-cgc (W.D. Tenn.). Before the Court is Plaintiff Lequintin Lindsey's Notice of Dismissal as to Defendants Family Dollar Stores, Inc., and Dollar Tree Family Dollar, LLC. Lindsey seeks to voluntarily dismiss all of his claims against these two Defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Lindsey's claims against Defendant Family Dollar Stores of Tennessee, LLC, remain. Because Family Dollar Stores, Inc., and Dollar Tree have not filed an answer or motion for summary judgment, Judge Lipman notes that dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) would normally be proper. However, in multi-defendant matters, Rule 21 provides the appropriate basis for dismissal of a single defendant, not Rule 41. The Court will, therefore, construe the notice of dismissal under Rule 41 as a motion for dismissal under Rule 21. Rule 21 permits a court to drop a party at any time on motion or on its own. Dropping parties under Rule 21 functions as a dismissal of the party. Thus, the Court rules that all claims against Defendants Family Dollar Stores, Inc., and Dollar Tree Family Dollar, LLC, are dismissed without prejudice under Rule 21. Judge Lipman points out that this dismissal does not apply to Lindsey's claims against Defendant Family Dollar Stores of Tennessee, LLC. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/358tdpt6 from PacerMonitor.com. FAMILY DOLLAR: W.D. Tenn. Directs Lindsey to File Proof of Service ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit captioned LEQUINTIN LINDSEY, individually and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FAMILY DOLLAR STORES OF TENNESSEE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02254-SHL-cgc (W.D. Tenn.), Chief District Judge Sheryl H. Lipman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, directs the Plaintiff to file proof of service and the Defendant to file a responsive pleading. Before the Court is Plaintiff Lequintin Lindsey's Response to Show Cause Order, filed Oct. 22, 2024. The Court ordered Lindsey to show cause for his failure to file proof of service on Defendant Family Dollar Stores of Tennessee, LLC, and his failure to obtain summonses for the other two Defendants, Family Dollar Stores, Inc., and Dollar Tree Family Dollar, LLC. In his response, Lindsey states that he did not obtain summonses for those two Defendants because they are not proper parties, and he has since filed a notice requesting their dismissal. The Court dismissed them on Oct. 23, 2024, by separate order. Lindsey also states that the parties are contemplating the possibility of arbitrating this matter after the discovery of an executed arbitration agreement covering all of Lindsey's individual claims against the remaining Defendant, Family Dollar Stores of Tennessee. The parties have been engaged in discussions about the most appropriate course of action--whether to seek dismissal of the Plaintiff's class action claims while staying his individual claims pending arbitration, or to stay the entire action pending resolution of the arbitration issue. Lindsey anticipates the parties will file a joint motion to stay proceedings within two weeks. If the parties cannot reach an agreement to stay the entire action, Family Dollar will file a motion to dismiss the collective claims. The Court appreciates Lindsey's explanation for the delay, but this matter has been pending for six months. To date, Lindsey has still not filed proof of service on Family Dollar Stores of Tennessee, and that party has not filed a responsive pleading. Thus, the Court directs Lindsey to file proof of service on Family Dollar Stores of Tennessee, LLC, by Oct. 25, 2024. The Court also directs the parties to file their anticipated joint motion to stay proceedings by Oct. 30, 2024. In the alternative, if the parties cannot agree to stay all of the claims pending arbitration, the Court directs Family Dollar to file a responsive pleading by Oct. 30, 2024. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mru6muxy from PacerMonitor.com. FAROUK SYSTEMS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Delacruz Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ EMANUEL DELACRUZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. FAROUK SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-08198 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://chi.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons under the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on Oct. 2, 2024, in an attempt to purchase CHI Shampoo and Conditioner from the Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on the Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue to contribute to the Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation, added the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Farouk Systems offers haircare products and styling tools.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Dana@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal FAVORITE WORLD: Plaintiffs Can File Portions of Reply Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVIDA MINOR and ASHA AYANNA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. FAVORITE WORLD, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-04425-JFW-AJR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Walter entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' application to file under seal confidential exhibit and portions of reply Re: Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for class certification. Favorite World is in the lingerie and corsets (underwear) business. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=03dwMl at no extra charge.[CC] FIDELITY INVESTMENTS: Campagnolo Balks at Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL CAMPAGNOLO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FIDELITY INVESTMENTS, Case No. 1:24-cv-12723-LTS (D. Mass., Oct. 28, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its customers. On Oct. 9, 2024, the Defendant began sending the Plaintiff and other Data Breach victims a Notice of Data Breach letter, informing them that, between August 17 and August 19, a third party accessed and obtained certain information without authorization using two customer accounts that they had recently established. The PII compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff's and other customers' full names, financial account information, and Social Security numbers ("personally identifiable information" or "PII"). As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and approximately 77,000 Class Members, suffered concrete injuries in fact including invasion of privacy, theft of their PII, lost or diminished value of PII, lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach, loss of benefit of the bargain, the Plaintiff's account at Bank of Centennial being compromised, in October 2024, and the Plaintiff experiencing attempted, fraudulent charges to his Bank of America debit card, in October 2024, the suit alleges. Fidelity is an investment firm that provides financial services to its customers.[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 - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com FIELDWORKS LLC: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRAVIS SWANS, an Individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. FIELDWORKS, LLC, a District of Columbia limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-07250-SPG-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett entered an order that: 1. Denies Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement. 2. Grants a service award of $2,500 to the Class Representative. The Court also orders Plaintiffs within 21 calendar days to submit supplemental briefing or exhibits to demonstrate how they evaluated the maximum potential recovery considering the strengths and weaknesses of Plaintiffs' claims. Thus, Counsel has not provided the Court with sufficient evidence or justification on the record to properly examine the fairness of the proposed attorneys' fees award and costs. This is a putative wage and hour class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiffs against Defendant Fieldworks, LLC seeking monetary damages, including restitution. Plaintiffs are all non-exempt current and former employees employed by Defendant in California. On Aug. 29, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Class Action Complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging nine causes of action. On Oct. 5, 2022, Defendant removed the Case to this Court. On Oct. 25, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, which this Court denied on Jan. 17, 2023. The Settlement Agreement defines the putative class as follows: "Defendant's non-exempt employees, both current and former, who performed services in the state of California from Aug. 30, 2018 through Aug. 30, 2022." The Settlement Administrator estimates that, as of Aug. 13, 2024, there are approximately 1,041 class members. FieldWorks is a grassroots campaign consulting firm. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X3Rs21 at no extra charge.[CC] FLO HEALTH: Parties Seek to Modify Sealing Procedure in Frasco Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERICA FRASCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FLO HEALTH, INC., GOOGLE, LLC, FACEBOOK, INC., APPSFLYER, INC., and FLURRY, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00757-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting a modification to the applicable sealing procedures under Local Civil Rule 79-5 as follows: -- That the Parties shall follow the sealing procedures in connection with class certification briefing in lieu of the sealing procedures set out under Local Civil Rule 79-5. -- If a Party files a document for which it intends to request sealing, the Party may file the document in redacted or slip-sheet form and contemporaneously lodge an unredacted (and if necessary, highlighted) copy of the same document on the ECF docket, provisionally under seal, along with a 1-page interim sealing motion indicating that the reasons for sealing will be discussed in a forthcoming omnibus sealing motion. -- The Parties and any affected third parties shall jointly file an omnibus sealing motion by Nov. 21, 2024—i.e., within 29 days after the filing of the Plaintiffs' reply brief in support of the motion for class certification—pursuant to the Court’s Amended Scheduling Order; -- The Party filing the underlying document sought to be sealed shall bear the responsibility of: (1) notifying each affected third party regarding any of its confidential information that has been filed under seal and (2) soliciting each affected third party's request(s) for sealing or waiver(s) of confidentiality for inclusion in the omnibus sealing motion; and -- The Party filing the underlying document sought to be sealed shall file the public-facing version of the document, with any redactions pursuant to the Court's sealing order, within 21 days following the Court’s order on the omnibus sealing motion. Flo is a maker of the Flo Period & Ovulation Tracker mobile app. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0nC3uW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christian Levis, Esq. Amanda Fiorilla, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: clevis@lowey.com afiorilla@lowey.com - and - Carol C. Villegas, Esq. Michael P. Canty, Esq. David Saldamando, Esq. Danielle Izzo, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: cvillegas@labaton.com mcanty@labaton.com dizzo@labaton.com dsaldamando@labaton.com - and - Diana J. Zinser, Esq. John A. Macoretta, Esq. Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C. 2001 Market Street, Suite 3420 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 Facsimile: (215) 496-6611 E-mail: dzinser@srkattorneys.com jkodroff@srkattorneys.com jmacoretta@srkattorneys.com - and - Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Kas L. Gallucci, Esq. Alexis M. Wood, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com kas@consumersadvocates.com alexis@consumersadvocates.com - and - Kent Morgan Williams, Esq. WILLIAMS LAW FIRM 1632 Homestead Trail Long Lake, MN 55356 Telephone: (612) 940-4452 E-mail: williamslawmn@gmail.com - and - William Darryl Harris, II, Esq. HARRIS LEGAL ADVISORS LLC 3136 Kingsdale Center, Suite 246 Columbus, OH 43221 Telephone: (614) 504-3350 Facsimile: (614) 340-1940 E-mail: will@harrislegaladvisors.com - and - James M. Wagstaffe, Esq. Frank Busch, Esq. WAGSTAFFE, VON LOEWENFELDT, BUSCH & RADWICK LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 725 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 357-8900 Facsimile: (415) 357-8910 E-mail: wagstaffe@wvbrlaw.com busch@wvbrlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Benedict Y. Hur, Esq. Simona Agnolucci, Esq. Eduardo E. Santacana, Esq. Tiffany Lin, Esq. Yuhan Alice Chi, Esq. Argemira Florez, Esq. WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 858-7400 E-mail: bhur@willkie.com sagnolucci@willkie.com esantacana@willkie.com tlin@willkie.com ychi@willkie.com aflorez@willkie.com - and - Jason J. Kim, Esq. Ann Marie Mortimer, Esq. Samuel A. Danon, Esq. John J. Delionado, Esq. HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP 550 S. Hope St., Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 532-2000 Facsimile: (213) 532-2020 E-mail: KimJ@HuntonAK.com AMortimer@HuntonAK.com sdanon@HuntonAK.com jdelionado@HuntonAK.com - and - Benjamin Sadun, Esq. Brenda R. Sharton, Esq. DECHERT LLP US Bank Tower 633 West 5th Street, Suite 4900 Los Angeles, CA Telephone: (213) 808-5700 E-mail: benjamin.sadun@dechert.com brenda.sharton@dechert.com FOOD LION: Daniels Sue Over Harmful Additives in Orange Soda ------------------------------------------------------------ Lawyer Monthly reports that a recent class action lawsuit has raised serious concerns about the safety of Food Lion's Omazing Orange Soda, alleging that the beverage contains brominated vegetable oil (BVO), a potentially harmful oil additive linked to neurological damage. Filed by plaintiff Shavonne Daniels, the lawsuit claims that BVO is a toxic food additive and that both animal and human studies have shown its presence in food to be unsafe. The suit argues that significant exposure to BVO can adversely affect the central nervous system, prompting calls for action against the popular soft drink. Daniels is seeking to represent a nationwide class of consumers, as well as specific groups from North Carolina and South Carolina who purchased the Omazing Orange Soda within the relevant time frame. The lawsuit contends that Food Lion should have proactively informed consumers about the risks associated with BVO, especially considering that numerous leading soda brands have already removed this ingredient due to its harmful effects. The class action alleges that the defendants failed to disclose vital information during the alleged class period, both before and at the time of the plaintiffs' purchases, despite being aware -- or should have been aware -- of the risks associated with using BVO in their product. The claims against Food Lion and its parent company, Ahold Delhaize USA, include unjust enrichment, negligence, failure to provide adequate warnings, fraudulent concealment, breach of both implied and express warranties, and strict product liability. Daniels is seeking a jury trial and requesting declaratory and injunctive relief, along with compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages for herself and all class members. This lawsuit is part of a growing trend, as several class action lawsuits have been initiated against beverage companies over allegations of false advertising and product safety. The orange soda class action lawsuit is officially titled Daniels, et al. v. Ahold Delhaize USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00876, and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Consumers who have tried Food Lion's Omazing Orange Soda are encouraged to share their thoughts in the comments section. Representing the plaintiff are Tiffany N. Lawson and Paul J. Doolittle from Poulin | Willey | Anastopoulo, LLC, who are committed to seeking justice for consumers potentially affected by this alleged toxic ingredient. [GN] FRED MEYER: Court Refuses to Approve Settlement in Woody Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned SAMANTHA WOODY, APRIL ALLEN, DELIA CRUZ, CANDICE TRENT, and NICOLE URVINA, Plaintiffs v. FRED MEYER STORES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-01800-HZ (D. Or.), Senior District Judge Marco A. Hernandez of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon issued an Opinion & Order denying the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement, without prejudice and with leave to renew. On Sept. 29, 2022, Defendant Fred Meyer Stores, Inc., activated a new payroll system for its hourly, non-exempt employees in Oregon. The Plaintiffs allege that the new payroll system caused widespread pay errors for many Oregon employees and that the Defendant knew or should have known that the new system would cause payroll errors. On Nov. 17, 2022, Samantha Woody and Nicole Urvina filed a class action Complaint in this Court on behalf of all hourly, non-exempt employees of the Defendant, who were employed "on or after activation of the new payroll system." They asserted claims for (1) failure to pay all wages on regular paydays in violation of Oregon Revised Statute Section 652.120, (2) failure to pay all wages on termination in violation of Oregon Revised Statute Sections 652.140 and 652.150, and (3) withholding wages without authorization in violation of Oregon Revised Statute Section 652.610. On Dec. 1, 2022, Samantha Woody, April Allen, Delia Cruz, Candice Trent, and Nicole Urvina ("named Plaintiffs") filed an amended class action Complaint on behalf of all hourly, non-exempt employees of the Defendant, who were employed in the State of Oregon on or after Sept. 29, 2022. They assert claims for (1) failure to pay all wages on regular paydays in violation of Or. Rev. Stat. Section 652.120, (2) failure to pay all wages on termination in violation of Or. Rev. Stat. Sections 652.140 and 652.150, (3) withholding wages without authorization in violation of Or. Rev. Stat. Section 652.610, and (4) equitable accounting of wages. On Nov. 17, 2023, the Defendant filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in which it asserted it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the Plaintiffs' third and fourth claims. On Jan. 24, 2024, the Court issued an Opinion and Order in which it granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion. Specifically, the Court declined to conclude that the Plaintiffs cannot state a claim for violation of Section 652.610 as a matter of law; held the Plaintiffs are not permitted to seek multiple recoveries of $200 for successive occurrences of the same improper deduction for the same individual under Section 652.610, but may recover either actual damages or $200 for each different type of violation of Section 652.610(3); granted the Motion as to the Plaintiffs' fourth claim to the extent that it relies on the complexity of accounts; and denied the Motion as to the Plaintiffs' fourth claim to the extent that it relies on a fiduciary relationship. The Court also granted the Plaintiffs leave to submit a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, which the Plaintiffs did not do. On April 19, 2024, the Defendant filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment asserting the Plaintiffs' second claim is precluded by a Collective Bargaining Agreement as to Woody, the Plaintiffs' third claim is preempted by federal law as to Trent, the Plaintiffs' claims for unlawful or unauthorized deductions of union dues are preempted by federal labor law, the Plaintiffs' third claim should be limited to withholdings and deductions, and the Plaintiffs' fourth claim is not viable because there is an adequate remedy at law. On May 15, 2024, the parties had a settlement conference with United States Magistrate Judge John Acosta. The parties stated in two subsequent status reports that settlement discussions were ongoing. On June 25, 2024, the parties informed the Court that they had reached a settlement agreement. On Sept. 13, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement. The Court took the matter under advisement on that date. The Court should grant preliminary approval before a class has been certified only when the parties establish all of the prerequisites of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), at least one of the requirements of Rule 23(b), and the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2) have been met. The Court concludes that the Rule 23(a) factors are satisfied. The Court finds that: (i) the class is sufficiently numerous; (ii) the commonality requirement is satisfied; (iii) the typicality requirement is satisfied because each of the named Plaintiffs is alleged to have suffered injury as a result of the Defendant's payroll change that is the same as or similar to class members; and (iv) the adequacy-of-representation requirement is met as to both the named Plaintiffs and class counsel. Judge Hernandez notes that the central issues in this lawsuit are the Defendant's payroll system conversion, the resulting problems with class members' pay, and the Defendant's knowledge of the possible effect of the conversion. These issues are more prevalent and important than individual issues. The Court, therefore, finds the predominance requirement is satisfied. The Court finds that the initial factors suggest the settlement is fair and reasonable. Because early, pre-certification settlements are so open to abuse and so little subject to scrutiny at the time by the district court, the Court is required to search for "subtle signs" that the Plaintiffs' counsel has subordinated class relief to self-interest. Judge Hernandez notes that the settlement agreement does not contain a reverter, it does, however, contain a "clear sailing" arrangement. In addition, the Court has concerns about the service awards to named Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs indicate that under the settlement agreement all members of the proposed class, who do not opt out will receive equal payments in an expected amount between $50 and $100. In addition to the $50 and/or $100 payment, each proposed class member may submit a claim form for an additional payment under "one or both" circumstances: (1) identifying at least one paycheck from Sept. 25, 2022, through Dec. 31, 2022, containing an inaccurate rate of pay or inaccurate worked hours for which he or she will receive the total sum of $200, and (2) identifying at least one missing or late paycheck from Sept. 25, 2022, through Dec. 31, 2022 for which he or she will receive the total sum of $200. In theory, therefore, a prospective class member could obtain up to $500. The settlement agreement also provides, however, that the amount of each claim will be reduced on a pro rata basis depending on the number of claims submitted. Accordingly, if significant numbers of class members submit claims, which seems likely given the size of the putative class, individual claimants may receive substantially less than the amounts set out above if the common fund is too small to fully pay all claims. Judge Hernandez notes that the service award proposed here would be between 19 and 190 times the amount class members might obtain. In support of the requested $9,500 service award it is asserted in the Plaintiffs' Motion that each named Plaintiff compiled documents responsive to a request for production and testified in a multi-hour deposition, participated in the mediation, and were active in negotiations after the mediation. The Court finds that this vague description of the named Plaintiffs' participation does not warrant the service award of $9,500 per named Plaintiff particularly given the disparity between the amounts that unnamed class members stand to recover and the service award. In addition, there is no evidence that the named Plaintiffs' damages would be close to $9,500. Rather, these payments would likely make named Plaintiffs "more than whole." The Court concludes on this record that the Plaintiffs have not established that the proposed service award is fair or reasonable. The settlement agreement provides that the Plaintiffs' counsel will receive $750,000 in attorney fees (25% of the $3,000,000 gross settlement award) plus $51,838.75 for litigation costs and expenses for a total of $801,838.75. Since the Plaintiffs' counsel requests attorney fees that are 25 percent of the gross settlement award, Judge Hernandez points out that it must also be supported by the record. The Plaintiffs assert that their fee request is supported by the circumstances. The Court questions whether this case involved several novel or unusual questions of law. The Plaintiffs' claims in the First Amended Complaint are not particularly novel. In addition, the Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings as to the third claim and the Court limited the Plaintiffs' statutory damages under Section 652.615, but in so doing it adopted the reasoning of at least five cases decided in this district. The Court denied the Defendant's motion as to whether the Plaintiffs could state a claim for violation of Section 652.610, which required statutory construction and a review of legislative history. The Court, however, also noted that portions of the Defendant's argument relied on a mischaracterization of the Plaintiffs' claim. At any rate, this case may have involved significant work by class counsel, but the Plaintiffs do not provide any time records, billing rate information, or other evidence through which this Court can evaluate whether 25 percent of the gross settlement amount is reasonable. This is particularly important because the amount requested will significantly reduce the class fund, which, according to the settlement agreement, may result in class members receiving less than even the base amounts set out in the settlement agreement, Judge Hernandez points out. The Court, therefore, finds it cannot conclude on this record that the attorney's fees requested are fair and reasonable. In summary, the Court concludes the Plaintiffs have not established that the proposed settlement is fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable under Rule 23(e). Accordingly, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval without prejudice and with leave to renew to cure the deficiencies set out in this Opinion and Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated Oct. 17, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5kxdwsy from PacerMonitor.com. Richard B. Myers -- richard@bennetthartman.com -- Kate D. Flanagan -- kate@bennetthartman.com -- BENNETT HARTMANN, LLP, in Portland, OR 97204, Attorneys for the Plaintiff. Edward Choi -- echoi@bullardlaw.com -- April Upchurch Fredrickson -- april.fredrickson@millernash.com -- Matthew A. Tripp -- matthew.tripp@millernash.com -- MILLER NASH LLP, in Portland, OR 97205, Attorneys for the Defendant. FREEDOM LASER: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Espinal Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- FRANGIE ESPINAL, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. FREEDOM LASER THERAPY, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-08196 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://irestorelaser.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on June 24, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a Revive Max Growth Kit from the Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied her a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on the Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue to contribute to the Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation. She seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Freedom Laser provides a low-level laser therapy procedure to help alleviate nicotine withdrawal symptoms.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Dana@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal GAP INC: Stipulation and Briefing on Bid to Dismiss Cho Suit OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled PAMELA CHO on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE GAP, INC., a Delaware corporation, GAP (APPAREL) LLC, a California limited liability company, GAP INTERNATIONAL SALES, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-05206-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., signed the parties' stipulation and briefing schedule for the Defendants' renewed motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff filed her complaint in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco, captioned Cho v. The Gap, Inc., et al., No. CGC-24 616357, on July 12, 2024, which was removed to this Court on Aug. 15, 2024. On Aug. 20, 2024, the Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss Class Action. On Oct. 1, 2024, the Court dismissed the Defendants' pending Motion to Dismiss without prejudice to renewal to allow the parties to discuss potential resolution. On Oct. 14, 2024, after preliminary discussions, the Parties have agreed not to pursue mediation at this time. The Defendants desire to renew their Motion to Dismiss and resume briefing on the matter. Counsel for the Parties have met and conferred and submit that good cause exists for the Court to approve the Stipulation. The parties stipulate and agree that the Defendants may re-file their Motion to Dismiss on Oct. 17, 2024, or as directed by the Court. The Plaintiff's Opposition will be due Nov. 7, 2024. The Defendants' Reply will be due Nov. 21, 2024. The hearing on the Motions will be Dec. 12, 2024, at 2 p.m. or a date and time as may be convenient to the Court to accommodate the Parties' agreed briefing schedule. A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulation and Briefing Schedule dated Oct. 17, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ud57ftes from PacerMonitor.com. Todd D. Carpenter -- todd@lcllp.com -- MATTHEW J. ZEVIN -- mattz@lcllp.com -- SCOTT G. BRADEN -- scott@lcllp.com -- JAMES B. DRIMMER -- jim@lcllp.com -- CONNOR J. PORZIO -- connor@lcllp.com -- LYNCH CARPENTER LLP, in Del Mar, California 92014, Counsel for Plaintiff Pamela Cho. Jason D. Russell -- jason.russell@skadden.com -- HILLARY A. HAMILTON -- hillary.hamilton@skadden.com -- SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP, in Los Angeles, California 90071-3144; MICHAEL W. McTIGUE, JR. -- michael.mctigue@skadden.com -- MEREDITH C. SLAWE -- meredith.slawe@skadden.com -- SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP, in New York City, New York 10001-8602, Counsel for Defendants The Gap, Inc., et al. GAVIN NEWSOM: Court Dismisses Laponte DSL Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California dismissed the case captioned as JOHN LAPONTE, Plaintiff, v. GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-2808 CSK P (E.D. Calif.) with leave to amend. The plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350 for this action. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915. This proceeding was referred to the court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1). Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(a). Plaintiff names as defendants California Governor Gavin Newsom, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, Jennifer Shaffer, Executive Officer, Board of Parole Hearings, and K.R. Zuetel, author, Senate Bill 42, Determinate Sentencing Law. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants, while acting in their official capacities enforced administrative and statutory law that no longer exists, allowed a parole agency that was also eliminated when California Penal Code Sec. 1168 (Indeterminate Sentencing Law or "ISL") since September 1, 1976, was eliminated (and so was the parole agency and the Community Release Board). Plaintiff avers that when the Governor signed into law the Determinate Sentencing Law ("DSL"), it not only eliminated the ISL, but also eliminated the parole agency, and nowhere in the DSL was the parole agency, Board of Prison Terms, or the current Board of Parole Hearings given power to grant parole to prisoners sentenced under the DSL who were given ISL terms under California Penal Code Sec. 1170. Plaintiff contends this makes the application unconstitutional. As relief, plaintiff requests class certification for all prisoners named and not named; elimination of the DSL as it pertains to prisoners being forced to appear before a parole agency which lacks subject matter jurisdiction to release them on parole, or to hold unconstitutional hearings to determine suitability for the entire class as these hearings amount to fraud since the agency has no power to grant parole to ISL prisoner's pursuant to California Penal Code Sec. 1170 after July 1, 1977. Initially, the Court observes that this lawsuit is brought by plaintiff as a class action. Plaintiff, however, is a non-lawyer proceeding without counsel. It is well established that a layperson cannot ordinarily represent the interests of a class. This rule becomes almost absolute when, as in this case, the putative class representative is incarcerated and proceeding pro se. This action, therefore, will not be construed as a class action and instead will be construed as an individual civil suit brought by plaintiff, the Court notes. In his complaint, plaintiff fails to provide sufficient facts to determine whether plaintiff can state a cognizable constitutional claim, the Court finds. He fails to demonstrate how the DSL, as applied to plaintiff, is unconstitutional. Plaintiff provided no information concerning his conviction. Court records reflect that on March 21, 1990, in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, plaintiff entered a plea of guilty to kidnapping for ransom, false imprisonment by violence, assault with a firearm, and second degree robbery, and admitted to sentencing enhancement allegations that he used a firearm in the commission of those four crimes. Plaintiff was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole, plus a two-year term, the execution of which was stayed, and five-year and two-year terms of imprisonment to be served concurrently. In plaintiff's prior habeas petition, he challenged the 2007 denial of release on parole by the California Board of Parole Hearings. The Court notes records from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation confirm that plaintiff is being provided parole suitability hearings. Further, plaintiff's claim that the DSL eliminated the Community Release Board is incorrect, the Court states. Judge Kim explains that the Adult Authority was eliminated by the DSL, but in 1976, California Penal Code Sec. 5075 was amended to address the staffing of the Community Release Board, the successor parole agency. Thus, plaintiff's parole consideration hearings are conducted by the Board as authorized by California law. If the Board finds the inmate is suitable for parole and recommends parole, the case is sent to the Governor for review. Pursuant to California Penal Code Sec. 3041.1, the Governor has statutory authority to review parole suitability decisions. The Court holds the plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed. It is not clear plaintiff can amend to state a cognizable civil rights claim. However, in an abundance of caution, the plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5nbCrj GDK GO INC: Thurman Seeks Drivers' Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- ALANNA THURMAN and CHERYL GARCIA, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. GDK GO, INC. d/b/a Domino's Pizza, Case No. 4:24-cv-04168 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 29, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages owed to the Plaintiffs and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The suit says that the Defendant employs and/or employed delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to Defendant's customers. The Defendant's delivery drivers incur(red) costs for gasoline, vehicle parts and fluids, repair and maintenance services, insurance, depreciation, and other expenses while delivering pizza and other food items for the primary benefit of the Defendant. However, the Defendant used a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that neither reimburse the drivers for their actual expenses, nor at the IRS business mileage rate which is legally required and a reasonable approximation of those expenses. This under-reimbursement causes their wages to fall below the applicable minimum wage during some or all workweeks, the Plaintiffs contend. During the time the Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as delivery drivers they received $1.50 per delivery as reimbursement for their automobile expenses. The Plaintiffs estimate each delivery is, on average, approximately 10 miles roundtrip. Accordingly, Defendant's reimbursement amounts to approximately $.15 per mile ($1.50 per delivery/10 miles per delivery). Using the lowest IRS rate and the average rate per mile the Plaintiffs were making per mile driven ($.15 per mile) in effect during that period as a reasonable approximation of the Plaintiffs' automobile expenses, every mile driven on the job decreased their net wages by at least $.41 ($.56-.15) per mile. The Defendant failed to reasonably approximate the amount of their drivers' automobile expenses to such an extent that its drivers' net wages are diminished beneath the federal minimum wage requirements, the suit adds. Ms. Thurman has been employed by Defendant as a delivery driver since September 2023. Ms. Garcia was employed by the Defendant from July 2023 to January 2024. She worked as a delivery driver from July 2023 until September 2023 when she was promoted to Assistant Manager. The Defendant operates and/or operated numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores throughout Texas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. Jolie N. Pavlos, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com JPavlos@forthepeople.com GEO GROUP: 10th Circuit Rejects Appeal in Detainees' Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Karlik of Colorado Politics reports that the federal appeals court based in Denver declined last week to decide the appeal of the private company that operates an immigrant detention center in Aurora, concluding it had no ability to weigh in on the class-action lawsuit before trial. The plaintiffs are detainees who originally filed suit in 2014. They claimed GEO Group, which operates the 1,532-bed detention facility for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), violated federal or state law in two ways. First, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 makes it unlawful to knowingly coerce labor out of another person through serious harm or threats of serious harm. Requiring detainees to clean not just their personal space, but the common areas of the detention center under threat of solitary confinement, allegedly ran afoul of that prohibition. Second, GEO Group's $1-per-day compensation for inmates in a voluntary work program allegedly amounted to unjust enrichment under Colorado law, with GEO Group unfairly receiving a benefit at the detainees' expense without properly compensating them. In October 2022, U.S. District Court Senior Judge John L. Kane refused to end the lawsuit in an order that slammed GEO Group for its "arrogance" and for being "deceptive." Among other things, Kane found GEO Group was not entitled to the immunity generally afforded to the federal government. While contractors may avail themselves of that immunity, they must be acting at the direction of the government. Kane found ICE did not force GEO Group to implement the challenged practices. "GEO went beyond its contract with ICE in requiring detainees to clean up all common areas and after other detainees under the threat of segregation. And GEO's contract with ICE gave GEO discretion to decide how much to pay," he wrote. Although a trial was scheduled for April 2023, GEO Group immediately appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, which had already sided against the company in 2018 during a challenge to the lawsuit's class-action status. Case: Menocal v. The GEO Group Decided: October 22, 2024 Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for Colorado Ruling: 3-0 Judges: Jerome A. Holmes (author) Carolyn B. McHugh Joel M. Carson III Background: Judge green-lights forced-labor lawsuit against operator of Aurora detention center The plaintiffs quickly sought to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that GEO Group's quibble with Kane's order did not fall in the limited category of decisions meriting immediate appeal. Crucially, for the 10th Circuit to act, Kane's order needed to resolve an issue "completely separate from the merits" of the lawsuit. During oral arguments in September 2023, Chief Judge Jerome A. Holmes suggested the question of GEO Group's authority to implement its disputed policies was the core issue of the overall case. "Whether you're authorized or directed by the government to operate a voluntary work program and pay a dollar a day, and whether you're authorized and directed by the government to insist that capable people pick up after themselves," responded attorney Dominic E. Draye for GEO Group, "those are questions totally apart from the merits." The 10th Circuit was unconvinced. Both the issue on appeal and the underlying issue for trial "relate to whether the government specifically directed the contractors' actions and whether, in practice, they deviated from the government's directions," wrote Holmes in the Oct. 22 order. Therefore, the court declined to decide the appeal. The case is Menocal et al. v. The GEO Group, Inc. [GN] GEO GROUP: Not Entitled to Derivative Sovereign Immunity -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as ALEJANDRO MENOCAL; MARCOS BRAMBILA; LOURDES ARGUETA; HUGO HERNANDEZ; GRISEL XAHUENTITLA; JESUS GAYTAN; OLGA ALEXAKLINA; DAGOBERTO VIZGUERRA; DEMETRIO VALERGA, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. THE GEO GROUP, INC., Defendant - Appellant, No. 22-1409 (10th Cir.), Chief Judge Jerome A. Holmes of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granted the plaintiffs-appellees' motion to dismiss the appeal filed by GEO from the order of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado rejecting its claim of immunity from suit. Plaintiff-Appellee Alejandro Menocal commenced a class action lawsuit against Defendant-Appellant The GEO Group, Inc., alleging forced labor in violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1589, and unjust enrichment in violation of Colorado common law. GEO filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that it was entitled to derivative sovereign immunity pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co., 309 U.S. 18 (1940). GEO argued that the Yearsley doctrine functions as a shield from suit rather than as a defense to liability. The district court disagreed and, in relevant part, denied GEO's motion. GEO now appeals from the district court's order rejecting its claim of immunity from suit under Yearsley. And Mr. Menocal and other detainees in the class have moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the Tenth Circuit lacks appellate jurisdiction because the district court's order rejecting this purported immunity is not immediately appealable. Judge Holmes concludes that a district court's order denying application of the Yearsley doctrine is not subject to interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, he grants Plaintiffs-Appellees' motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction and dismiss this appeal. A copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qGcA2W GEORGIA: Plaintiffs Seek Reconsideration of Sept. 27 Order ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as The Georgia Advocacy Office, et al., v. State of Georgia, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-03999-MLB (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order reconsidering and reversing its Sept. 27, 2024, Order granting summary judgment for the Defendants. -- If the Court does not reverse its decision and deny Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, at a minimum, the Plaintiffs request that the Court amend the docket entry and Judgment to reflect that the dismissal was without prejudice. -- First, the Court analyzed standing for the wrong Plaintiff. -- Second, it improperly assessed the credibility of Plaintiffs' evidence supporting injury-in-fact. -- Third, the Court failed to provide Plaintiffs with notice or an opportunity to be heard before it sua sponte determined that Plaintiffs The Arc of the United States and Georgia Advocacy Office ("GAO") lacked standing. Georgia is a southeastern U.S. state whose terrain spans coastal beaches, farmland and mountains. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gzIYy6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jessica C. Wilson, Esq. Christopher G. Campbell, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 33 Arch Street, 26th Floor Boston, MA 02110-1447 Telephone: (617) 406-6000 Facsimile: (617) 406-6100 E-mail: jessica.wilson@us.dlapiper.com christopher.campbell@usdlapiper.com - and - Elissa S. Gershon, Esq. Kathryn J. Walker, Esq. CENTER FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION 5 Ferry Street, No. 314 Easthampton, MA 01027 Telephone: (413) 586-6024 E-mail: egershon@cpr-ma.org kwalker@cpr-ma.org - and - Megan E. Schuller, Esq. Ira A. Burnim, Esq. BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW 1101 15th Street, N.W., Suite 1212 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 467-5730 E-mail: megans@bazelon.org irabster@gmail.com - and - Devon Orland, Esq. GEORGIA ADVOCACY OFFICE 1 West Court Square Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (404) 885-1234 E-mail: dorland@thegao.org - and - Craig Goodmark, Esq. GOODMARK LAW FIRM 1425 A Dutch Valley Place Atlanta, GA 30324 Telephone: (404) 719-4848 E-mail: cgoodmark@gmail.com - and - Shira Wakschlag, Esq. THE ARC OF THE UNITED STATES 1825 K Street, N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 534-3708 E-mail: wakschlag@thearc.org - and - Matthew Iverson, Esq. Marquetta J. Bryan, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 1 Financial Center, Suite 3500 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 217-4700 Facsimile: (617) 217-4710 E-mail: matthew.iverson@nelsonmullins.com marquetta.bryan@nelsonmullins.com GERMAN KITCHEN: Sporer Suit Seeks Kitchen Designers' Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARMIT SPORER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GERMAN KITCHEN CENTER LLC and MAYAN METZLER, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-08112 (S.D.N.Y., October 25, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, tools of the trade violation, failure to pay sales commission, and failure to furnish proper wage statements. The Plaintiff worked as a kitchen designer at the Defendants' showroom located in New York, New York from September 2017 through July 1, 2023. German Kitchen Center LLC is a kitchen showroom owner and operator in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq. STEVENSON MARINO LLP 445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 1500 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (212) 939-7229 GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Bid to Exclude Rosenthal's Opinions OK'd --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: AVANDIA MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. 2:07-md-01871-CMR (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Rufe entered an order that: 1. Defendant's motion to exclude the opinions and proposed testimony of Dr. Meredith Rosenthal is granted. 2. Defendant's Motion to exclude the opinions and proposed testimony of Dr. Thomas McGuire is granted in part and denied in part as follows: a) the Motion is granted as to Dr. McGuire's damages calculations using the Rosenthal adjustment, his Scenario 2, and his Metformin calculations; and b) the Motion is otherwise denied as to the Dr. McGuire's damages calculations using his Step-Down Adjustment for Scenario 1. 3. By separate order, the Court will set a schedule for supplemental briefing on summary judgment and class certification. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aY15gQ at no extra charge.[CC] GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Bid to Exclude Rosenthal's Testimony Granted ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: AVANDIA MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. 2:07-md-01871-CMR (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting GSK's motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of Dr. Meredith Rosenthal will be granted -- GSK's motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of Dr. Thomas McGuire will be granted in part. Dr. McGuire may provide limited testimony and opinion regarding his Step-Down Adjustment for -- In short, Dr. McGuire's metformin calculation is premised on the same kind of counterfactual assumptions as identified with respect to Scenario. -- In order to reach those calculations, Dr. McGuire must assume that all Avandia prescriptions were metformin prescriptions instead, and further that metformin would have been the only alternative that was prescribed. The Plaintiffs, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 and Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund and J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., filed suits against GlaxoSmithKline LLC ("GSK") alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and various state consumer protection laws in connection with the marketing of the diabetes drug Avandia. GSK produces, markets, and distributes oral medications to treat Type II diabetes mellitus under the brand names Avandia, Avandamet, and Avandaryl. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G3J4pq at no extra charge.[CC] GLOBAL E-TRADING: Court Imposes Sanctions Against Co-Defendant -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington granted plaintiffs' motion for sanctions in the case captioned as JANET SIHLER and CHARLENE BAVENCOFF, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. GLOBAL E-TRADING, LLC, d/b/a Chargebacks911, GARY CARDONE, and MONICA EATON, Defendants, Case No. 8:23-cv-1450-VMC-LSG (M.D. Fla.). Plaintiffs initiated this putative class action against Defendants on June 28, 2023. The operative complaint is the third amended complaint, in which Plaintiffs assert two RICO claims: (1) for violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(c) (Count 1) — a substantive RICO claim; and (2) for violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(d) (Count 2) — a RICO conspiracy claim. On August 13, 2024, the Court certified a nationwide class in this RICO case. The parties have been proceeding through discovery. Beginning in May 2024, the parties began trying to schedule Ms. Eaton's deposition. Plaintiffs' counsel informed Defendants' counsel of the importance of scheduling Ms. Eaton's deposition sooner rather than later because the Magistrate Judge had ruled that Plaintiffs could not "renew their motion to compel another witness] Mr. Scrancher's deposition until after completing the depositions of Mr. Cardone and Ms. Eaton." Plaintiffs were concerned that completing Ms. Eaton's deposition in late August would not give them enough time before the discovery cutoff to renew the motion to compel Mr. Scratcher's deposition in the event they deemed that necessary. Nevertheless, after some back-and-forth, the parties initially scheduled Ms. Eaton's deposition for August 21, 2024. Later, the parties agreed to reschedule Ms. Eaton's deposition for August 30, 2024. As Plaintiffs' counsel had advised Defendants they would, they traveled to Tampa to attend the August 30 deposition. But Ms. Eaton and Defendants' counsel failed to appear. Notably, Defendants never filed a motion for protective order or otherwise raised the issue of deposition scheduling with the Court before the August 30 deposition. Plaintiffs then asked Defendants to reimburse them for the "$7,497.27 in fees and costs incurred because of Ms. Eaton's failure to appear for her deposition." Defendants refused. Subsequently, Plaintiffs took Ms. Eaton's personal and Rule 30(b)(6) depositions in early October 2024—less than one month before the November 1, 2024 discovery deadline. Now, Plaintiffs move for sanctions against Eaton for failing to appear at the August 30 deposition. In this case, Plaintiffs ask that $12,371.62 in monetary sanctions be imposed on Defendant Eaton. Specifically, Plaintiffs request $7,497.27 in expenses and attorney fees incurred for the August 30 deposition. Additionally, they request compensation in the amount of $4,874.35 to cover some of the time spent preparing this Motion. It is undisputed that the August 30, 2024 deposition was properly noticed, and that Ms. Eaton failed to appear at that deposition. Thus, Ms. Eaton violated her discovery obligations, the Court finds. Sanctions under Rule 37(d)(1)(A)(i) should be imposed unless Ms. Eaton's failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. Judge Covington says Ms. Eaton's failure to appear at her August 30 deposition was not substantially justified and no other circumstances render an award of expenses unjust. True, Defendants informed Plaintiffs in advance that Ms. Eaton would not appear at the deposition because Ms. Eaton wished to be deposed on successive days for her personal and Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative depositions. But that notice, by itself, did not make Ms. Eaton's failure to appear substantially justified. She adds, although Ms. Eaton could have filed a motion for protective order explaining the parties' scheduling dispute before the August 30 deposition, she failed to file any motion with the Court. This failure forecloses a finding of substantial justification for Ms. Eaton's failure to attend her depositions. The Court rejects Defendants' position that Ms. Eaton did not need to seek a protective order under the circumstances." The Court, therefore, will impose sanctions in the amount of Plaintiffs' reasonable expenses incurred because of Ms. Eaton's failure to appear at her deposition. No sanction beyond Plaintiffs' expenses is warranted in this case. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that their expenses incurred both in appearing at the deposition and preparing this Motion are reasonable. Plaintiffs are awarded $12,371.62 to be paid by Ms. Eaton personally. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S7QMbG GNC HOLDINGS: W.D. Washington Refuses to Remand Moquete Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit entitled LEA MOQUETE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GNC HOLDINGS, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-05393-BHS (W.D. Wash.), Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma, denies the Plaintiff's motion to remand. Plaintiff Lea Moquete filed a class action against GNC Holdings, its affiliates, and Does 1-10 in Pierce County Superior Court. She alleged that while she and other putative class members were GNC employees, the Defendants failed to provide and properly compensate for meal and rest periods. She also claimed the Defendants violated the Equal Pay and Opportunity Act (EPOA), RCW 49.58.110, by failing to include wage and benefits information in job postings. In its Answer, GNC raised lack of standing as an affirmative defense against the RCW 49.58.110 claims, arguing Moquete and the putative members of the class did not suffer any injury in fact. GNC timely removed the action to this Court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Moquete then filed an Amended Complaint alleging only violations under RCW 49.58.110, withdrawing all other claims. Ms. Moquete moves to remand, arguing that she does not have Article III standing to assert in this Court her claim that GNC failed to disclose wage and benefits in job postings. She cites similar cases so holding in this district and argues GNC's Answer conceded that her claims do not assert an injury in fact. Judge Settle opines that Moquete's claims are analogous to those in Magadia v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., 999 F.3d 668, 679 (9th Cir. 2021). In passing the EPOA, the Washington legislature intended to promote equitable compensation for workers regardless of their gender. Requiring the disclosure of salary information in job postings advances this concrete interest. Judge Settle explains that the absence of this required information is relevant to Moquete and the putative class members because they suffered a real risk of receiving unfair or lower wages based on their gender identity, as contemplated by the statute. As Moquete points out, other judges in this District have previously concluded no injury in fact exists for violations of RCW 49.58.110, Judge Settle notes. However, those cases involved plaintiffs, who did not specifically plead they had applied for the positions. Because Moquete applied for and obtained a position at GNC, Judge Settle holds that her claims establish injury in fact as required for Article III standing. Finally, Moquete's argument that GNC's Answer conceded lack of injury in fact is not persuasive, Judge Settle holds. In effect, Moquete contends GNC is estopped from arguing the Plaintiffs now have standing. The record does not indicate that any court has adjudicated GNC's affirmative defense of lack of standing, Judge Settle says. While GNC's current position is certainly inconsistent with its Answer, the Court concludes GNC is not estopped from now arguing that Moquete's claims establish Article III standing. Therefore, the Court denies Moquete's motion to remand. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3rwdkyy4 from PacerMonitor.com. GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Property Owners ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDI CRAWFORD-JOHNSON, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GRAPHIC PACKAGING INTERNATIONAL, LLC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00842-RJJ-SJB (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order designating and certifying a proposed class defined as: "All owners, occupants and renters of residential property located, in whole or in part, within the Class Area surrounding Defendant's Facility, located at 1500 North Pitcher Street, Kalamazoo, Michigan, from September 1, 2017 to the Present." The Plaintiffs' proposed class action satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b). Class certification is thus appropriate, and class litigation would undoubtedly be the superior method for determining Defendant's common law liability. This action was commenced by City of Kalamazoo residents against Defendant Graphic Packaging International, LLC because of Defendant's repeated, and well-documented, release of overwhelming, distinct, and unbearable noxious odors into their homes and neighborhood. Hundreds of GPI's residential neighbors have corroborated the MDHHS findings and have contacted Plaintiffs' Counsel to report their experiences with Defendant’s nuisance odors at their homes and in their community. Throughout this litigation, there have been multiple conferences between Plaintiffs' counsel and Defendant's counsel regarding Plaintiffs' request for class certification, most recently by email on Aug. 28, 2024. The Defendant opposes the relief sought through this motion. The Plaintiffs are residential neighbors of GPI's Kalamazoo plant. GPI manufactures recycled paperboard. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qeqAG7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven D. Liddle, Esq. Laura L. Sheets, Esq. Matthew Z. Robb, Esq. LIDDLE SHEETS P.C. 975 E. Jefferson Avenue Detroit, MI 48207 Telephone: (313) 392-0015 E-mail: sliddle@lsccounsel.com lsheets@lsccounsel.com mrobb@lsccounsel.com GREATER LOVE: Class Settlement in Carrington Suit Gets Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOREN CARRINGTON, on Behalf of Herself and Similarly Situated Employees, v. GREATER LOVE INTERNATIONAL, Case No. 2:23-cv-02508-KNS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Kai Scott entered an order granting unopposed motion for final approval of the class action settlement: 1. The requirements for class certification are satisfied. 2. The Class Action Settlement Agreement entered between the Plaintiff Loren Carrington, on behalf of herself and similarly situated individuals, and Defendant Greater Love International is approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate and a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute under the Fair Labor Standards Act. 3. Class Counsel's requests for an award of $27,545.00 for attorneys' fees and $505.00 for expenses related to the litigation are granted. 4. Class Counsel’s request to award Plaintiff a class representative service award of $3,000.00 is granted. 5. The Court retains jurisdiction over the parties and each of the Class Members for all matters relating to this action and the Settlement Agreement, including matters relating to the effectuation and/or enforcement of the Settlement Agreement and this Order, until Defendant fulfills its payment obligation under the Settlement Agreement to fully fund the settlement fund in the amount of $85,000.00. 6. This action is dismissed with prejudice. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jpCWEg at no extra charge.[CC] HAZA FOODS: Bid to Strike Townsend Class Allegations Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH TOWNSEND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HAZA FOODS, LLC, HAZA FOODS OF NORTHEAST, LLC, HAZA FOODS OF MINNESOTA LLC, AND DOES 1 to 25, Case No. 6:24-cv-06180-EAW (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth Wolford entered an order denying Defendants' partial motion to dismiss and/or strike the class allegations. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, asserting claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("the ADA"), relating to the accessibility of parking lots at various Wendy's restaurants allegedly owned and/or operated by defendants Haza Foods, LLC, Haza Foods of Northeast, LLC, Haza Foods of Minnesota LLC, and Does 1 to 25. On Sept. 16, 2023, the Plaintiff visited Defendants' restaurant located at 3050 Winton Road, Rochester, New York. At that time, the Plaintiff had trouble exiting and entering her vehicle and navigating Defendants' facility due to excessive slopes in the accessible parking areas, including that Plaintiff needed to exercise extra care to avoid falling and to safely traverse the area. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' centralized maintenance and operational policies, practices, or procedures have systematically and routinely resulted in excessive sloping conditions in the parking areas of Defendants’ facilities, in violation of the ADA and its implementing regulations. Plaintiff seeks to certify a nationwide class: "All wheelchair users with qualified mobility disabilities who encountered accessibility barriers within the Parking Areas of any Haza Foods, LLC; Haza Foods Of Northeast, LLC; Haza Foods Of Minnesota LLC and DOES 1 to 25 location." The Plaintiff is a resident of Oswego, New York, and uses a wheelchair for mobility. Haza is a company that own, lease, and/or operate Wendy's restaurants. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wL7DlJ at no extra charge.[CC] HEADLESS WIDOW: Hussein Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SALMA BAHAA HUSSEIN, BRIAN NOONE, JORDAN MERRITT, JOEL ZAVALA, and SANTIAGO ALJURE, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. THE HEADLESS WIDOW LLC d/b/a THE HEADLESS WIDOW, and EDIN CANOVIC a/k/a EDDIE CANOVIC, Case No. 1:24-cv-04658-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an Order: -- granting conditional certification of a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), -- mailing of a court-authorized notice to the putative collective action members, as well as such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Headless is a popular bar renowned for its exceptional cocktail offerings. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e63U3v at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William Brown, Esq. Angela Kwon, Esq. BROWN KWON & LAM LLP 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (212) 295-5828 Facsimile: (718) 795-1642 E-mail: wbrown@bkllawyers.com akwon@bkllawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: Paul A. Bartels, Esq. BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC 116 Jackson Avenue Syosset, NY 11791 Telephone: (516) 280-3008 E-mail: paul@belllg.com HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATION: Pallas Alleges Discriminatory Discharge --------------------------------------------------------------- RACHAEL TOUSSAINT, ESTE PALLAS, PETRICE THOMPSON, et al., individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK STATE, INC., NEW YORK BAR ASSOCIATION, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-07573 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2024) is a civil rights wrongful discharge action brought by a proposed class of health care worker Plaintiffs pursuant to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 for the discriminatory discharge of the Plaintiffs for exercising their right to object to taking the Covid-19 vaccine/immunization on religious grounds. On Sept. 16, 2021, Defendant Brookdale notified R. Toussaint that she was required to submit to and receive the Covid-19 vaccine as a mandate from the New York State Department of Health pursuant to Public Health Law section 16 and/or section PHL 2.61 and/or as a mandate based on Brookdale's employment policy announced by Chief Executive Officer Lucinda "Cindy" Baier. R. Toussaint submitted to Brookdale several written objections to taking Vaccine based on religious grounds because her faith required that she object to trusting in a vaccine to save her from death caused by disease and faith her requires her to trust God and trust Gods Biblical Plant-Based Lifestyle Medicine. To make it easy for Respondents to approve the requested Authorized Accommodations, all Petitioners employed at Brookdale offered to pay for the PAPR masks so that their accommodation would not be an undue burden on Respondent Brookdale to provide the accommodation. Because R. Toussaint exercised her right to object to the taking the Vaccine on religious grounds protected by 29 U.S.C. section 669 Subsection 20(a)(5) of the OSH Act, the Defendant Brookdale terminated her on Dec. 31, 2021, the suit alleges. The Plaintiffs seeks monetary damages, job reinstatement, backpay, compensatory, and punitive damages under the OSH Act private right of action contained in 29 U.S.C. section660 Subsection 11(c)(1) & (2) of the OSH Act. Plaintiff Toussaint is an African-American female Registered Nurse who was employed over 11 years by the Defendant Brookdale Hospital and Medical Center and One Brooklyn Health System in Brooklyn, New York. The Plaintiffs include BERTRAM SCOTT, J. GARCIA, D. CHONG, ANGELA RICHARDSON, THERESA CROSSMAN, TRUDY SHERMAN, LINDON BAIN, M. MOSEJCZUK, WILLIS HARRIS, NICOLE HUDSON, TANYEKA BESWICK, TAMARA ANGLIN, JEANWILLY BAPTISTE, BEVERLY WILLIAMS, CAROL BRYAN, STEPHANIE PAGANO, SHANLYS BYFIELD, N. JACK, HEDREN LECKIE, RANDI TUDY-JONES, PAMELA PHILLIP-RIVERA, KRISTY TANTILLO, CHERYL THOMPSON, MARIE PAULINE SALVIA, MARIEJO BARRIE, PASCAL MARK, KIMBERLY GREENBERG, MARYJO BARRIE, MAY JOURNET, AYANNA ALEXANDER, EDNA RODOLFO, KAREN JAMES, NORA SAMMON, NICOLE HUDGSON-JACK, MARIE BISH. The Defendants include BROOKDALE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER, MONTEFIORE HEALTH SYSTEM, MONTEFIORE MEDICAL CENTER, ONE BROOKLYN HEALTH SYSTEM, THE BROOKLYN HOSPITAL CENTER, UNITED METHODIST HOMES, STATEN ISLAND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NORTHWELL HEALTH, INC., NEW YORK PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL, NEW YORK PRESBYTERIAN HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC., MT. SINAI HEALTH SYSTEM, BROOKHAVEN REHAB & HEALTH CARE CENTER, AND NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION (BELLEVUE) (WOODHULL HOSPITAL) BAYLEYH SETON HOSPITAL, BELLEVUE HOSPITAL CENTER BROOKDALE HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER BROOKLYN HOSPITAL CENTER - CALEDONIAN AND DOWNTOWN CAMPUSES GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER FLUSHING HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, HARLEM HOSPITAL CENTER, HENRY J. CARTER SPECIALTY HOSPITAL, HOSPITAL FOR JOINT DISEASES HOSPITAL FOR SPECIAL SURGERY, INTERFAITH MEDICAL CENTER, JACOBI MEDICAL CENTER, KINGS COUNTY HOSPITAL CENTER KINGSBROOK JEWISH MEDICAL CENTER, LENOX HILL HOSPITAL, LONG ISLAND COLLEGE HOSPITAL, MAIMONIDES MEDICAL CENTER MAIMONIDES MIDWOOD COMMUNITY HOSPITAL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL FOR CANCER AND ALLIED DISEASES, METROPOLITAN HOSPITAL CENTER MOUNT SINAI BETH ISRAEL, MOUNT SINAI BETH ISRAEL BROOKLYN, MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL - MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL OF QUEENS, MOUNT SINAI MORNINGSIDE, NEW YORK - PRESBYTERIAN/QUEENS, NEW YORK PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL - NEW YORK WEILL CORNELL CENTER, NY EYE AND EAR INFIRMARY OF MOUNT SINAI, NYC HEALTH + HOSPITALS/SOUTH BROOKLYN HEALTH NYU LANGONE HOSPITALS, RICHMOND UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, STATEN ISLAND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL - NORTH UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF BROOKLYN, WOODHULL MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CENTER WYCKOFF HEIGHTS MEDICAL CENTER, DOES 1-20. Healthcare Association provides healthcare and management services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Donna Este-Green, Esq. WOMEN OF COLOR FOR EQUAL JUSTICE 25 Fairway Dr. Hempstead, NY 11550 HEALTHY CHOICE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Gaspa Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ VERONICA GASPA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. HEALTHY CHOICE MARKETS, IV, LLC, d/b/a GREEN'S NATURAL FOODS, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-10173 (D.N.J., Oct. 30, 2024) is an action arising from Defendant's failure to make its website, https://greensnaturalfoods.com, accessible to legally blind individuals, which violates the effective communication and equal access requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, on Aug. 22, 2024, in an attempt to purchase groceries from the Defendant. The Plaintiff acquired actual knowledge of and encountered multiple access barriers that denied her a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public, the suit says. Due to Defendant's failure to build the Website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the Website and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the organic food, that the Plaintiff wished to acquire from the Website, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Healthy Choice offers clean, natural, and non-GMO products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. HORWITZ LAW, PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com HEIDI WASHINGTON: Plaintiff Loses Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Hala Y. Jarbou of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan will dismiss the Plaintiff's amended complaint in the case captioned as ALRELIO EVANS, Plaintiff, v. HEIDI WASHINGTON, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-913 (W.D. Mich.). The Court will also deny the Plaintiff's objection to the Court's September 13, 2024, order. Plaintiff is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections at the Ionia Correctional Facility in Ionia, Ionia County, Michigan. The events about which Plaintiff complains occurred there, as well as at the Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility in Ionia, Ionia County, Michigan. Plaintiff sues the following MDOC administrative personnel: Director Heidi Washington, Deputy Director Jeremy Bush, and Mental Health Rights Specialist Sara Heydens. Plaintiff also sues the following ICF personnel: Warden John Davids; Deputy Warden Unknown Bonn; Assistant Deputy Wardens R. Brokaw and J. Dunigan; Residential Unit Manager Unknown Luther; Prison Counselors Walton L. Smith and Unknown Simon; Psychiatrists Unknown Saad and Unknown Schafer; Psychologists Michelle Norton and Unknown Bookie; and Unit Chief David Maranka. Plaintiff also sues the following IBC personnel: Warden Matthew Macauley; Deputy Warden Unknown Party #1; Assistant Deputy Warden B. Hadden; Unit Chief J. Atearn; Residential Unit Manager B. Addis; Prison Counselor Adam Houghton; and Unknown Party #2, referred to as an employee at ICF. He indicates that he's suing Defendants Washington and Davids in their official and personal capacities, and that he is suing all other named Defendants in their personal capacities only. Plaintiff's amended complaint concerns conditions that he experienced while incarcerated in the Start Now Unit. Plaintiff states that on July 12, 2022, Defendants Atearn, Macauley, Brokaw, Hadden, Addis, and Houghton held a Security Classification Committee meeting at IBC, without Plaintiff being present, and chose to refer Plaintiff to ICF's Start Now program. Plaintiff states that he had been placed in segregation on June 30, 2022, for allegedly assaulting non-party Officer Tinerella. Plaintiff claims that allegation was not true. Plaintiff was sentenced to 10 days' detention. According to Plaintiff, "no administrative segregation was recommended and Plaintiff should have been released from segregation. Plaintiff arrived at ICF's Start Now unit on September 23, 2022. He claims that he was sent to a higher security level" and "spent over 7 days (over 2 years now) in temporary segregation due to lack of bed space in the Start Unit." Plaintiff sent notice to Defendants Washington, Bush, Heydens, Davids, Bonn, Brokaw, Dunigan, Luther, Smith, Simon, Saad, Schafer, Norton, Bookie, and Maranka that he was in temporary segregation for more than 7 days and that he is mentally ill. Plaintiff explained that he had been diagnosed with several mental health disorders and that he had experienced increased depression, anxiety, delusions, post-traumatic slave syndrome, post-traumatic stress disorder, psychosis, claustrophobia, suicidal ideation, paranoia, and schizoaffective disorder due to prolonged solitary confinement. Plaintiff asserts violations of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He also asserts violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as compensatory, punitive, and nominal damages. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), the Court is required to dismiss any prisoner action brought under federal law if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. The Court must read Plaintiff's pro se amended complaint indulgently and accept Plaintiff's allegations as true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Applying these standards, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint for failure to state a claim against Defendants Bush, Heydens, Unknown Parties (referred to as ICF staff), Atearn, Macauley, Hadden, Addis, Houghton, Unknown Party #1, and Unknown Party #2. It will also dismiss, for failure to state a claim, the following claims against Defendants Washington, Davids, Bonn, Brokaw, Dunigan, Luther, Simon, Smith, Saad, Shafer, Norton, Bookie, and Maranka: (1) Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claims; (2) Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Washington; (3) Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection claims; (4) Plaintiff's ADA claims against Defendants Davids, Bonn, Brokaw, Dunigan, Luther, Simon, Smith, Saad, Shafer, Norton, Bookie, and Maranka; (5) Plaintiff's PAIMI Act claims; and (6) Plaintiff's RICO Act/embezzlement claims. The following claims remain in the case: (1) Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Davids, Bonn, Brokaw, Dunigan, Luther, Simon, Smith, Saad, Shafer, Norton, Bookie, and Maranka; and (2) Plaintiff's ADA claim against Defendant Washington. Objection to September 13, 2024, Order Plaintiff has filed an objection to the Court's September 13, 2024, order severing each of the 16 plaintiffs' claims into 16 related cases and directing each Plaintiff to file an amended complaint in his own case. Plaintiff argues that the Court should not have ordered severance because all Plaintiffs' claims are related to conditions and symptoms in the Start program. Plaintiff requests class certification and appointment of counsel under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because Plaintiff is an incarcerated pro se litigant, the Court finds that he is not an appropriate representative of a class. Accordingly, his request for class certification will be denied, the Court holds. The Court also declines to reconsider its order severing each Plaintiff's claims into separate actions. Although there are slight overlaps in questions of law and fact because each Plaintiff's case concerns placement in a Start Now unit, allowing all plaintiffs to proceed in one action would result in the myriad difficulties discussed by the Court in its September 13, 2024, order. Notably, not all 16 Plaintiffs are currently incarcerated at the same location, making it essentially impossible for all Plaintiffs to sign all pleadings, motions, etc. Accordingly, Plaintiff's objection will be denied. A copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9S9Fjj HOLDINGS LIMITED: Kennedy Suit Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DESTINY KENNEDY, On behalf of herself and all other Georgia citizens similarly situated, v. HOLDINGS LIMITED, VGW MALTA LIMITED, VGW LUCKYLAND INC., and VGW GP LIMITED, Case No. 1:24-cv-02184-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her motion to certify class. The Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements of numerosity, common questions of law and fact, typicality as well as the requirement for common claims. In addition, the Plaintiff has shown that the class will be fairly and adequately represented to protect the interests of the class. Furthermore, the Plaintiff's filings show that the prosecution of numerous separate claims would create the risk of inconsistent or varying decisions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xJ9nZ9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Barry Williams, Esq. Villa Rica, GA 30180 E-mail: advocatedib@gmail.com HONEYWELL FEDERAL: Court Narrows Claims in Wilder ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TALON WILDER, et al., v. HONEYWELL FEDERAL MANUFACTURING & TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00305-RK (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Roseann Ketchmark entered an order granting in part and denying in part FM&T's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' second amended complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) as follows: (1) As to Count I, FM&T's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims under Title VII for Religious Discrimination Failure to Accommodate is denied. (2) As to Count II, FM&T's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims under Title VII for Religious Discrimination – Retaliation is granted and Count II is dismissed. (3) Finally, FM&T's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' remaining putative class allegations is denied. Finally, FM&T claims Plaintiffs cannot make out a 23(b)(2) class because they seek individualized damages. This too could be avoided by redefining the class, modifying the relief sought, or seeking 23(b)(3) certification as discovery progresses. The Court also notes that 23(b)(2) classes may not wholly bar recovery of monetary damages that are incidental to the injunctive relief sought. Ultimately, FM&T has not shown that the class allegations are so deficient as to warrant striking them at this early stage. FM&T’s Rule 23 “arguments would be better addressed at the class certification stage after discovery yields more information,” Plaintiffs have had a chance to modify their class definition and present it in a formal motion, and when the Court has additional briefing as to the Rule 23 requirements in front of it. The Plaintiffs seek to represent the following class: "All FM&T current or former employees who (1) between May of 2021 and the present objected to FM&T's Mandate because of sincerely held religious beliefs or disability exemption and/or accommodation from its Vaccine Policy requiring COVID-19 vaccination; and (2) who were placed on unpaid administrative leave, discharged, constructively discharged, retaliated against, or resigned, due to their religious beliefs against the COVID-19 vaccine." The Plaintiffs bring this case against FM&T for alleged violations of Title VII in relation to its COVID-19 vaccination mandate and corresponding exemption process and conditions. Honeywell provides commercial physical and biological research and development. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lEMQ7c at no extra charge.[CC] HRM RESOURCES: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CINDY McCORMICK; RONALD McCORMICK; and TRUPP LAND MANAGEMENT LLC, v. HRM RESOURCES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; HRM RESOURCES II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; HRM RESOURCES III, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; HRM RESOURCES IV, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; L. ROGER HUTSON, an individual; TERRY PAPE, an individual; PAINTED PEGASUS PETROLEUM, LLC, a Texas limited liability company; and JOHN HOFFMAN, an individual, Case No. 1:24-cv-00823-CNS-MEH (D. Colo.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline to file a class certification motion 30 days following a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss and a response 30 days after filing the class certification motion. The parties have conferred and agreed that the class certification motion should be filed following a ruling on the pending Motion to Dismiss. Additionally, within 14 days after the ruling on the Motion to Dismiss, if denied, the Plaintiffs will contact the Court to schedule a status conference to discuss and reset case related deadlines, including discovery deadlines. This is the parties' first joint request to extend deadlines relating to class certification. Hoffman does not oppose the requested relief. HRM Resources LLC explores and produces oil and gas. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JgOnny at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher P. Carrington, Esq. RICHARDS CARRINGTON, LLC 1444 Blake Street Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 962-2690 E-mail: chris@richardscarrington.com The Defendants are represented by: Richard B. Benenson, Esq. Justin L. Cohen, Esq. Matthew C. Arentsen, Esq. Max Porteus, Esq. BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK LLP 675 15th Street, Suite 2900 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 223-1100 E-mail: marentsen@bhfs.com mporteus@bhfs.com HYUNDAI CAPITAL: Plaintiff Must File Class Cert Bid by Dec. 20 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Metcalfe v. Hyundai Capital America, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00378 (D.R.I., Filed Oct. 19, 2022), the Hon. Judge John J. Mcconnell, Jr. entered an order granting motion for extension of scheduling order deadlines: -- Plaintiff to file her motion for class Dec. 20, 2024 certification on or before: -- Defendant to respond on or before: Jan. 21, 2025 -- Plaintiff to reply on or before: Feb. 20, 2025 -- No Further Extensions of this Deadline will be granted. The nature of suit states consumer credit. Hyundai Capital provides commercial finance services.[CC] ILEARNINGENGINES INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Dec. 6 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in iLearningEngines, Inc. ("iLearningEngines" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AILE) of a class action securities lawsuit. CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of iLearningEngines investors who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between April 22, 2024 and August 28, 2024. Follow the link below to get more information and be contacted by a member of our team: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/ilearningengines-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=109658&wire=4 AILE investors may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (1) the Company's "Technology Partner" was an undisclosed related party; (2) the Company used its undisclosed related party Technology Partner to report "largely fake" revenue and expenses; (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company significantly overstated its revenue; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in iLearningEngines during the relevant time frame, you have until December 6, 2024 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi & Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. CONTACT: Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] INNOPHOS HOLDINGS: Fails to Secure Employees Info, Alberti Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANTHONY ALBERTI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated  v. INNOPHOS HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-10098 (D.N.J., Oct. 28, 2024) alleges that Defendant failed to adequately protect current and former employees' information, adequately notify them about the breach, and obfuscating the nature of the breach violating state law and harmed a staggering number of employees. On June 4, 2024, Innophos became aware that it had lost control over its computer network and the highly sensitive personal information stored on the computer network in a data breach by cybercriminals. The Defendant learned cybercriminals gained unauthorized access to current and former employees' personally identifiable information, including but not limited to their names, Social Security numbers, and dates of birth. On Aug. 22, 2024–almost three months after the Data Breach was Discovered -- Defendant finally began notifying Plaintiff and Class Members about the Data Breach. The Defendant's failure to timely report the Data Breach made the victims vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their PII, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Novel Ingredient Services which was later acquired by Defendant and is a Data Breach victim. Innophos is an international producer of specialty ingredient solutions with manufacturing operations throughout the U.S., Canada, Mexico, and China.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C. 8000 Sagemore Drive, Suite 8303 Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone: (215) 575-3895 E-mail: phoward@smbb.com - and - Raina Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com INTREPID POTASH: Cash Class Suit Seeks Load Out Operators' OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- COREY CASH and CRUZ ORNELAS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. INTREPID POTASH, INC. and INTREPID POTASH-NEW MEXICO, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01118 (D.N.M., Oct. 30, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendants, pursuant to the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. Like the Class Members, the Plaintiffs regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek while employed by the Defendants. However, the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiffs and other hourly employees for all hours worked. Instead, the Defendants required Plaintiffs and other Class Members to perform work "off the clock" without compensation, the suit contends. Specifically, the Defendants require the Plaintiffs and other hourly employees to arrive at work early to don (put on) their required personal protective equipment before their paid shifts begin, and to stay late to doff (remove) their PPE after their paid shifts end. This unpaid donning and doffing time regularly results in overtime hours that go uncompensated. For surface workers like the Plaintiff Cash, the process of donning required PPE typically took in excess of 15 minutes at the start of each shift, and the process of doffing required PPE typically took in excess of 15 minutes at the end of each shift. Thus, the Plaintiffs and the Class Members typically spent between 30 and 60 minutes each workday performing unpaid work on Defendants' premises, says the suit. The Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action on behalf of all current and former Class Members who were subjected to Defendants' company-wide policy of failing to pay employees for time spent donning and doffing PPE. Plaintiff Cash worked for Defendants as a Load Out Operator for nine months in 2023. Plaintiff Ornelas worked for the Defendants as an underground miner between 2022 and 2024. Intrepid Potash is a fertilizer manufacturer.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Justin R. Kaufman, Esq. Philip M. Kovnat, Esq. DURHAM, PITTARD & SPALDING, LLP 505 Cerrillos Road, Suite A209 Santa Fe, NM 87501 Telephone: (505) 986-0600 Facsimile: (505) 986-0632 E-mail: jkaufman@dpslawgroup.com pkovnat@dpslawgroup.com - and - Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Sarah J. Arendt, Esq. John J. Frawley, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, Il 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 Facsimile: (312) 419-1025 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com jfrawley@flsalaw.com KELLOGG COMPANY: 6th Cir. Reverses Ruling in Fleming ERISA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned BRADLEY H. FLEMING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KELLOGG COMPANY et al., Defendant-Appellee, No. 23-1966 (6th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the ruling of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan that granted Kellog's motion to dismiss the complaint. Kellogg is a global food manufacturing company where Fleming worked as an accountant for thirteen years until August 2019. Kellogg offers its employees several benefits, one which is the opportunity to participate in the Kellogg Company Savings and Investment Plan, a defined contribution 401(k) plan. Fleming alleges that, over a four-year period, the Plan's fiduciaries caused it to pay recordkeeping and administrative fees to its recordkeeper, Transamerica Retirement Solutions, that were four times higher than such fees paid by other "mega" plans. And because of Kellogg's imprudence, "the Plan paid an effective average annual recordkeeping fee of $137 per participant." From 2016 to 2020, says Fleming, the fiduciaries' ill-considered RK&A payments cost the Plan and its participants a minimum of $7,462,978 and injured Fleming's account in the process. The Plan was amended, effective January 1, 2020, to require arbitration of certain claims, including those for breach of fiduciary duty. Fleming's amended complaint against Kellogg, Steven A. Cahillane, the ERISA Administrative Committee of Kellogg, and the ERISA Finance Committee of Kellogg asserts two claims under ERISA Sec. 502(a)(2), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1132(a)(2), to redress Kellogg's alleged imprudence. Fleming sought plan-wide monetary and equitable relief, including: (1) an order directing Kellogg to restore all losses to the Plan and to disgorge any profits obtained as a result of any fiduciary breaches, and (2) the appointment of an independent fiduciary to manage the Plan. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint and order arbitration based on the 2020 and 2021 arbitration clauses. The district court granted the motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In doing so, the district court agreed with Defendants that the Kellogg arbitration provision constitutes sufficient manifestation of the Kellogg Plan's consent to arbitrate, and the provision properly applies to representative suits brought on behalf of the Kellogg Plan. Fleming moved to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), seeking clarification about whether the arbitrator may award all of the Plan-wide relief that a federal court can award under ERISA Sections 409(a) and 502(a)(2). The court denied the Rule 59(e) motion without addressing whether the arbitrator was authorized to award full loss restoration and other plan-wide relief. Fleming timely appealed. At issue in this case is whether and how the effective vindication exception may apply to Fleming's claims under Section 502(a)(2) of ERISA and to the FAA more broadly. The text of the statute and Supreme Court precedent demonstrate that ERISA contemplates both plan-wide remedies for certain breaches of fiduciary duties and the representative actions frequently employed to obtain those plan-wide remedies. Because Kellogg's 2021 arbitration clause precludes such representative actions, it is invalid and unenforceable. In this case, Fleming seeks to redress a shared injury suffered by the Plan. He contends that the Plan paid over $7 million more than it should have for RK&A services between 2016 and 2020. Fleming, therefore, seeks to have Kellogg restore that amount to the Plan, and he seeks to have Kellogg pay any profits earned as a result of any fiduciary breaches to the Plan. Fleming also pursues equitable plan-wide relief authorized by Section 1109, including removal of the breaching fiduciaries and appointment of an independent fiduciary. Fleming alleges excessive RK&A spending, which harmed the Plan as a whole. Fleming requests no remedy to his individual account; rather the monetary remedies that he requests flow to the Plan. In short, Fleming seeks plan-wide relief through a statutory mechanism that is designed for representative actions on behalf of the Plan, and representative actions only. Accordingly, in bringing a fiduciary breach claim under Section 502(a)(2), Fleming is acting—indeed, can only act—in a representative capacity on the Plan's behalf, the Sixth Circuit notes. The Sixth Circuit points out the language of Kellogg's arbitration clause forecloses arbitration for class, collective, and representative actions. Kellogg argues that its arbitration clause does not limit Fleming's ability to proceed in a representative capacity. According to the Sixth Circuit, Kellogg's arbitration provision blocks Fleming from proceeding in a representative manner. Kellogg's bar on representative actions necessarily infringes on the remedies available to Fleming under ERISA, the Sixth Circuit finds. In barring Fleming's ability to bring a Section 502(a)(3) claim, Kellogg's arbitration provision violates the effective vindication exception, the Sixth Circuit states. The 2021 arbitration clause prohibits arbitration from being conducted on a representative basis, denies the arbitrator authority to arbitrate any claim on a representative basis, and requires participants to waive the right to participate in a representative action. Because Section 502(a)(2) claims can only be brought in a representative capacity on behalf of the plan, an arbitration clause that eliminates a participant's ability to bring a representative claim effectively forecloses his substantive right to bring a fiduciary breach claim under that section. Yet, Kellogg's 2021 arbitration clause does exactly that, the Sixth Circuit notes. The Sixth Circuit explains that a Plan participant's ability to bring a breach of fiduciary duty claim under Section 502(a)(2) is a substantive right granted by ERISA. Fleming's breach of fiduciary duties claims were brought on behalf of the Plan. Despite Kellogg's arguments to the contrary, its arbitration clause prevents a plaintiff from proceeding in a representative manner. And, while Kellogg contends that the manner of bringing suit is merely a procedural matter, in this context, it has the practical effect of blocking a whole class of claims. In doing so, it effectively eliminates a participant's substantive right to bring a fiduciary breach claim under Section 502(a)(2)." It concludes that arbitration clauses that forbid participants from obtaining plan-wide remedies under ERISA are unenforceable. Given the impermissible restrictions built into Kellogg's arbitration provision and its non-severability clause, it finds that Kellogg's arbitration provision is invalid and unenforceable. And because the clause is void, it declines to reach Fleming's alternative argument for reversal that he did not consent to the arbitration clause. A copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LupnZO KISS NUTRACEUTICALS: Gamboa Seeks to Extend Class Cert Reply Date ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA GAMBOA on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KISS NUTRACEUTICALS, KISS INDUSTRIES, LLC, COLE EVANS and GRANT DEAN, Case No. 1:22-cv-01141-WJM-TPO (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the current Oct. 30, 2024 deadline to reply to Defendants' response on the Renewed Motion for Class Certification to Nov. 6, 2024. Kiss provides packaging solutions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 28, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wGK0d9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandt Milstein, Esq. MILSTEIN TURNER, PLLC 2400 Broadway, Suite B Boulder, CO 80304 Telephone: (303) 440-8780 E-mail: brandt@milsteinturner.com LAKES EMERGENCY: Muniz Seeks Conditional Status of FLSA Collective ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLY MUNIZ, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. LAKES/NATIONAL EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, INC., JOSE AGUIRRE, and JENNIFER MOORE, Case No. 1:24-cv-12050-DJC (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): 1. Conditionally certifying the following collective so that putative opt-in plaintiffs may receive notice of the lawsuit pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b): "All current and former hourly employees of NES employed at any of its facilities throughout the country who were not paid one and one-half times their regular hourly rate for hours worked over 40 in at least one workweek between Aug. 9, 2021 and the present"; 2. Directing the Defendants to, within 30 days, produce the names, last known mailing addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers for all potential class members; 3. Approving the issuance of the Notice and Consent To Join Form attached hereto as Exhibit A; 4. Allowing individuals 90 days from the date of mailing of the Notice to opt-in to the collective action and authorizing a reminder notice to be sent 45 days prior to the close of the opt-in period; and 5. Granting and other relief the Court deems just. Lakes National provides emergency physician services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 28, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8mMN1A at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raven Moeslinger, Esq. Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq. Matthew Patton, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C. One Boston Place, Suite 2600 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 338-9400 E-mail: mdp@mass-legal.com LASERSHIP INC: West Seeks to Certify Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL WEST, et. al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. LASERSHIP, INC., et. al., Case No. 1:21-cv-05382-LTS-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move this Court, before the Hon. Sarah L. Cave, at a date and time to be selected by the Court, for an order: (1) Pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): a. Permitting this case to proceed as a collective action; b. Approving Plaintiffs' proposed collective action notice; c. Compelling Defendant to disclose immediately the names and last known addresses, email addresses, and telephone numbers of each individual who has worked as so-called subcontractor delivery driver for Defendant LaserShip Inc. from June 17, 2018 to the present, to the extent not already produced; d. Permitting Plaintiffs to post the proposed collective action notice in common areas and break rooms at all of LaserShip's New York locations; e. Equitably tolling the statute of limitations beginning Sept. 17, 2021; and (2) Granting to Plaintiffs such other further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Lasership operates as a courier services. The Company offers pickup, delivery of letters, small packages, and documents. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=R3hMcK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason Rozger, Esq. MENKEN SIMPSON & ROZGER LLP 80 Pine Street, 33rd Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 509-1616 E-mail: jrozger@nyemployeelaw.com LINCARE INC: Morris Bid to Strike Not Necessary, Court Says ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANET MORRIS, v. LINCARE, INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-02048-CEH-AAS (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone entered an order denying Ms. Morris's motion to strike: -- Striking the late-produced consent forms is not necessary. -- First, there is minimal, if any, surprise because Lincare produced substantially similar exemplars. -- Second, any potential surprise Ms. Morris suffered is cured by the court's extensions. -- Third, there is ample time to prepare before the June 2025 trial, and disruption is unlikely. -- Lincare explains their delayed production was the result of searches for individual patient records to prepare for opposing Ms. Morris's motion for class certification. -- This is plausibly a different search process than what Lincare would have conducted to respond to the court's order for general exemplar consent forms. This explanation shields Lincare from the extreme sanction of striking the consent forms from consideration for the rest of this case. In August 2023, Ms. Morris requested the court compel Lincare to respond to her discovery requests, including Interrogatory 9. Lincare provides healthcare equipments. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pmQ6jb at no extra charge.[CC] LINCOLN NATIONAL: IBT Employer Named Lead in Meade Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge John F. Murphy of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appoints Local 295 IBT Employer Group Pension Trust Fund as Lead Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled DONALD C. MEADE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. LINCOLN NATIONAL CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01704-JFM (E.D. Pa.). On April 23, 2024, Plaintiff Donald C. Meade, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") related to purchases or acquisitions of Lincoln National securities between Nov. 4, 2020, and Nov. 2, 2022. Local 295 IBT Employer Group Pension Trust Fund (the "Pension Trust Fund") moved for appointment as lead plaintiff and for approval of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel. The motion is unopposed. Lincoln National is purportedly a holding company operating multiple insurance and retirement businesses through subsidiary companies, and uses the marketing name "Lincoln Financial Group." Donald C. Meade filed a complaint on April 23, 2024, alleging that the Defendants -- Lincoln National Corporation, Ellen Cooper, Dennis Glass, and Randal Freitag -- made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's business, operations, and prospects. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the relevant securities, class members allegedly experienced significant losses and damages. On April 24, 2024, notice of this action was published in Business Wire, advising class members of the pendency of action, the alleged claims, the class definition, and the option of moving the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff no later than 60 days from the date of the notice. On June 24, 2024, the Pension Trust Fund timely filed a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and for approval of its selection of counsel. Initially, three other motions were filed seeking appointment as lead plaintiff. Each of these motions has been withdrawn. As such, the Court understands that the Pension Trust Fund's motion is the only motion that remains pending and is, thus, unopposed. The Pension Trust Fund seeks to be named lead plaintiff and asks the Court to approve its choice of lead counsel pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"). Judge Murphy finds that the Pension Trust Fund is the sole movant for lead plaintiff and also has the largest financial stake in the litigation. It purchased 8,600 shares of Lincoln National shares and suffered approximately $121,694 in losses. No other former movant presented evidence of a larger loss, and all former movants have since withdrawn their motions. The Pension Trust fund makes a prima facie showing of both typicality and adequacy under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Murphy holds. The Pension Trust Fund, like other class members, purports to have: (1) purchased Lincoln National securities during the Class Period; (2) to have been adversely affected by the Defendants' false and misleading statements; and (3) to have suffered damages when the truth became known. Its claims and the claims of other class members arise out of the same course of events and are based on the same legal theories. Pension Trust Fund has selected Robbins Geller to serve as lead counsel and Saxton & Stump, LLC, to serve as local counsel. The Court agrees that Robbins Geller possesses the experience and resources necessary to successfully litigate this large and complex action for the benefit of the class. Robbins Geller is a 200-attorney firm with offices nationwide and regularly represents clients in complex class action litigation. Saxton & Stump has decades of experience in civil litigation provides a sufficient basis to serve as local counsel. Additionally, given the Pension Trust Fund's position as a sophisticated institutional investor with a track record of success previously serving as a lead plaintiff, Judge Murphy trusts that it has the ability to negotiate a reasonable retainer agreement with its counsel. Finding that it has satisfied each of the PSLRA's requirements for appointment, the Court appoints the Pension Trust Fund as lead plaintiff. As such, and finding that its selection of counsel is reasonably competent at this stage, the Court approves the Pension Trust Fund's selection of Robbins Geller as lead counsel and Saxton & Stump, LLC, as local counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/5bf2885z from PacerMonitor.com. LIVE NATION: Appellate Court Rules User Agreements Invalid ---------------------------------------------------------- Bill Donahue, writing for Billboard, reports that a federal appeals court says Live Nation and Ticketmaster must face a class action claiming they charged "extraordinarily high" prices to thousands of ticket buyers, ruling that the concert giants cannot enforce "opaque and unfair" user agreements to scuttle the lawsuit. Live Nation claimed fans had waived their right to sue in court when they bought their tickets, arguing they had signed agreements promising to litigate any legal disputes via private arbitration -- a common requirement when purchasing event tickets and other services from many companies. But in a ruling Monday (Oct. 28), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Live Nation's agreements were "unconscionable and unenforceable" since they would make it "impossible" for fans to fairly pursue claims against the company. "Forced to accept terms that can be changed without notice, a plaintiff then must arbitrate under … opaque and unfair rules," the appeals court wrote. "The rules and the terms are so overly harsh or one-sided as to unequivocally represent a systematic effort to impose arbitration as an inferior forum." The ruling described Live Nation's agreements in scathing terms, calling them "so dense, convoluted and internally contradictory to be borderline unintelligible" and "poorly drafted and riddled with typos." The terms were so confusing, the court said, that Live Nation's own attorneys "struggled to explain the rules" during a court hearing. A spokesperson for Live Nation did not immediately return a request for comment on Thursday (Oct. 31). The ruling came as Live Nation is facing a sweeping antitrust lawsuit from the U.S. Department of Justice, seeking to break up the company over allegations that it illegally maintained a monopoly in the live entertainment industry. That separate action, which could take years to resolve, remains pending. The class action against Live Nation, filed in 2022, accuses the company of violating antitrust laws by monopolizing the market for concert tickets and engaging in "predatory" behavior. Filed on behalf of "hundreds of thousands if not millions" of ticket buyers, the case claims Live Nation and Ticketmaster abused their dominance to charge "extraordinarily high" prices to consumers. The lawsuit was something of a sequel to an earlier class action, in which the same legal team (from the law firm Quinn Emanuel) made highly-similar claims against Live Nation. That earlier case was dismissed after a federal judge ruled that such accusations must be handled via private litigation because of agreements that the plaintiffs had signed when they purchased their tickets. In Monday's ruling, the Ninth Circuit said that earlier victory had been both a gift and a curse for Live Nation. Though it had allowed the company to avoid a class-action lawsuit, the ruling raised the troubling prospect of facing thousands of individual arbitration cases all at once. "Defendants foresaw that if their motion to compel [arbitration] in that case were granted, they would be faced with a large number of parallel individual claims by ticket purchasers," the appeals court wrote. "In anticipation of such claims, defendants sought to gain in arbitration some of the advantages of class-wide litigation while suffering few of its disadvantages." According to the ruling, doing so involved amending its terms of use to require fans to submit to "novel and unusual" procedures for "mass arbitration" offered by a new arbitration company called New Era ADR. It was this new arbitration agreement that the appeals court declared unenforceable in Monday's ruling. The court roundly criticized the rules, saying they had placed unfair terms on any consumers who wanted to litigate a dispute with Live Nation. And, citing the company's market share, the court said fans had almost no choice but to sign the agreement. "Because Ticketmaster is the exclusive ticket seller for almost all live concerts in large venues, prospective ticket buyers in most instances are faced with a choice," the court wrote. "They can either use Ticketmaster's website and accept its terms, or refuse to use the website and be entirely foreclosed from purchasing tickets on the primary market." [GN] LOWE'S HOME: Faces Hern Class Suit Over False Discount Ads ---------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL HERN, for himself, as a private attorney general, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00271 (W.D.N.C., Oct. 30, 2024) contends that the Defendant has engaged in a massive and consistent false discount advertising scheme both in its retail stores and on its website by advertising perpetual discounts on the products in violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. The suit says that Lowe's' advertised discounts and reference prices are false because Lowe's advertises perpetual discounts off the products, and thus rarely if ever offers the products at their advertised list price. Lowe's' deceptive pricing scheme is intended to trick consumers into believing that its products are worth, and have a market value equal to, the inflated list price, and that the lower advertised sale price represents a special bargain, the suit asserts. Furthermore, Lowe's' false discount advertising harms consumers like Plaintiff by causing them to pay more than they otherwise would have paid and to buy products that they otherwise would not have bought. Lowe's' deceptive pricing scheme also artificially increases the demand for its products and causes all customers, including the Plaintiff and Class members, to pay price premiums to Lowe's, added the suit. The Plaintiff seeks damages (which may be trebled) for himself and for each of the Washington class members. Additionally, the Plaintiff, acting as a private attorney general, seeks public injunctive relief to protect the general public of Washingtonians by enjoining Lowe's from engaging in the alleged unlawful false advertising scheme. Lowe's is a home improvement retailer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael David Bland, Esq. David B. Sherman Jr., Esq. WEAVER BENNETT & BLAND, P.A. 196 North Trade Street Matthews, NC 28106 Telephone: (704) 844-1400 Facsimile: (704) 845-1503 E-mail: dbland@wbbatty.com dsherman@wbbatty.com - and - Andrew J. Howell, Esq. SIGMON, CLARK, MACKIE, HANVEY & FERRELL, P.A. Hickory, NC 28603 Telephone: (828) 328-2596 Facsimile: (828) 328-6876 E-mail: andy.howell@sigmonclark.com - and - Daniel M. Hattis, Esq. Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq. HATTIS & LUKACS 11711 SE 8th Street, Suite 120 Bellevue, WA 98005 Telephone: (425) 233-8650 Facsimile: (425) 412-7171 E-mail: dan@hattislaw.com pkl@hattislaw.com LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lululemon Athletica Inc., Case No. 0:24-cv-04052-JMB-DLM (D. Minn., Oct. 30, 2024) alleges that Defendant's Website (www.shop.lululemon.com) is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations as well as asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff was allegedly injured when she attempted to access Defendant's Website from Minnesota but encountered barriers that denied her full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota pursuant to Minn. Stat. Ms. Dalton has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. Lululemon Athletica offers clothing, and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, pants, jeans, activewear, coats, dresses, pajamas, shoes, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com MAIN DRAG: Website Not Accessible to the Blind, Fernandez Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- DEVIN FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Main Drag Music, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-07590 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://www.maindragmusic.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. On Sept. 20, 2024, while looking for a store specializing in high-quality instruments, specifically intending to buy drums and related accessories, the Plaintiff came across the Defendant's website. However, when he tried to review the company's products, he encountered accessibility errors, such as interactive elements lacking appropriate labels to indicate their functions; drop-down menus that could not be closed with the Esc key, forcing him to navigate through all the elements. As a result, he was unable to easily navigate the website or complete the purchase process, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Main Drag Music's policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Main Drag Music specializes in musical instruments and audio products including guitars, folk instruments, mixers, pedals, amplifiers, monitors, and other related accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com MARCUS POLLARD: Settlement Deal in Fitzgerald Suit Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RHONDA FITZGERALD, an individual and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. MARCUS POLLARD, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00848-JM-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey Miller entered an order granting final approval of the proposed Settlement Agreement: -- The three hundred and thirty-three visitors to Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, from May 5, 2018, to Nov. 3, 2022, who underwent a search of their person as a condition to visiting an incarcerated person at RJD during that time period. -- The Defendants' agents and representatives, the judge presiding over the Action, and members of their immediate respective families are excluded from the Class. -- This order applies to all claims or causes of action settled under the Settlement Agreement and binds all Class Members who did not affirmatively opt-out of the Settlement Agreement by submitting a timely and valid Request for Exclusion. This order does not bind persons who filed timely and valid Requests for Exclusion; -- The Settlement Administrator will issue individual settlement payments to participating Class Members according to the terms and timeline stated in the Settlement Agreement; -- The court grants Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Costs. The court grants Class Counsel attorneys' fees in the amount of $1,400,000 and $37,500 in costs from the Settlement Fund. The Settlement Administrator shall pay Class Counsel from the Settlement Fund within 10 days of Final Approval of the Settlement, as set forth in Paragraph IV.F. of the Settlement Agreement. -- The court grants a class representative award of $25,000 to Plaintiff Rhonda R. Fitzgerald to be paid from the Settlement Fund. The Settlement Administrator shall pay Plaintiff from the Settlement Fund within ten (10) days of the Final Approval of the Settlement, as set forth in Paragraph IV.E. of the Settlement Agreement. -- The court approves settlement administrator costs of $19,454. -- Payment shall be made from the Settlement Fund to Simpluris pursuant to the timeline stated in the Settlement. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7HtPrh at no extra charge.[CC] MARK CUBAN: Robertson Case Stayed Pending Dismissal Resolution -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robertson, et al., v. Mark Cuban, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-22538 (S.D. Fla., Filed Aug. 10, 2022), the Hon. Judge Roy K. Altman entered an order staying and closing this case. -- This case shall remain stayed and closed pending our resolution of the Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint -- Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The nature of suit states torts -- securities fraud.[CC] MARK ZUCKERBERG: Court Tosses Johnson's Claims as Duplicative ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYLER D. JOHNSON, v. MARK ZUCKERBERG, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-03910-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an order dismissing Johnson's claims as duplicative. The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending motions and close the file. The Court has reviewed Johnson's amended complaint and finds that it does not cure the pleading deficiencies identified in the Court's Order dismissing the original complaint with leave to amend. For example, Johnson has not indicated whether he opted out of the settlement agreement even though he was instructed to do so. Also, Johnson does not make any further arguments as to whether or not his legal claims are related to those in In re Facebook. Mr. Johnson, an inmate in Missouri, filed the present civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, representing himself. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On March 13, 2024, the Court conducted an initial screening of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915A(a). Mr. Johnson subsequently filed an amended complaint. Mr. Johnson names similar defendants and makes similar allegations as in his original complaint. He also attempts to name multiple plaintiffs, but the Court has previously denied Johnson's motion for class certification. Mark Zuckerberg is an American businessman who co-founded the social media service Facebook and its parent company Meta Platforms. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ze7rbi at no extra charge.[CC] MCDONALD'S CORP: Consumers Sue Over E.coli Outbreak in Onions ------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel, writing for Yahoo!Finance reports that McDonald's was sued on Tuesday, October 29, by consumers in a proposed class action stemming from the E.coli outbreak linked to onions in the fast-food chain's Quarter Pounders. Amanda McCray of Chicago and William Michael Kraft of Davie, Florida, said they experienced many symptoms associated with E.coli infection after buying Quarter Pounders this month. Both said they would not have bought their burgers had McDonald's disclosed the risk of contamination, and have suffered damages because of McDonald's actions. The lawsuit filed in Chicago federal court seeks unspecified damages, but exceeding $5 million, for all people in the United States who bought Quarter Pounders contaminated with E.coli. McDonald's did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The chain also faces other lawsuits by individuals who said they were also sickened. Last week, McDonald's halted Quarter Pounder sales in one-fifth of its 14,000 U.S. restaurants after an outbreak that killed at least one person and sickened 75 people. The Chicago-based company began restoring Quarter Pounders to its menus this week. After McDonald's reported quarterly results, Chief Executive Chris Kempczinski apologized to customers for the outbreak. He said on a conference call that the situation appeared contained, and that he was "confident in the safety of eating at McDonald's." The case is McCray et al v McDonald's USA LLC, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, No. 24-11102. [GN] MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Hughes Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES HUGHES, Plaintiff 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, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05027-RMG (D.S.C., September 12, 2024) is a class action seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications and to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during his service in the United States Air Force. In or around January 1, 2011, the Plaintiff's doctors diagnosed him with kidney cancer. He subsequently underwent radiation therapy to treat his cancer. On or around October 1, 2023, the Plaintiff discovered that his cancer was caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and AFFF-related fluorochemical products, the suit alleges. The Hughes case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375-0111 E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Jackson Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH JACKSON, Plaintiff 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, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05012-RMG (D.S.C., September 12, 2024) is a class action seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications and to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during his service in the United States Navy. In or around January 1, 2019, the Plaintiff's doctors diagnosed him with kidney cancer. He subsequently underwent radiation therapy to treat his cancer. On or around October 1, 2023, the Plaintiff discovered that his cancer was caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and AFFF-related fluorochemical products, the suit alleges. The Jackson case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375-0111 E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Piatt Says ----------------------------------------------------------- LONNIE PIATT, Plaintiff 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, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05014-RMG (D.S.C., September 12, 2024) is a class action seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during his service in the United States Air Force. In or around January 1, 2023, the Plaintiff's doctors diagnosed him with kidney cancer. He subsequently underwent radiation therapy to treat his cancer. On or around October 1, 2023, the Plaintiff discovered that his cancer was caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and AFFF-related fluorochemical products, the suit alleges. The Piatt case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375-0111 E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com MDL 2873: Ash Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals --------------------------------------------------- TERRANCE ASH, Plaintiff 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, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05003-RMG (D.S.C., September 12, 2024) is a class action seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during his service in the United States Air Force. In or around August 1, 2023, the Plaintiff's doctors diagnosed him with kidney cancer. He subsequently underwent radiation therapy to treat his cancer. On or around October 1, 2023, the Plaintiff discovered that his cancer was caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and AFFF-related fluorochemical products, the suit alleges. The Ash case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375-0111 E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com MDL 2873: Barton Files Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ------------------------------------------------------------ DAVID BARTON, Plaintiff 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, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05030-RMG (D.S.C., September 12, 2024) is a class action seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications and to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during his service in the United States Air Force. On January 1, 1978, the Plaintiff's doctors diagnosed him with testicular cancer. He subsequently underwent radiation therapy to treat his cancer. On October 1, 2023, Plaintiff discovered that his cancer was caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and AFFF-related fluorochemical products, the suit alleges. The Barton case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375-0111 E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com MDL 2873: Braswell Files Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals -------------------------------------------------------------- ERWIN BRASWELL, Plaintiff 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, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05033-RMG (D.S.C., September 12, 2024) is a class action seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications and to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during his service in the United States Army. In or around November 1, 2023, the Plaintiff's doctors diagnosed him with kidney cancer. He subsequently underwent radiation therapy to treat his cancer. On or around October 1, 2023, the Plaintiff discovered that his cancer was caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and AFFF-related fluorochemical products, the suit alleges. The Braswell case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375-0111 E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com MDL 2873: Crull Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure ------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES CRULL, Plaintiff 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, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05013-RMG (D.S.C., September 12, 2024) is a class action seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications and to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during his service in the United States Navy. In or around January 1, 2012, the Plaintiff's doctors diagnosed him with kidney cancer. He subsequently underwent radiation therapy to treat his cancer. On or around October 1, 2023, the Plaintiff discovered that his cancer was caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and AFFF-related fluorochemical products, the suit alleges. The Crull case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375-0111 E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic Chemicals Caused Cancer, Harris Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DIRONE HARRIS, Plaintiff 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, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05011-RMG (D.S.C., September 12, 2024) is a class action seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications and to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during his service in the United States Army. In or around January 1, 2023, the Plaintiff's doctors diagnosed him with kidney cancer. He subsequently underwent radiation therapy to treat his cancer. On or around October 1, 2023, the Plaintiff discovered that his cancer was caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and AFFF-related fluorochemical products, the suit alleges. The Harris case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375-0111 E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic Chemicals Caused Illness, Heavey Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICK HEAVEY JR., Plaintiff 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, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05024-RMG (D.S.C., September 12, 2024) is a class action seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications and to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during his service in the United States Army. In or around January 1, 2022, the Plaintiff's doctors diagnosed him with testicular cancer. He subsequently underwent radiation therapy to treat his cancer. On or around October 1, 2023, the Plaintiff discovered that his cancer was caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and AFFF-related fluorochemical products, the suit alleges. The Heavey case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375-0111 E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com MDL 2873: Faces Kudlacik Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals -------------------------------------------------------------- MARK KUDLACIK, Plaintiff 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, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05021-RMG (D.S.C., September 12, 2024) is a class action seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during his service in the United States Air Force. In or around January 1, 2016, the Plaintiff's doctors diagnosed him with kidney cancer. He subsequently underwent radiation therapy to treat his cancer. On or around October 1, 2023, the Plaintiff discovered that his cancer was caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and AFFF-related fluorochemical products, the suit alleges. The Kudlacik case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375-0111 E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com MDL 2873: Faces Lomeli Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ------------------------------------------------------------ JOHNNY LOMELI, Plaintiff 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, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05028-RMG (D.S.C., September 12, 2024) is a class action seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications and to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during his service in the United States Air Force. In or around January 1, 2020, the Plaintiff's doctors diagnosed him with kidney cancer. He subsequently underwent radiation therapy to treat his cancer. On or around October 1, 2023, the Plaintiff discovered that his cancer was caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and AFFF-related fluorochemical products, the suit alleges. The Lomeli case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375-0111 E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com MDL 2873: Faces Reynolds Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals -------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT REYNOLDS, Plaintiff 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, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05035-RMG (D.S.C., September 12, 2024) is a class action seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during his service in the United States Air Force. In or around December 1, 2016, the Plaintiff's doctors diagnosed him with testicular cancer. He subsequently underwent radiation therapy to treat his cancer. On or around October 1, 2023, the Plaintiff discovered that his cancer was caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and AFFF-related fluorochemical products, the suit alleges. The Reynolds case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375-0111 E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com MDL 2873: Faces Vernon Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ------------------------------------------------------------ DAVID VERNON, Plaintiff 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, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05040-RMG (D.S.C., September 12, 2024) is a class action seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during his service in the United States Marine. In or around January 1, 2023, the Plaintiff's doctors diagnosed him with kidney cancer. He subsequently underwent radiation therapy to treat his cancer. On or around October 1, 2023, the Plaintiff discovered that his cancer was caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and AFFF-related fluorochemical products, the suit alleges. The Vernon case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375-0111 E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com MDL 2873: Hansen Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ------------------------------------------------------ GREG HANSEN, Plaintiff 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, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05023-RMG (D.S.C., September 12, 2024) is a class action seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications and to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during his service in the United States Air Force. In or around January 1, 2020, the Plaintiff's doctors diagnosed him with kidney cancer. He subsequently underwent radiation therapy to treat his cancer. On or around October 1, 2023, the Plaintiff discovered that his cancer was caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and AFFF-related fluorochemical products, the suit alleges. The Hansen case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375-0111 E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com MDL 2873: Hines Sues Over Cancer Due to AFFF Exposure ----------------------------------------------------- DOYLE HINES, Plaintiff 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, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05016-RMG (D.S.C., September 12, 2024) is a class action seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications and to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during his service in the United States Air Force. In or around January 1, 2023, Plaintiff's doctors diagnosed him with kidney cancer. He subsequently underwent radiation therapy to treat his cancer. On or around October 1, 2023, the Plaintiff discovered that his cancer was caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and AFFF-related fluorochemical products, the suit alleges. The Hines case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375-0111 E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com MDL 2873: Jones Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure ------------------------------------------------------------- LONELLE JONES, Plaintiff 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, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04977-RMG (D.S.C., September 12, 2024) is a class action seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during his military career. He was diagnosed with kidney cancer and thyroid disease as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, the suit asserts. The Jones case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375-0111 E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com MDL 2873: Pelszynski Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------- RENALD PELSZYNSKI, Plaintiff 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, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05025-RMG (D.S.C., September 12, 2024) is a class action seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during his service in the United States Air Force. In or around January 1, 2023, the Plaintiff's doctors diagnosed him with kidney cancer. He subsequently underwent radiation therapy to treat his cancer. On or around October 1, 2023, the Plaintiff discovered that his cancer was caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and AFFF-related fluorochemical products, the suit alleges. The Pelszynski case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375-0111 E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com MDL 2873: Purse Suit Alleges Illness Due to AFFF Exposure --------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES PURSE, Plaintiff 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, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05036-RMG (D.S.C., September 12, 2024) is a class action seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications and to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during his service in the United States Army. On January 1, 2014, the Plaintiff's doctors diagnosed him with testicular cancer. He subsequently underwent radiation therapy to treat his cancer. On October 1, 2023, the Plaintiff discovered that his cancer was caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and AFFF-related fluorochemical products, the suit alleges. The Purse case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375-0111 E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com MDL 2873: Sickness Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure, Boelens Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ PATRICK BOELENS, Plaintiff 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, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05022-RMG (D.S.C., September 12, 2024) is a class action seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during his service in the United States Marine. In or around January 1, 2013, the Plaintiff's doctors diagnosed him with testicular cancer. He subsequently underwent radiation therapy to treat his cancer. On or around October 1, 2023, the Plaintiff discovered that his cancer was caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and AFFF-related fluorochemical products, the suit alleges. The Boelens case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375-0111 E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com MDL 2873: Toxic Aqueous Foams Caused Cancer, Gray Says ------------------------------------------------------ WILLIS GRAY, Plaintiff 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, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05026-RMG (D.S.C., September 12, 2024) is a class action seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during his service in the United States Air Force. In or around January 1, 2021, the Plaintiff's doctors diagnosed him with kidney cancer. He subsequently underwent radiation therapy to treat his cancer. On or around October 1, 2023, the Plaintiff discovered that his cancer was caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and AFFF-related fluorochemical products, the suit alleges. The Gray case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375-0111 E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com MDL 2873: Toxic Chemicals Caused Cancer, Holland Says ----------------------------------------------------- REGINALD HOLLAND, Plaintiff 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, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05018-RMG (D.S.C., September 12, 2024) is a class action seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during his service in the United States Army. In or around January 1, 2014, the Plaintiff's doctors diagnosed him with kidney cancer. He subsequently underwent radiation therapy to treat his cancer. On or around October 1, 2023, the Plaintiff discovered that his cancer was caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and AFFF-related fluorochemical products, the suit alleges. The Holland case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375-0111 E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com MDL 2873: Toxic Chemicals Caused Illness, Tedesco Says ------------------------------------------------------ DAVID TEDESCO, Plaintiff 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, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05041-RMG (D.S.C., September 12, 2024) is a class action seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during his service in the United States Air Force. In or around August 1, 2014, the Plaintiff's doctors diagnosed him with kidney cancer. He subsequently underwent radiation therapy to treat his cancer. On or around October 1, 2023, the Plaintiff discovered that his cancer was caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and AFFF-related fluorochemical products, the suit alleges. The Tedesco case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375-0111 E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com MDL 2873: Turner Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ------------------------------------------------------ DONALD TURNER, JR., Plaintiff 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, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05011-RMG (D.S.C., September 12, 2024) is a class action seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications and to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during his service in the United States Army. In or around January 1, 2023, Plaintiff's doctors diagnosed him with kidney cancer. He subsequently underwent radiation therapy to treat his cancer. On or around October 1, 2023, the Plaintiff discovered that his cancer was caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and AFFF-related fluorochemical products, the suit alleges. The Turner case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375-0111 E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com MERRICK GARLAND: Williams Bid to Reopen for Class Cert Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAMS, et al., v. GARLAND et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01268 (D.D.C., Filed May 9, 2022), the Hon. Judge Dabney L. Friedrich entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion to reopen for class certification. -- The case is closed, and the plaintiff has not identified a compelling reason to reopen this case. -- The plaintiff's motion to transfer venue and his motion to strike, construed as another motion to transfer venue, are also denied. -- The plaintiff has not established that transfer would be more convenient to the parties or in the interest of justice. -- Finally, the plaintiff's motion to consolidate is denied, as the other referenced case, In re Sealed Petitioner, 106 F. 4th 397 (5th Cir. 2024), is not a case before this Court, nor does it appear to involve common questions of law or fact. -- The Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this Minute Order to the plaintiff's address of record. The nature of suit states Conspiracy Against Citizen Rights.[CC] META PLATFORMS: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to June 3, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHYLLIS NICHOLS, ROBIN COOK, and LAWRENCE NOVIDA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-02914-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey White entered an order approving as modified stipulation on case management schedule as follows: Case Event Deadline Amendments to Pleadings deadline: Jan. 3, 2025 Completion of all fact discovery: May 4, 2026 Plaintiffs' motion for class June 3, 2026 certification and any expert reports in support of class certification due: Defendant's opposition to Plaintiff's Aug. 12, 2026 motion for class certification and any class certification expert reports due: Plaintiffs' reply brief on class Sept. 25, 2026 certification due: Meta Platforms operates as a social technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j2ImY5 at no extra charge.[CC] MGM RESORTS: Plaintiff's Bid to Appoint Interim Counsel Granted --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Richard F. Boulware, II granted the plaintiff's motion for appointment of interim counsel in the case captioned as TANYA OWENS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL, et al., Defendants, Master File No. 2:23-cv-01480-RFB-MDC (Consolidated for pretrial proceedings with Case Nos. 2:23-cv-1481, 2:23-cv1537, 2:23-cv-1549, 2:23-cv-1550, 2:23-cv1577, 2:23-cv-1698, 2:23- cv-1719, 2:23-cv1777, 2:23-cv-1826, 2:23-cv1981, 2:23-cv2042, 2:23-cv-2064, 2:24-cv-81, 2:24-cv-00995, 2:24-cv-00999) (D. Nev.). The plaintiff Charles Bezak's motion for appointment of Mr. Donathen to the steering committee is denied without prejudice. This is a consolidated putative class action arising from MGM's alleged failures to adequately safeguard the personally identifiable information 'PII' of its customers, and the cyberattack and data breach to MGM systems in September 2023. On September 21, 2023, Plaintiff Tonya Owens filed the first putative class action against MGM alleging negligence, negligence per se, breach of an implied contract, and unjust enrichment. Since that time, sixteen additional cases have been filed against MGM related to the 2023 data security incident and are pending in the District of Nevada. On March 22, 2024, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), the Court consolidated sixteen related actions under the lead case, Owens v. MGM Resorts Int'l, No. 2:23-cv-01480- RFB-MDC. On April 19, 2024, the Consolidated Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for appointment of interim class counsel. The Consolidated Plaintiffs move for an Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3) appointing: (1) J. Gerard Stranch IV, James J. Pizzirusso, and Lynn A. Toops as Interim Class Counsel, (2) the appointment of a Plaintiffs' Steering Committee consisting of Mariya Weekes, Jeff Ostrow, Marc Dann, Rachele R. Byrd, Tom Loeser, Maureen M. Brady, Charles E. Schaffer and James Cecchi, and (3) appointment of Nathan R. Ring as Liaison Counsel. The motion is unopposed by any Plaintiff. That same day, one of the Consolidated Plaintiffs, Charles Bezak, filed a motion to appoint Mr. Donathen of Lynch Carpenter, LLP to the Plaintiff's Steering Committee. MGM filed its response to both motions on May 3, 2024. In their response, MGM takes no position on the appointment of Stranch, Pizzirusso, and Toops to Interim Class Counsel. MGM also takes no position on the appointment of Nathan R. Ring as liaison counsel. However, MGM opposes Plaintiff's request to appoint a steering committee. On August 6, 2024, the Court entered an Order that consolidated two additional cases, alleging similar negligence claims against MGM. Under rule 23(g)(1)(A) court considers the following factors in selecting interim class counsel: (i) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential claims in the action; (ii) counsel's experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action; (iii) counsel's knowledge of the applicable law; and (iv) the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class. Rule 23(g)(1)(B) provides that a court may consider any other matter pertinent to counsel's ability to fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class, such as efficiency and economy. The Court finds that the appointment of interim class counsel is appropriate. The appointment of interim counsel will clarify responsibility and coordination of important precertification matters, including preparing the motion for certification, conducting discovery, and participating in settlement negotiations, the Court states. The Court also agrees with the appointment of Stranch, Pizzirusso, and Toops as interim class counsel. The Court finds that all four factors are satisfied as to the proposed interim class counsel. The Court finds that Stranch, Pizzirusso, and Toops can fairly and adequately perform the role of interim class counsel for the putative class and therefore grants the Consolidated Plaintiff's Motion as it relates to interim class counsel. The Court concludes that the appointment of Nathan R. Ring as Liaison Counsel is appropriate. Mr. Ring is of counsel at the same firm as Mr. Stranch, Stranch, Jennings & Garvey, PLLC, and has a close working relationship with all interim co-lead counsel. Mr. Ring also maintains an officer locally in Las Vegas, Nevada. Lastly, the Consolidated Plaintiffs seek appointment of a Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, consisting of seven attorneys. Plaintiff Bezak has submitted a separate motion which specifically seeks appointment of Mr. Donathen to that Steering Committee. Defendant MGM opposes the appointment of a steering committee, arguing that a committee is neither necessary nor beneficial to the interests of the class in this case. The Court finds that Consolidated Plaintiff's proposed appointment of a steering committee will provide support to interim co-counsel, maximize efficiency of the litigation, and supply added diversity in leadership. According to the Court, additional representation in decision making through the Plaintiff's Steering Committee would be beneficial to the class as a whole, especially now as the Plaintiffs prepare the consolidated complaint and seek certification. The Court declines to grant Plaintiff Bezak's individual motion to appoint Mr. Donathen to the steering committee. As Plaintiff Bezak acknowledges, Mr. Donathen is a young attorney with only three years of litigation experience, and therefore does not satisfy the second factor under Rule 23(g)(1)(A)(ii)—the counsel's experience in handling class actions, the Court finds. This motion is denied without prejudice, the Court holds. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xZq0sB MIDDLEBURY COLLEGE: Wins Summary Judgment in Mooers Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Chief Judge Christina Reiss of the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont issued an Opinion and Order granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled HENRY MOOERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDDLEBURY COLLEGE, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00144-cr (D. Vt.). Plaintiff Henry Mooers attended Middlebury, a nonprofit higher education institution located in Middlebury, Vermont, for four years and graduated magna cum laude with a Bachelor of Science in computer science following the spring 2021 semester. Upon graduating, the Plaintiff obtained employment as an analyst at an investment management firm. In the spring of 2020, the Plaintiff was enrolled in four classes, one of which included a lab component. After the transition to remote learning in March 2020, the Plaintiff continued to receive instruction in all four courses. Students at Middlebury are required to pay a comprehensive fee, which covers tuition, room, and board, in addition to a Student Activity Fee ("SAF"). For spring 2020, the Plaintiff was charged $27,895 in tuition, $8,016 for room and board, and a $213 SAF. He received a Middlebury Grant for $10,079, an unsubsidized Federal Direct Loan for $3,711, and a College Loan Fund award for $2,750. He was responsible for the remainder of his comprehensive fee, totaling $16,392.38, which he paid on July 30, 2020. The Plaintiff brings this putative class action against Defendant Middlebury College alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment stemming from Middlebury's tuition and fee policy during the spring 2020 semester in which Middlebury moved to online classes due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, a disgorgement of "ill-gotten gains," and restitution, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. Among other things, the Plaintiff asserts Middlebury did not provide any student activities during a portion of the semester he calls "the Lost Week" when, pursuant to the Governor of Vermont's Executive Order, Middlebury extended its spring break and sent its students home early. On Dec. 22, 2023, Middlebury moved for summary judgment and to strike the Plaintiff's jury demand. The Plaintiff filed an opposition on March 1, 2024. Middlebury filed a reply on April 5, 2024, and three notices of supplemental authority. The Court heard oral arguments on May 9, 2024, at which point the Court took the present motion under advisement. Middlebury argues that the Plaintiff's Statement of Disputed Facts in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ("SDMF") is improper and noncompliant with the relevant Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court's Local Rules insofar as it fails to respond directly to each of Middlebury's undisputed facts. The Court agrees. In a section of the Plaintiff's SDMF, Judge Reiss finds that he fails to respond to Middlebury's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ("SUMF") but, rather includes six paragraphs followed by a section titled "Disputed Material Facts Relating to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment" that contain additional facts in paragraphs 7 to 42, some of which are not disputed, including facts about him and his payments to Middlebury. Middlebury contends, among other things, that it is entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiff's breach of contract claim because he has failed to identify a specific and concrete promise to hold in-person activities on-campus during the spring 2020 semester in exchange for the SAF. In this case, Judge Reiss notes the existence of an implied contract is uncontested. At the summary judgment stage, the Plaintiff was required to establish a specific and concrete promise to hold activities on-campus and in-person. He has not done so, Judge Reiss says. Having failed to satisfy the first prong of his breach of contract claim, Judge Reiss holds summary judgment in Middlebury's favor must be granted. Assuming arguendo that Middlebury and the Plaintiff entered into a binding contract requiring student activities to take place in-person and on-campus notwithstanding a pandemic, Judge Reiss opines that no rational court or jury could conclude performance of such a contract was consistent with public policy or, conversely, could fail to find the performance of such contract injurious to the public and against the public good. Because the Plaintiff fails to identify a specific, enforceable promise to provide uninterrupted student activities during the Lost Week, and because any such promise to do so in-person and on-campus would be unenforceable, Judge Reiss holds Middlebury's motion for summary judgment regarding the Plaintiff's "Lost Week" claim is granted. Because there is no issue of material fact regarding the existence of an implied contract between the parties under Vermont law, Middlebury's motion for summary judgment on the Plaintiff's tuition and SAF unjust enrichment claims must be granted, Judge Reiss holds, among other things. Middlebury requests the Court strike the Plaintiff's jury demand with respect to his unjust enrichment claims because he is not entitled to a jury determination of an equitable remedy. The Court addresses this claim solely for appellate review. Judge Reiss finds that a jury trial is not available for the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim under Vermont law. The Court need not resolve how it would proceed at trial because the Plaintiff's claims at law and in equity have been dismissed. For these reasons, Middlebury's motion to strike the Plaintiff's jury demand is denied as moot. Accordingly, the Court grants Middlebury's motion for summary judgment and denies as moot Middlebury's motion to strike the Plaintiff's jury demand. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Oct. 17, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdz76scj from PacerMonitor.com. The Plaintiff is represented by Michael A. Tompkins -- mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com -- Jeremy B. Francis -- Tristan C. Larson -- larson@larsongallivan.com. Middlebury is represented by Jeffrey J. Nolan -- jeffrey.nolan@hklaw.com -- Paul G. Lannon, Jr. -- paul.lannon@hklaw.com -- Sheila Shen -- qian.shen@hklaw.com -- Kathryn J. Richards -- Kathryn J. Richards -- Lindsay A. Enriquez -- Lindsay.Catt@hklaw.com -- Robert J. Burns -- robert.burns@hklaw.com. MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Class Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement in the case captioned as NICO CRUZ SANCHEZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC.; DALTILE SERVICE, INC.; DAL-TILE SERVICES, INC.; DAL-TILE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.: 1:20-cv-1510 JLT EPG (E.D. Calif.). Nico Cruz Sanchez was employed as a warehouse associate from approximately September 2016 to December 2018. He alleges that "Defendants, jointly and severally, employed [him] as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee." He contends, "Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California." On September 14, 2020, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint on behalf of himself and others similarly situated in Fresno County Superior Court, Case No. 20CECG02675. Defendants filed a notice of removal, invoking this Court's jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. The Court denied Plaintiff's motion to remand on January 10, 2022. The Court then issued a scheduling order, opening class discovery and setting a briefing schedule regarding any motion for class certification. On August 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against Defendants raising the following causes of action: (1) unpaid overtime, (2) unpaid meal periods, (3) unpaid rest periods, (4) failure to pay minimum wages, (5) failure to timely pay wages due during employment, (6) failure to timey pay final wages, (7) non-complaint wage statements, (8) failure to keep requisite payroll records, (9) unreimbursed business expenses, and (10) violations of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200. Plaintiff indicated the claims were brought on his own behalf and all others similarly situated, including: "[a]ll current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for any of the Defendants within the State of California at any time during the period from September 15, 2016 to final judgment and who reside in California." The Proposed Settlement In order to effectuate terms of the settlement, the parties stipulated that Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint, to add a claim for penalties under California's Private Attorney General Act. The parties indicated that, for settlement purposes only, Defendants agreed to "not assert a statute of limitations defense to Plaintiff's PAGA claim." The Court approved the stipulation, and Plaintiff filed his SAC with the additional PAGA claim on April 15, 2024. The parties executed the written agreement in May 2024. Pursuant to the "Joint Stipulation of Class Action and PAGA Settlement", the parties agree to a gross settlement amount of $1,900,000.00 for the class defined as: "all current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for any of the Defendants within the State of California at any time during the period from September 15, 2016, through April 11, 2024, . . . and who reside in California." In addition, the Settlement includes an "escalator clause," under which the gross settlement amount may be increased if the actual number of workweeks for all class members increases by more than 10% over the estimated 86,162 workweeks included in the Class Period. Defendants agreed to deliver the gross settlement amount to an escrow account of the proposed administrator within ten days of executing the Settlement. Plaintiff now seeks preliminary approval of a class settlement pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks: (1) provisional certification of the settlement class; (2) preliminary approval of the settlement terms, including a PAGA payment; (3) appointment as the class representative; (4) appointment of Arby Aiwazian, Joanna Ghosh, and Brian St. John of Lawyers for Justice and LippSmith LLP, as class counsel; (5) appointment of Simpluris, Inc., as the settlement administrator; (6) approval of the class notice; and (7) scheduling for final approval. Accordingly, the Court entered an order as follows: The Court finds the proposed class settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. The factors set forth under Rule 23 and Ninth Circuit precedent weigh in favor of preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. Plaintiff's request for provisional certification of the Settlement Class is granted, and the class is defined as follows: All current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for any of the Defendants within the State of California at any time during the period from September 15, 2016, through April 11, 2024, and who reside in California. Preliminary approval of the PAGA payment is granted. Nico Cruz Sanchez is appointed the Class Representative for the Settlement Class. Arby Aiwazian, Joanna Ghosh, Brian St. John, and LippSmith LLP are appointed as Class Counsel. Simpluris, Inc. is appointed as the Settlement Administrator, with responsibilities pursuant to the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The class representative service payment for Plaintiff is granted preliminarily up to the amount of $10,000, subject to a petition and review at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing. Class members and their counsel may support or oppose this request, if they so desire, at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing. Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees not to exceed $665,000 and litigation expenses up to $23,000 is granted preliminarily, subject to review of the petition for fees and costs at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing. Class members and their counsel may support or oppose this request, if they so desire, at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing. Costs of settlement administration shall not exceed $9,000. A class member who wishes to be excluded from settlement shall postmark a written request for exclusion no later than December 31, 2024. Any objections to or comments on the Settlement Agreement must be submitted to the Settlement Administrator no later than December 31, 2024. The Final Approval and Fairness Hearing is set for April 1, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. At this hearing, the Court shall determine whether the Settlement should be granted final approval as fair, reasonable, and adequate as to the class members. The Court shall hear all evidence and argument necessary to evaluate the Settlement and other motions and requests, including the class representative service payment, attorneys' fees, and litigation expenses. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HOFlop MONSANTO CO: Court Says Certification Appropriate in Neddo Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont ruled that certification is appropriate in the case captioned as AMBER NEDDO, as guardian and next friend to Z.N., C.B., and A.B., and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, SOLUTIA INC., and PHARMACIA LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-396 (D. Vt.). This case concerns a class action claim for medical monitoring of individuals alleged to have been exposed to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) while attending, teaching, or otherwise present in Vermont public schools. Plaintiffs seek to apply the newly enacted medical monitoring statute, 21 V.S.A. Sec. 7201 et seq. to provide a remedy for class members exposed to PCBs. Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint on multiple grounds -- two of which present purely legal issues of construction of the Vermont statute. These issues are: 1. Whether Vermont's medical monitoring statute applies to products such as PCBs which were manufactured out of state and purchased by third parties, also out of state, to make building supplies and other products used in the construction of Vermont schools; and 2. Whether the medical monitoring statute provides a remedy against an out-of-state manufacturer who ceased production of the substance at issue prior to the enactment of the medical monitoring statute. Before the hearing on the motion to dismiss, the court alerted the parties to the possibility of certification of these two issues of state law to the Vermont Supreme Court. The court has now decided that certification is appropriate under the standards set out at Vermont Rule of Appellate Procedure 14. Judge Crawford explains the primary reasons for this decision are that the medical monitoring statute was recently enacted. The Vermont Supreme Court has had no opportunity to rule on the fundamental questions raised by this case. The issues are state-law questions and there are no overlapping issues of federal law. The facts relevant to these two issues are not in dispute. The parties agree that Defendants were the sole manufacturers of the PCB product at two facilities located in other states. They also agree that PCBs entered some Vermont public school buildings when the substance was used as an ingredient in products such as window caulk and fluorescent light ballasts. These products were manufactured by third parties and incorporated into some Vermont schools. The parties also agree that sale of PCBs by Defendants ceased in 1977. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dEHuhe MYNARIC AG: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP announces that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Mynaric AG (NASDAQ: MYNA) securities between June 20, 2024 and October 7, 2024. Mynaric develops and manufactures laser communication products for aerospace-based communication networks for government and commercial markets in the U.S. and internationally. For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that Mynaric AG (MYNA) Misled Investors Regarding its Business Prospects According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants failed to disclose that: (i) lower-than-expected production yields and component supplier shortages of key components were causing production delays for Mynaric's CONDOR Mk3 product; (ii) the foregoing issues were likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's revenue growth and cause the Company to incur an operating loss; (iii) as a result, Mynaric was unlikely to meet its own previously issued financial guidance for FY 2024; and (iv) accordingly, the Company's business and/or financial prospects were overstated. Plaintiff alleges that on August 20, 2024, Mynaric issued a press release providing an update to its FY 2024 guidance, advising that "the company now expects full-year 2024 IFRS-15 revenue to range between EUR 16.0 million to EUR 24.0 million compared to previous guidance of a range between EUR 50.0 million to EUR 70.0 million", citing "production delays of CONDOR Mk3 caused by lower than expected production yields and component supplier shortages of key components"; and that "the company now expects full-year 2024 operating loss to range between a loss of EUR 55.0 million to EUR 50.0 million compared to previous guidance of a range between a loss of EUR 40.0 million to EUR 30.0 million", citing "the lower than expected revenue and higher than expected production costs due to lower yields." The Company also revealed the voluntary departure of its Chief Financial Officer. On this news, Mynaric's American Depository Share ("ADS") price fell $2.32 per ADS, or 55.9%, to close at $1.83 per ADS on August 20, 2024. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Mynaric AG. Shareholders who want to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must submit their application to the court by December 30, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, click here. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over $1 billion for shareholders. To be notified if a class action against Mynaric AG settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Settlement in Antitrust Suit Granted Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Real Brokerage Inc. (NASDAQ: REAX, "Real" or the "Company") announced that on October 31, 2024, Judge Stephen R. Bough of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted final approval of the Settlement Agreement the Company entered into to resolve pending class action litigation, Umpa v. NAR, No. 4:23-cv-00945 (W.D. Mo.), on a nationwide basis (the "Settlement Agreement"). The Company first announced the Settlement Agreement on April 8, 2024. As previously disclosed, the Settlement Agreement conclusively addresses all claims asserted against Real in the Umpa lawsuit, releasing Real, its subsidiaries, and affiliated agents from these claims. The Settlement Agreement does not constitute an admission of liability by Real, nor does it concede or validate any of the claims asserted in the litigation. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Real paid $9.25 million into a qualified settlement fund within 30 days after the District Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on April 30, 2024. The Company does not foresee the settlement terms having a material impact on its future operations. The Settlement Agreement will become effective following any appeals process, if applicable. About Real Real (NASDAQ: REAX) is a real estate experience company working to make life's most complex transaction simple. The fast-growing company combines essential real estate, mortgage and closing services with powerful technology to deliver a single seamless end-to-end consumer experience, guided by trusted agents. With a presence throughout the U.S. and Canada, Real supports more than 22,000 agents who use its digital brokerage platform and tight-knit professional community to power their own forward-thinking businesses. Forward-Looking Information This press release contains forward-looking information within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities laws. Forward-looking information is often, but not always, identified by the use of words such as "seek", "anticipate", "believe", "plan", "estimate", "expect", "likely" and "intend" and statements that an event or result "may", "will", "should", "could" or "might" occur or be achieved and other similar expressions. These statements reflect management's current beliefs and are based on information currently available to management as of the date hereof. Forward-looking information in this press release includes, without limiting the foregoing, expectations regarding the settlement and settlement agreement. Forward-looking information is based on assumptions that may prove to be incorrect, including but not limited to Real's business objectives, expected growth, results of operations, performance, business projects and opportunities and financial results. Real considers these assumptions to be reasonable in the circumstances. However, forward-looking information is subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results, performance or achievements to differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking information. Important factors that could cause such differences include, but are not limited to, slowdowns in real estate markets, economic and industry downturns, Real's ability to attract new agents and retain current agents and those risk factors discussed under the heading "Risk Factors'' in the Company's Annual Information Form dated March 14, 2024, a copy of which is available under the Company's SEDAR+ profile at www.sedarplus.ca. These factors should be carefully considered and readers should not place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements. Although the forward-looking statements contained in this press release are based upon what management believes to be reasonable assumptions, Real cannot assure readers that actual results will be consistent with these forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are made as of the date of this press release, and Real assumes no obligation to update or revise them to reflect new events or circumstances, except as required by law. Contacts Investor inquiries: Ravi Jani Vice President, Investor Relations and Financial Planning & Analysis investors@therealbrokerage.com (908) 280-2515 Media inquiries: Elisabeth Warrick Senior Director, Marketing, Communications & Brand elisabeth@therealbrokerage.com (201) 564-4221 [GN] NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: $2.7-Bil. Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- McCarter & English, LLP, in an article with JDSupra, reports that in a much anticipated antitrust class action settlement, a federal judge granted preliminary approval of a $2.7 billion proposed settlement that will cap the amount of money National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) schools can spend in compensation for the use of student athletes' name, image, likeness (NIL). Assuming final approval is granted, NCAA schools will be able to spend a maximum of $23.1 million each year, and that cap will increase on a yearly basis during the ten-year-long settlement agreement. The spending limit is based on a formula that gives NCAA athletes 22% of the money the average power conference school makes from media rights deals, ticket sales, and sponsorships. Time will tell if this settlement raises more questions than answers for NCAA schools. The settlement was preliminarily approved by Judge Claudia Wilken and any NCAA athlete impacted by the settlement will have until January 31, 2025, to file objections or opt out. A final hearing to approve the deal is scheduled for April 7, 2025, which is perhaps by coincidence the scheduled date for the NCAA men's basketball championship game. If Judge Wilken deems the settlement fair, adequate, and reasonable, the court will grant final approval of the settlement, paving the way for schools within the NCAA's purview to pay athletes directly. Schools will not be required to spend the full amount of the available money, but most athletic departments in the power conferences will be expected to approach the cap to remain competitive in recruiting. NIL collectives, or groups of donors who compensate athletes with funding and endorsements, will also be able to provide NIL payments to players as long as the NCAA deems them to be legitimate forms of endorsement compensation, i.e., the athlete must provide a service in exchange for the payment, not just receive money for their athletic ability alone. While the settlement includes three pending federal antitrust cases -- House v. NCAA, Hubbard v. NCAA, and Carter v. NCAA -- other antitrust cases with similar claims still remain pending. For example, in Fontenot v. NCAA a former NCAA college running back, Alex Fontenot, filed a proposed class action against the NCAA alleging that the NCAA restricted athletes from sharing in television rights revenue in violation of antitrust laws. The parties in the Fontenot case agreed to stay their litigation until Judge Wilken ruled on final approval of the settlement. As the settlement process continues, schools, collectives, athletes, and any other party involved in college athletics should closely monitor these developments and speak to legal counsel to ensure they have a full understanding of all rules, laws, and guidance associated with the NCAA's current business structure and the athletic landscape surrounding NIL compensation. Because the NCAA's new revenue sharing payments will come in the form of contracts in which schools will purchase the rights to use their athletes' NIL, power-conference schools, athletic departments, and athletes alike should be prepared to negotiate their 2025 revenue share agreements during this upcoming recruiting portal season and be aware of a range of potential legal issues, including contract/rule interpretation and/or construction, broadcasting and trademark rights, antitrust laws, intellectual property, potential misappropriation of NIL, competitive recruiting, NCAA waivers, and Title IX. Collegiate brands, both small and large, must learn to strategically structure deals in a way that maximizes returns given the concentrated time frame of a collegiate career. [GN] NIKOLA CORPORATION: Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply in Borteanu Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Daniel Borteanu, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Nikola Corporation, Trevor R. Milton, Mark A. Russell, Kim J. Brady, Jeffrey Ubben, Case No. 2:20-cv-01797-SPL (D. Ariz.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting them leave to file a sur-reply to Lead Plaintiffs' reply memorandum of law in support of the motion for class certification. A sur-reply is necessary and appropriate because the Reply introduces voluminous new evidence and several new arguments and authorities not originally raised in Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In requesting leave to file the proposed sur-reply, the Nikola Defendants seek an opportunity to respond to the Reply's new arguments and present Dr. Roper's additional analysis, responsive to Dr. Nye's new assertions, to the Court. The Nikola Defendants respectfully submit that the proposed sur-reply will aid the Court in deciding Plaintiffs’ Class Certification Motion. Further, permitting a sur-reply is particularly important here, because “a court cannot conclude that Rule 23’s requirements are satisfied without considering all evidence relevant to price impact.” Further, given that Plaintiffs’ Motion has not yet been decided, there should be no prejudice to Plaintiffs if the Court grants the Nikola Defendants' request. Nikola is an American manufacturer of heavy-duty commercial battery-electric vehicles, fuel-cell electric vehicles, and energy solutions. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NebVcB at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Dennis I. Wilenchik, Esq. WILENCHIK & BARTNESS, P.C. The Wilenchik & Bartness Building 2810 North Third Street Phoenix, AZ 85004 E-mail: admin@wb-law.com - and - Brad S. Karp, Esq. Susanna M. Buergel, Esq. Gregory F. Laufer, Esq. Alison R. Benedon, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019-6064 E-mail: bkarp@paulweiss.com sbuergel@paulweiss.com glaufer@paulweiss.com abenedon@paulweiss.com NURTURE INC: Sanchez Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA SANCHEZ and BEVERLY CASSEL, as individuals, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated, v. NURTURE, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 5:21-cv-08566-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on March 13, 2025, will move pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to certify one of the following classes and corresponding subclass: Class A: "All persons in the State of California who purchased the Products between Nov. 3, 2017 and the present. Subclass A: "Class Members who purchased the Products without a front label age disclaimer that states "for 2+ years" between Nov. 3, 2017 and Nov. 3, 2022." OR Class B: "All persons in the State of California who purchased the Products for children under the age of two between Nov. 3, 2017 and the present. Subclass B: "Class Members who purchased the Products for children under the age of two without a front label age disclaimer that states "for 2+ years" between Nov. 3, 2017 and Nov. 3, 2022." The Class will pursue its "unlawful" prong claims under the Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code sections17200, et seq. ("UCL"). The Plaintiffs further request that the Court (1) appoint Plaintiffs Sanchez and Cassel as class representatives on all claims, and (2) appoint Gutride Safier LLP as lead counsel. The Plaintiffs finally request that the Court order the parties to meet and confer and present this Court, within 15 days of an order granting class certification, a proposed notice to the certified class. Nurture is a children's organic food manufacturer. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CwXTaH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Hayley A. Reynolds, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com hayley@gutridesafier.com OTHERSHIP USA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Bunting Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- RASHETA BUNTING, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. OTHERSHIP USA INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-07597 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2024) sues the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, http//:www.othership.us, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff made numerous attempts to complete a booking and make purchases on othership.us, most recently on Oct. 5, 2024, Oct. 10, 2024, and Oct. 17, 2024 but was unable to do so independently because of the many access barriers on the Defendant's website. Amongst other access barriers experienced, Plaintiff was unable to make an online booking for the Guided Down: Sound Immersion session for Nov. 2, 2024 and the Quieter Free Flow session for Nov. 4, 2024 at the Flatiron location, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Othership's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Othership provides emotional wellness service through social bathhouse experiences and a breathwork.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Telephone: (917) 373-9128 E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com PAYCOR INC: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Reply by Jan. 10, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Johns v. Paycor, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-00264 (S.D. Ill., Filed March 11, 2020), the Hon. Judge David W. Dugan entered an amended scheduling and discovery order. -- The Plaintiffs deadline to file a Reply in Support of their Renewed Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification is January 10, 2025. -- The deposition of Mr. David Goodwin is necessary for the Plaintiffs to file that Reply, rather than merely for merits discovery, that deposition shall occur by December 12, 2024. -- The Final Pretrial Conference is reset for Nov. 20, 2025, at 10:00 AM, and the bench trial is reset for Dec. 8, 2025, at 9:00 A.M. -- The Court declines to set further scheduling and discovery deadlines on the merits at this time. -- The Courts only focus is on Plaintiffs renewed motion for Rule 23 Class Certification, which will become ripe upon the filing of Plaintiffs Reply on Jan. 10, 2025, and Defendants Amended Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). -- Further, the Court notes that Defendants have already filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The Plaintiff did not timely respond to that Motion, but the proposed scheduling and discovery order contemplates a deadline for Plaintiff to do so. The nature of suit states torts -- personal property -- other fraud. Paycor operates as a software company. The Company provides cloud-based on-boarding, human resources, payroll, and time-keeping software solutions.[CC] PERFECT PAWN: Lustig FLSA Class Action Obtains Final Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge William J. Martini of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the plaintiff's motion for final certification of the collective action captioned as BRYAN LUSTIG, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL MARKUS, Inc. (D/B/A Perfect Pawn), DANIEL RISIS, MARGARITA RISIS, and OLEG NEIZVESTOY, Defendants, Case No.20-cv-00379 (D.N.J.). Plaintiff Bryan Lustig brings this putative collective and class action against Defendants Daniel Markus, Inc., d/b/a Perfect Pawn, Daniel Risls, Margarita Risis, and Oleg Neizvestny. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. et seq, and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, N.J.SA. Sec. 34:11-56(A), et. seq., by misclassifymg certain employees as "exempt" management and thereby failing to pay such employees overtime wages, by failing to pay the same employees the required minimum wage, and by withholding some or all of the wages owed for compensable hours worked. The Court conditionally certified the FLSA claims to proceed as a collective action on December 23, 2020. Plaintiff then filed consent forms from seventeen current and former Perfect Pawn employees opting to join the collective action. On November 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. The Court denied that motion without prejudice on March 5, 2024, and instructed Plaintiff to file a motion for final certification of the collective action prior to refiling the motion. Now before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for final certification of the collective action. The Court finds Plaintiff has met his burden. Plaintiff supported his Motion with, inter alia, declarations from fifteen of the opt-in plaintiffs and from Farrah Johnson, Perfect Pawn's former Controller and Chief Financial Officer in charge of payroll. Each opt-in plaintiffs' declaration speaks to a consistent pattern and practice of misclassifying employees and violating the FLSA's wage and hour requirements as to their store managers, the Court notes. According to the Court, the plaintiffs worked in substantially the same role at different locations, and all advance similar claims and have similar circumstances of employment. Defendants have identified no individualized defenses applicable to the individual opt-in plaintiffs that would warrant the denial of final certification, the Court states. The Court finds procedural and fairness considerations also weigh in favor of final certification. Judge Martini says in the absence of final certification, Perfect Pawn Managers who wish to pursue their claims would be forced to file individual lawsuits on their own behalf. Because in most cases the cost of litigation would greatly exceed the amount of any potential recovery, a majority of Perfect Pawn 'Managers' would not be able to pursue their claims. It is unnecessary and imprudent to impose the burden of individualized litigation on each opt-in plaintiff and on the Court. A copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZEjuFu PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER: Mosley's Class Proposal OK'd --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOSLEY v. THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, PBC (RE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER DATA SECURITY LITIGATION), Case No. 2:24-cv-02106-KSM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Marston entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' proposal of a class of "approximately 25,549 natural persons whose Private Information was potentially compromised in the Data Incident." The parties' proposed settlement was negotiated by experienced counsel with the help of an experienced mediator. It provides significant benefits to the class members. The Court is satisfied that preliminary approval is appropriate. Thus, Plaintiffs' motion is granted. A fairness hearing is scheduled for March 18, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. An appropriate order follows. Thus, the settlement agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and does not otherwise reveal any deficiencies. It is entitled to a presumption of fairness, and that presumption is supported by the Girsh factors, seven of which weigh in favor of approval and two of which are neutral, and also by the In re Pet Foods factors. Here, the Court finds that the requirements of Rule 23 and due process are satisfied by the parties’ revised proposed notice plan. Philadelphia Inquirer is the third-longest continuously operating daily newspaper in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1a20dr at no extra charge.[CC] PILLOW CUBE: Court Grants Hogan Leave to Conduct Limited Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge J. P. Stadtmueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin grants the Plaintiffs leave to conduct limited discovery in the lawsuit styled ROBERT HOGAN and ELLIOTT HOGAN, Plaintiffs v. PILLOW CUBE INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00403-JPS (E.D. Wis.). In April 2024, Plaintiffs Robert Hogan and Elliott Hogan filed a class action complaint against Defendant Pillow Cube Inc. for wrongly imposing an undisclosed 15% processing fee on refunds for returns of the Defendant's products. The Plaintiffs bring claims against the Defendant for breach of contract; for declaratory relief, monetary damages, and injunctive relief for violation of the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act; and, in the alternative, for violation of the Wisconsin Consumer Act. Judge Stadtmueller notes that the Defendant failed to timely appear to defend against the action following timely service of process. In August 2024, the Plaintiff requested, and the Clerk of Court entered, default against the Defendant. Now before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and for leave to conduct discovery to identify members of the putative classes and determine the damages they are entitled to. For the reasons discussed in this Order, the Court grants the motion to the extent that it seeks leave to conduct limited discovery but denies it to the extent that it seeks class certification. The Court will grant the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to conduct discovery to identify members of the potential classes and to determine their damages. Judge Stadtmueller says the only reason that the Plaintiffs have not yet been able to confer with the Defendant under Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure such that the Plaintiffs could begin discovery without the Court's leave is because the Defendant has apparently ignored this action. Judge Stadtmueller notes that counsel for the Plaintiffs has repeatedly attempted to contact first counsel for and later the CEO and COO for the Defendant but has not received any response. Judge Stadtmueller holds that the Defendant will not be heard to complain that the discovery sought by the Plaintiffs and authorized by the Court should not have been allowed; if the Defendant had any opinion on that front, it should have appeared to defend against this action. The Plaintiffs are, accordingly, granted leave to conduct discovery before conferring under Rule 26(f). Such discovery should be, as the Plaintiffs expressly acknowledge, "limited," Judge Stadtmueller says. The Plaintiffs propose the following classes (the "Putative Classes"): (1) Nationwide Classes: (a) Class A: All consumers in the continental United States who purchased one or more products from Pillow Cube, Inc., purchased "free returns" for $2.98, returned one or more of those products within 60 days of their date of purchase and had 15% of the retail value of the item(s) being returned deducted from the amount returned; (b) Class B: All consumers in the continental United States who purchased one or more products from Pillow Cube, Inc. and purchased "free returns" for $2.98; and (c) Class C: All consumers in the continental United States who, prior to the date Pillow Cube, Inc., disclosed the 15% processing fee for returns, purchased one or more products from Pillow Cube, Inc., returned one or more of those products within 60 days of their date of purchase and had 15% of the retail value of the item(s) being returned deducted from the amount returned; and (2) Wisconsin-Only Classes: (d) Class D: All consumers in the State of Wisconsin who purchased one or more products from Pillow Cube, Inc., purchased "free returns" for $2.98, returned one or more of those products within 60 days of their date of purchase and had 15% of the retail value of the item(s) being returned deducted from the amount returned; (e) Class E: All consumers in the State of Wisconsin who purchased one or more products from Pillow Cube, Inc. and purchased "free returns" for $2.98; and (f) Class F: All consumers in the State of Wisconsin who, prior to the date Pillow Cube, Inc. disclosed the 15% processing fee for returns, purchased one or more products from Pillow Cube, Inc., returned one or more of those products within 60 days of their date of purchase and had 15% of the retail value of the item(s) being returned deducted from the amount returned. The Plaintiffs also propose that the following individuals be excluded from the Putative Classes: "(1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the [Putative] Classes; (3) Plaintiffs' counsel and Defendant's counsel; and ([4]) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons." The Plaintiffs seek certification of putative classes both on a national and Wisconsin statewide level. This is, therefore, a multi jurisdiction putative class action, Judge Stadtmueller says. The Plaintiffs seek to bring claims under federal, Wisconsin state, and Utah state law. But they do not explain in their motion for certification why they have elected to proceed under the proposed states' laws or whether the proposed state law conflicts in any material way with any other law, which could apply, Judge Stadtmueller points out. The Plaintiffs have not demonstrated, nor attempted to demonstrate, that their choices of state law are not arbitrary or unfair, Judge Stadtmueller explains. The Court will, therefore, deny without prejudice their motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs may renew their motion for class certification, if at all, within sixty (60) days of this Order. The Court will, additionally, address the Plaintiffs' contention that the Court may, by virtue of the Defendant's default, deem admitted and accept as true the Plaintiffs' well-pleaded allegations going to class certification. This contention is not clearly supported by the cases on which the Plaintiffs rely, Judge Stadtmueller opines. The Plaintiffs cite, for example, to Amadi v. Ace Homecare, LLC, but that case is not a class action or putative class action and says nothing about whether a court may, on defendant's default, accept as true the plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations in determining whether to certify a class (citing No. 8:17-cv-02191-T-02JSS, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52375, at *3–4 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 2019)). In other words, Judge Stadtmueller says, it is not at all clear that, even given the Defendant's default, the Court may simply rely on the complaint's allegations in determining whether the putative classes should be certified. Accordingly, the Court rules that Plaintiffs Robert Hogan and Elliott Hogan's motion for class certification and for leave to conduct discovery is granted in part and denied in part; the motion is granted to the extent that it seeks leave to conduct limited discovery and denied without prejudice to the extent that it seeks class certification. The Plaintiffs may renew their motion for class certification, if at all, within sixty (60) days of this Order. The Plaintiffs may engage in limited discovery reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence on the issues of class member identification, class certification, and damages. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 17, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/54bjta4x from PacerMonitor.com. PLAN BENEFIT: Supreme Court Urged to Solve ERISA Excessive Fee Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Todd D. Wozniak, Lindsey R. Camp and Daniel L. Buchholz of Holland & Knight report that three benefit companies recently requested that the U.S. Supreme Court review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit regarding the proper standard for determining Article III standing in excessive fee class action cases brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). -- The Fifth Circuit held that a Rule 23 plan participant has standing to bring claims on behalf of participants in other benefit plans, which will affect litigation involving ERISA benefit plans, employers and benefit plan service providers. -- The Fifth Circuit's decision also widens the split among the circuit courts regarding the proper test for determining constitutional standing in class actions, particularly in the benefit plan service provider industry. Chavez v. Plan Benefit Services, Inc., 108 F.4th 297 (5th Cir. 2024), began when three employees of a single employer sued the service providers of their health and welfare benefit plan for allegedly charging excessive fees in connection with the services they provided in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The defendant-providers specialize in employer benefit plans for employers who are seeking government contracts and are subject to the prevailing wage requirements of the McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act or Davis Bacon Act. The defendants offer a variety of services for group health plans and retirement benefit plans that are designed to satisfy these prevailing wage requirements. Employers can elect from a host of services offered by the defendants to create a unique benefit offering, which may be retirement-only benefits, health-only benefits or a combination of the two. The rates charged for these services vary depending on the services selected and the size of the employer. Based on the services selected by the employer, the participant contributes to one or both of the following trusts operated by the defendants: 1) the Contractors and Employee Retirement Trust (CERT), which covers retirement plans, and 2) the Contractors Plan Trust (CPT), which covers health and welfare benefits. The defendants also provide administrative and marketing services to plans that participate in the trusts. More than 3,000 plans -- comprising over 290,000 participants and sponsored by more than 2,200 unaffiliated employers -- are in CERT and CPT. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants charged "excessive compensation" for the services provided to their employer benefit plans and the thousands of other plans in CERT and CPT in violation of ERISA. The plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants breached their ERISA fiduciary duty of loyalty to all of the plan participants by paying its fees out of plan assets. The plaintiffs moved for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)(B) and 23(b)(3), seeking to represent a class of more than 290,000 participants in more than 3,000 plans that provide benefits through CERT and CPT. The district court certified the class, which was subsequently vacated on appeal by the Fifth Circuit. On remand, the plaintiffs filed a second motion for class certification, and the district court again certified the class under Rules 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(3). This decision was appealed, and the Fifth Circuit ultimately affirmed the district court's finding that the plaintiffs had standing to pursue claims on behalf of the class and order granting class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) but reversed the district court's order granting class certification under Rule 23(b)(1). The defendants filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the Fifth Circuit's holding violated established principles of standing under Article III because the three plaintiffs failed to show they suffered the same harm as the participants in the thousands of unrelated plans in which the plaintiffs did not participate. Circuit Split on Article III Standing There is a circuit court split on the approaches and tests utilized by federal courts to decide Article III standing in class actions. In Chavez, the Fifth Circuit identified the various approaches and tests adopted by courts to determine whether a named plaintiff has the required Article III standing to bring an ERISA claim on behalf of others, including the "class certification" approach and "standing" approach. According to the Fifth Circuit, under the "class certification" approach, a plaintiff must establish standing regarding only his or her own claims, as well as the commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23, to bring claims on behalf of the class. This approach has been adopted by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the First, Third, Fourth, Sixth and Tenth Circuits. Under the "standing" approach, a plaintiff must show standing to his or her own claims, as well as the claims of absent class members before the court can turn to the Rule 23 analysis. This approach has been adopted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second, Seventh and Eleventh Circuits. The Fifth Circuit declined to affirmatively adopt either the standing approach or the class certification approach. Instead, it held that the plaintiffs in Chavez satisfied both approaches. In their petition for Supreme Court review, the defendants argue that the proper test is the standing approach and that the Fifth Circuit failed to properly apply the standing approach in affirming a class involving thousands of unrelated plans. Potential Impact If the petition for certiorari is denied, then the Fifth Circuit's decision will stand and support future arguments that participants may sue on behalf of participants in that same plan, as well as on behalf of participants in other unrelated plans. Should the Supreme Court agree to review the Chavez decision, it will decide whether the proper test for determining Article III standing in ERISA class actions is the "standing" or "class certification" approach. Employers and service providers are hopeful that the petition will be granted and that much-needed clarity will be provided regarding the parameters of ERISA class actions and the potential scope of liability. [GN] PLANET PHARMA: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Czischki Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRITTANY CZISCHKI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, known and unknown v. PLANET PHARMA, LLC, PLANET EQUITY GROUP, LLC d/b/a PLANET GROUP, and PROPHARMA GROUP HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-11200 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 30, 2024) sues the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Ms. Czischki typically worked over 60 hours per week every week that she worked for the Defendants. Throughout her employment with Defendants, Ms. Czischki was treated as an exempt employee under the FLSA. As such, Ms. Czischki was not paid overtime for any hours that she worked above 40 hours in a single week. Despite being classified as an exempt employee under the FLSA, Ms. Czischki's job duties did not give rise to any of the exemptions enumerated under the FLSA. The primary duty of Czischki and the members of the Collective was to perform data entry, and did not require independent judgment and discretion with respect to matters of significance, the lawsuit says. In addition, the Plaintiff complains on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, known and unknown, against her former joint employers for interference, discrimination, and retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act; and for retaliation and discrimination due to her sex and pregnancy in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Illinois Human Rights Act. On July 14, 2020, Ms. Czischki received a letter from Planet Group CFO Tim Bauwens offering employment as a Senior Accounting Coordinator. The letter provides that Ms. Czischki would earn a base salary, an annual discretionary bonus "up to $5,000.00," and benefits. Ms. Czischki executed the letter on July 15, 2020. Planet Pharma is a recruitment and staffing company that specializes in biotechnology, device, pharmaceutical, and a range of related industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexandros Stamatoglou, Esq. GARFINKEL GROUP, LLC 701 N. Milwaukee Avenue, The CIVITAS Chicago, IL 60642 Telephone: (312) 736-7991 Facsimile: (312) 549-9623 E-mail: alex@garfinkelgroup.com PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Plaintiffs' Reply Brief Due Dec. 13 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THURSTON v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00375 (D. Maine, Filed Nov. 30, 2022), the Hon. Judge Nancy Torresen entered an order on motion to amend scheduling order: -- Defendants' opposition plaintiffs amended motion for class certification due November 7, 2024. -- Plaintiffs' Reply Brief due Dec. 13, 2024. -- Defendants' Supplemental Expert Reports due Nov. 7, 2024. Progressive is an American insurance company.[CC] QUEBEC: Montreal Man Sues Over Cemetery's Unfair Perpetual Care --------------------------------------------------------------- Denise Roberts of CTV News Montreal reports that a Montreal man says he was surprised to find the burial plot his family purchased in perpetuity now has an expiration date. Pedro Gregorio said he bought a family plot at the Notre-Dame-des-Neiges Cemetery when his father unexpectedly died in 1987. "It was a contract in perpetuity, and we saw this as a family plot," he said, adding that the plot could accommodate two caskets and four urns. However, when the time came to bury his mother in 2022, he found out the contract had changed, from perpetuity to 99 years. The cemetery informed him it was because of changes to a provincial law that had been passed in 1994. "When I asked further which law, they just sent me a copy of their internal regulations," he said. He contacted lawyer Charles O'brien of Lorax Litigation who investigated and found there is no law forcing Notre-Dame-des-Neiges Cemetery to change the terms of the contract. "Even if it was legislated by a government, it's an expropriation," he said. "And you've got a claim against somebody, whether it's a claim against the cemetery or a claim against the state for annulling contracts, there's still a claim available. A deal is a deal. You're not getting what you bought." O'Brien points out other cemeteries in the province still sell plots in perpetuity, and that the law recognizes this concept and it means forever. "For instance, if you set up a land trust or you protect land in perpetuity, there's no end date." Gregorio said he's upset that he was never informed of the change, which is why he decided to launch a class-action lawsuit against the cemetery. "I'm thinking about all these other families who, through no fault of their own, no knowledge, are one day going to be confronted, perhaps with not having a place to commemorate their, their ancestors," he said. It could take a year for a judge to decide whether the case will go ahead. Representatives from Notre-Dames-des-Neiges Cemetery told CTV News they would not comment on the case while it is before the court, but sent a news release that defended their actions as complying with the law. The cemetery added that families will have the possibility of renewing their contracts after the 99-year term. [GN] RAYMOND JAMES: Court Transfers Conran Suit to Tampa Division ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TONI CONRAN, Individually and as Trustee of the Conran Family Trust, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. RAYMOND JAMES FINANCIAL, INC., RAYMOND JAMES FINANCIAL SERVICES ADVISORS, INC. and RAYMOND JAMES FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. Case No. 2:24-cv-00780-SPC-KCD (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Sheripolster Chappell entered an order that: 1. Defendants' motion to transfer to Tampa Division is granted. 2. The Clerk is directed to transfer this action to the Tampa Division of the Middle District of Florida and close the Fort Myers case. The Plaintiff brought this action against Raymond James Financial (and its subsidiaries) alleging that its cash sweep programs offer "unreasonably low interest rates" for its clients. She seeks class certification of a putative class of "retail clients of Raymond James who has cash deposits or balances in Raymond James’ Sweep Programs." A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Oct. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wX0oY0 at no extra charge.[CC] REPUBLIC SERVICES: BSH Bid for Class Cert. Denied ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Buffalo Seafood House LLC, et al., v. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 7:22-cv-01242-RMG (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Richard Mark Gergel entered an order: -- denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; -- terminating as moot Defendants' motion to exclude expert testimony and Defendants motion for partial summary judgment; -- granting Plaintiffs' motion to transfer. -- severing and transferring Plaintiffs Garibian's and Budget Inns' claims to the Central District of California and Northern District of Florida, respectively; -- denying-in-part and granting-in-part Plaintiffs' motion to set briefing schedule and hold motion for class certification in abeyance; and -- directing the Parties to submit a joint proposed scheduling order regarding a new complaint, if necessary; renewed expert reports; Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of the South Carolina class; dispositive motions; Daubert motions; and other pretrial briefing within 7 days of this Order. Additionally, the Court is aware of the policy concerns outlined in China Agritech and finds that issuing a written order on Plaintiffs' initial motion for class certification best serves those concerns. The Plaintiffs brought this putative class action asserting state law claims for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment, as well as claims under California and Florida unfair trade practices acts. The Plaintiffs asserted these claims by alleging that Republic Services, Inc. and its subsidiaries raised their service rates and charged fees exceeding those permitted by their form contracts. The Plaintiffs seek certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for the following two classes: The Rate Increase Class: "All entities and people who reside in the Untied States who, from Jan. 1, 2017 through the date of class notice, entered into a Rate Adjustments provision that allows for increases to "adjust for" increases in costs or CPI and paid rates to Republic in excess of those originally listed in the written contract as a result of Republic's YMP policy." The Fees Class: "All entities and people who reside in the United States who, from Jan. 1, 2017 through the date of class notice, entered into a Rate Adjustments provision that allows for increases to "adjust for" increases in costs or CPI and paid Fuel Recovery Fees and/or Environmental Recovery Fees to Republic." The Plaintiffs also seek certification of two subclasses for entities and people who reside in California and Florida. Excluded from these Classes are entities and people who reside in Alabama, Arkansas, Missouri, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and Kentucky. Excluding those states from the 41 in which RSI conducts business means Plaintiffs seek to certify a class action that covers 36 states. Republic Services is a North American waste disposal company. A copy of the Court's order and opinion dated Oct. 28, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0CZJha at no extra charge.[CC] RIPPLE LABS: CEO Requests Final Judgment in XRP Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Ishika Kumari, writing for AMB Crypto, reports that the ongoing legal battle between Ripple [XRP] Labs and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) shows no signs of resolution. Ripple makes another bold move In the "In re Ripple Labs Inc. Litigation," defendants, including CEO Brad Garlinghouse, Ripple Labs, and XRP II LLC, requested a final judgment. The plaintiffs have brought in class action claims. Additionally, they are seeking a stay on individual state law claims pending the outcome of the broader litigation. Judge Phyllis Hamilton endorsed the joint motion for final judgment and stay in the ongoing XRP lawsuit. She also directed the parties to explore voluntary dismissal without prejudice for the remaining individual claim. This claim could be re-filed after resolving appeals related to class claims against Ripple, CEO Brad Garlinghouse, and XRP II LLC. As expected, the court ended the filling by giving an order which stated, "If the parties are amenable to this alternative resolution, the court requests that they file an amended proposed order -- and if the parties are not amenable, the court requests that they file a notice to that effect -- by November 4, 2024." The lead plaintiff's final request Lead plaintiff Bradley Sostack, Ripple Labs, XRP II, and CEO Brad Garlinghouse requested a final judgment on class action claims. They also requested a pause on state law proceedings until those claims are resolved. After a failed settlement conference, individual plaintiffs plan to appeal the court's summary judgment. This judgment covers all XRP purchases over six years. A separate claim was filed focusing on one buyer's purchase from January 2018. Hence, a pretrial conference is scheduled for the 19th of December 2024, with jury selection and trial set for the 21st of January 2025. Meanwhile, the Ripple vs. SEC lawsuit is advancing in the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals, with the SEC reasserting charges against Garlinghouse and Chris Larsen. In response, the executives have hired prominent attorneys to dismiss the claims. The SEC has also set a deadline of the 15th of January 2025, for its principal brief regarding the appeals. This indicated that the legal dispute is ongoing. Impact on XRP As expected, these recent developments have affected XRP's price, which has shifted from a bullish trend to a bearish stance. The altcoin was trading at $0.52, at press time, after a 0.98% decline in the last 24 hours. Despite this downturn, sentiment among XRP supporters remains resilient. Indeed, Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse also emphasized his optimism regarding the future of XRP and its ETF, reflecting a hopeful outlook amid ongoing market fluctuations. He had put it best when he said that Ripple is on, "The right side of the law. . . the right side of history." [GN] RYVYL INC: Court Narrows Claims in Cullen Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Gonzalo P. Curiel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted in part and denied in part the motion filed by the defendants to dismiss the second amended complaint in the case captioned as MARK CULLEN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RYVYL INC. F/K/A GREENBOX POS, BEN ERREZ, FREDI NISAN, AND BENJAMIN CHUNG, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-0185-GPC-SBC (S.D. Calif.). The defendants' request for judicial notice is also granted in part and denied in part. Before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' class action securities fraud second amended complaint against RYVYL, Inc. and three of its present and former officers: Ben Errez, Fredi Nisan, and Benjamin Chung. Ryvyl is a cryptocurrency company "that develops, markets, and sells blockchainbased payment solutions," which allow customers to pay businesses with cryptocurrency and businesses to receive cryptocurrency when customers pay with credit or debit cards. The company generates revenue from "payment processing services, licensing fees, and equipment sales," though payment processing, for which Ryvyl gets a percentage of each transaction, is Ryvyl's primary source of revenue. Ryvyl released interim quarterly financial reports in 2021 and 2022 on May 13, 2021 (for 1Q21), August 12, 2021 (for 2Q21), November 15, 2021 (for 3Q21), May 16, 2022 (for 1Q22), August 15, 2022 (for 2Q22), and November 21, 2022 (for 3Q22). Each of these reports listed Ryvyl's net revenue, net loss, total assets, and total stockholders' equity. And accompanying each of these reports, CEO Nisan and CFO Chung certified, pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act ("SOX Certifications"), that the reports were true and disclosed any "significant deficiencies and material weaknesses" in Ryvyl's internal financial controls. The 2021 annual report and the interim reports for 2022 also explicitly stated that the disclosure controls and procedures were effective and had undergone no changes. On January 20, 2023, Ryvyl announced that, after internal discussions and discussions with a new accounting firm, it had concluded that its previously issued financial statements for the three interim quarters in 2021 and 2022 and the 2021 annual report should not be relied upon and needed to be restated. It also reassessed its prior conclusions regarding the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2021 and determined that one or more material weaknesses exist in the Company's internal control including a material weakness related to accounting for certain complex business transactions." Ryvyl's share price dropped over 14% that day. On April 22, 2022, amid these events, Ryvyl announced that it had dismissed its previous accounting firm and engaged a new accounting firm in its place. On August 22, 2022, Ryvyl announced that Chung had resigned as CFO and that J. Drew Byelick had replaced him. Chairman Errez and CEO Nisan remain with the company in their respective positions to this day. None of the Individual Defendants -- or none of Ryvyl's senior management, executives, or officers, for that matter -- are alleged to have sold the company's stock during the Class Period. Plaintiffs filed their original complaint on February 1, 2023, promptly after Ryvyl's January 2023 announcement. On June 30, 2023, after the Court appointed lead plaintiff and counsel, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting five causes of action under the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Initially, Plaintiffs brought their claims against Ryvyl, several of Ryvyl's present and former officers, and two underwriters. The Defendants, in three separate groups, moved to dismiss the AC. On March 1, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss, and granted Plaintiffs leave to amend. The Court dismissed the claims against the underwriters and Byelick. As to Ryvyl and the Individual Defendants, the Court granted the motions to dismiss in part and denied them in part. Plaintiffs timely filed an amended complaint. The SAC now asserts only two causes of action against Ryvyl and the remaining Individual Defendants: (I) Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 against Ryvyl and the Individual Defendants for making false or misleading material statements in connection with the sale of any security registered on a national exchange; and (II) Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act against the Individual Defendants for controlling persons who violated Section 10(b). Underlying these claims is Plaintiffs' assertion that Defendants "engaged in a scheme to deceive the market and a course of conduct that artificially inflated the price of the Company's securities" when they released inaccurate financial data and verified that there were no internal control issues. In addition to the January 2023 announcement, Plaintiffs rely primarily on the statements of confidential witnesses who allege variously that: (i) the Individual Defendants misrepresented the Company's revenue; (ii) CFO Chung was making up numbers, CEO Nisan learned about it, and CEO Nisan also oversaw many of Ryvyl's accounting responsibilities; (iii) a staff accountant was told to enter inaccurate information and suspected that Chairman Errez was changing numbers without supporting documentation to back it; and (iv) the company was generating fake wires, keeping money that was meant to be transferred onward to other companies, and that the Individual Defendants were informed of accounting issues and financial inaccuracies at weekly meetings. Defendants move to dismiss each Count. Defendants request that the Court take judicial notice of (1) a Form 10-K filed with the SEC, (2) an SEC order instituting proceedings against Ryvyl's former accounting firm, and (3) an SEC press release regarding the SEC order. The Court grants Defendants' request for judicial notice of the existence of the SEC order, but not for the truth of its contents. The Court grants Defendants' request for judicial notice, but not for the truth of the press release's contents. The Court grants the motion to dismiss Count I without prejudice as to Defendant Errez, and as to Defendants Chung, Nisan, and Ryvyl only for the alleged misstatements in the 2021 interim reports and accompanying SOX certifications, and additionally as to Defendant Chung for the alleged misstatements in the third quarter 2022 report and its accompanying SOX certification. The Court denies the motion to dismiss as to Defendants Chung, Nisan, and Ryvyl for the alleged misstatements in the 2021 annual report, the first two 2022 interim reports, and their accompanying SOX certifications. And the Court denies the motion to dismiss as to Defendants Nisan and Ryvyl for the alleged misstatements in the 2022 third quarter report and its accompanying SOX certification. The Court grants Plaintiffs leave to amend as to all Defendants. The Plaintiffs allege that the Individual Defendants held senior executive positions at Ryvyl and, by nature of those positions, could -- and, in various respects, did -- control Ryvyl's actions. The SAC thus sufficiently alleges that the Individual Defendants are control persons. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to dismiss Count II. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uOA9SP SABA UNIVERSITY: Seeks to Stay All Class Cert Proceedings in Ortiz ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATALIA ORTIZ, on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated persons, v. SABA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE; AND R3 EDUCATION, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-12002-WGY (D. Mass.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order staying all proceedings in this case until resolution of Saba's petition for leave to appeal this Court's order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification on Oct. 1, 2024. All four factors required to warrant a stay are strongly supported in this circumstance. First, Saba has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal. Second, absent a stay, Saba will be irreparably injured by the dissemination of a class notice which may have to be revised or withdrawn entirely and by being forced to complete class discovery, brief summary judgment, and participate in trial in Feb. 2025, which may ultimately be undone by the First Circuit's decision on appeal. Third, the minimal delay arising from a stay pending the outcome of a Rule 23(f) petition generally is not substantially injurious to class plaintiffs to prevent the stay, particularly where – as in this case – only monetary damages are at issue. The Plaintiff brings claims against Saba for violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, Massachusetts General Laws Ch. 93A. The Plaintiff alleges that she was deceived by Saba's advertisements concerning its students' first-time United States Medical Licensing Examination ("USMLE") Step 1 pass rate because Saba did not expressly disclose the attrition rate of its students prior to reaching the USMLE Step 1 exam. The proposed class would include all former Saba students who enrolled in or after September 2017 and who did not sit for the USMLE Step 1 exam. Saba University is a private for-profit offshore medical school located on Saba, a special municipality of the Netherlands in the Caribbean. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XeqDrT at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Daryl J. Lapp, Esq. Michael J. McMorrow, Esq. Dale Evans, Esq. LOCKE LORD LLP 111 Huntington Avenue Boston, MA 02199 Telephone: (617) 239-0100 E-mail: daryl.lapp@lockelord.com michael.mcmorrow@lockelord.com dale.evans@lockelord.com SANTA CRUZ SEASIDE: Overtime Pay Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ Aric Sleeper, writing for santacruzsentinel.com, reports that the Santa Cruz Seaside Co., which operates the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk, recently settled a lawsuit in Santa Cruz County Superior Court to pay nearly $6 million to a group of current and former employees for unpaid minimum wages, rest periods and overtime. The lawsuit was filed in July 2023 and includes accusations that the company didn't provide meal breaks or overtime pay, and rounded hours to avoid paying employees, among eight total complaints in the lawsuit. Although the Santa Cruz Seaside Co. denies all the claims by the plaintiff in the case, it has agreed to pay the settlement, which will be finalized in January 2025. A spokesperson for the Santa Cruz Seaside Co. told the Sentinel that the settlement was preliminarily approved by the Santa Cruz County Superior Court on Sept. 17, and gave the Sentinel this statement. "As a family-owned and operated century-old company, the trust and well-being of our employees is vital to us, and we care deeply about ensuring everyone in our employ is treated and compensated fairly," the statement read. "While we deny the allegations in this case, we are pleased to agree to this settlement and put this matter behind us." The substantial settlement of $5.9 million will be paid to those working for the Santa Cruz Seaside Co. between July 25, 2019, and Aug. 11. After attorney fees are paid, the remaining settlement will go to current and former employees, with the named plaintiff receiving about $7,500, according to court documents. The documents outline that the named plaintiff, Santa Cruz County resident Travis Sanford was employed by the Santa Cruz Seaside Co. from August 2016 to December 2021 as a seasonal food service worker at the Santa Cruz Boardwalk. The class action complaint filed in July 2023 outlines the eight complaints made by the plaintiff and states that, "Defendants (Santa Cruz Seaside Co.) hired Plaintiff (Sanford) and the other class members but failed to properly pay them all overtime wages and minimum wages for all hours worked, failed to provide all meal and rest breaks to which they were entitled, failed to timely pay all wages upon termination of employment, failed to provide accurate wage statements, failed to reimburse necessary business-related expenses and failed to adhere to other related protections afforded by the California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order." The eight complaints are described in detail in the July filing and begin with the assertion that the plaintiff and others in the class action lawsuit were not paid overtime when it was required by law. The document states that the plaintiff and other class members "regularly worked in excess of eight hours in a day, in excess of twelve hours in a day, and/or in excess of forty hours in a week. However, Defendants did not record Plaintiff and the other class members' actual hours worked and intentionally and willfully failed to pay all overtime wages owed to Plaintiff and the other class members and failed to pay one and-one half times the regular hourly rate for overtime hours." Notices of the settlement have been sent to the employees included in the class action and the Santa Cruz County Superior Court will hold a final approval hearing next year. Settlement checks will be distributed to the members of the class action lawsuit after the January 2025 hearing. [GN] SANTANDER BANK: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Nov. 15 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Juan B. Almanzar, v. Santander Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:23-cv-10706-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of the upcoming deadline for filing the motion for class certification, currently scheduled for Nov. 8, 2024. The proposed new deadlines are: -- Motion for Class Certification: Nov. 15, 2024 -- Opposition to Class Certification: Dec. 16, 2024 -- Reply to Class Certification: Dec. 30, 2024 Santander is an American bank operating as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Spanish Santander Group. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EP9SZB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Susan Rotkis, Esq. CONSUMER ATTORNEYS Telephone: (602) 807-1504 E-mail: srotkis@consumerattorneys.com SANYO FOODS: Shin Suit Seeks to Certify Classes ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUE SHIN, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, v. SANYO FOODS CORP. OF AMERICA, TAKEO SATO, and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 2:23-cv-10485-SVW-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on Dec. 2, 2024, for an order certifying the following classes defined as: (1) All U.S. citizens who purchased the SAPPORO ICHIBAN Product in their respective state of citizenship for personal and household use and not for resale during the Class Period. (2) All California citizens who purchased the SAPPORO ICHIBAN Product in California for personal and household use and not for resale during the Class Period. The Plaintiff seeks certification for the time period from Nov. 2019 until the date notice is disseminated to the class. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3). Sanyo Foods produces and distributes instant noodles. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 28, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yzWqcK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juan Hong, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUAN HONG, A LAW CORP. 4199 Campus Drive, Suite 550 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949)509-6505 Facsimile: (949) 335-6647 E-mail: jhong48@gmail.com SARAH JANE SPIKES: Brown Class Action Dismissed Without Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Martin Reidinger of the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina dismissed the case captioned as THURMAN BROWN, Heir and Lead on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. SARAH JANE SPIKES; MURRELL K. SPIKES; RICKEY McCLUNEY; MARK D. LACKEY; THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS FOR CLEVELAND COUNTY; and others to be determined, Defendants, CIVIL CASE NO. 1:24-cv-00249-MR-WCM (W.D.N.C.), without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff's application to proceed with this civil action without prepaying fees or costs is granted. The pro se Plaintiff Thurman Brown brings this putative class action on behalf of himself as an heir to the Estate of Henrietta Flack Withrow, along with other similarly situated heirs, tenants, and third-party purchasers, asserting claims of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence, and negligence. The Plaintiff names as Defendants Sarah Jane Spikes, the administrator of Ms. Withrow's estate; Murrell K. Spikes and Rickey McCluney, who allegedly participated in fraudulent property transfers of estate property arranged by Sarah Jane Spikes; Mark D. Lackey and Thomas W. Martin, attorneys who allegedly prepared and facilitated the fraudulent property transfers; and the Registrar of Deeds for Cleveland County. All of the named Defendants are alleged to be citizens of North Carolina. In his Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks compensation, restitution, and injunctive relief for the harm caused by the Defendants' actions in connection with the estate of Ms. Withrow. The Plaintiff alleges that these fraudulent activities began as early as 2005 and involved the illegal transfer of estate property through deed fraud, title washing, and misrepresentation. As a result of the Defendants' actions, the Plaintiff contends that he has suffered financial loss, emotional distress, and a delay in receiving his rightful inheritance. The Plaintiff purports to represent "others similarly situated," including other heirs of Ms. Withrow's estate, tenants of the estate properties, third-party purchasers, individuals harmed by deed fraud and title washing, and co-signatories and co-owners of the properties involved in the alleged fraudulent transfers. As for jurisdiction, the Plaintiff alleges that the Court has jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 because the claims arise under federal law, and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d) as the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and this is a class action in which at least one plaintiff is diverse in citizenship from the defendants." The Plaintiff seeks to proceed with this civil action without having to prepay the costs associated with prosecuting the matter. In his Application, the Plaintiff asserts that he has no income and no assets, but has monthly expenses of approximately $500.00. Upon review of the application, it appears that the Plaintiff lacks the resources with which to pay the required filing fee. Accordingly, the Court finds that the application should be granted. In his Complaint, the Plaintiff asserts that the Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 because the claims arise under federal law. However, the Plaintiff does not identify any federal law in his Complaint which would give rise to his claims. The Plaintiff asserts claims of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence, and negligence, all of which arise under North Carolina law. As such, the Plaintiff has failed assert a plausible basis for the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction under Sec. 1331. The Plaintiff also invokes the provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 as a basis for subject matter jurisdiction. In order for jurisdiction to be invoked under CAFA, the action must satisfy three requirements: (1) the putative class has more than 100 members (numerosity); (2) the amount in controversy exceeds five million dollars, exclusive of interest and costs (amount in controversy); and (3) the parties are minimally diverse in citizenship (minimal diversity). Judge Reidinger says the Plaintiff makes no plausible allegations to satisfy these three requirements. He makes no attempt to quantify the potential class. He makes only conclusory statements that the amount in controversy excess $5 million. Moreover, the Plaintiff makes no allegation regarding the citizenship of any members of the purported class. The only allegations in the Complaint pertaining to citizenship indicate that the Plaintiff and the named Defendants are all citizens of North Carolina. Because the Complaint fails to establish that jurisdiction under CAFA exists, the Court concludes that this action must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YQ74Yb SCIENCE APPLICATIONS: Court Remands Millis Lawsuit to State Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Fernando M. Olguin of the United States District Court for the Central District of California remanded the case captioned as MANIKA MILLIS, Plaintiff, v. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV 24-7688 FMO (MAAx) (C.D. Calif.), to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(c). Any pending motion is denied as moot. On August 30, 2024, Manika Millis filed a Complaint in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against Science Applications International Corporation as well as Alex Wiercigroch, Quinn Monsen, Brent Reimer, Julie Bellagamba, Weislaw Kwiecien, Phong Pham, Lauren Smith, Jaye Parker, Jamie Hicks, and Erica Williams, asserting state law claims relating to her employment. On September 9, 2024, SAIC removed the action on diversity jurisdiction grounds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1332 and 1441. Having reviewed the pleadings, the court hereby remands this action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. When federal subject matter jurisdiction is predicated on diversity of citizenship, complete diversity must exist between the opposing parties, and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. In this case, there is no basis for diversity jurisdiction because complete diversity does not exist between the opposing parties, the District Court finds. Plaintiff is a citizen of California, whereas SAIC is a citizen of Delaware and Virginia. However, SAIC failed to allege the citizenship of the individual defendants. Although the Complaint alleges that the individual defendants are, like plaintiff, citizens of California, it appears that SAIC is relying on 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1441(b)(2), the so-called "forum defendant rule" to support removal despite the absence of complete diversity of the parties. It further appears that SAIC has attempted to effect what is known as a 'snap removal' -- filing its notice of removal before service of the summons and complaint on the forum defendants. The forum defendant rule only comes into play if there is complete diversity among the opposing parties under Sec. 1332(a). It does not, as SAIC attempts to do, abrogate the requirement that complete diversity exist in order to establish the court's diversity jurisdiction, the District Court states. Given that any doubt regarding the existence of subject matter jurisdiction must be resolved in favor of remanding the action to state court, the District Court is not persuaded, under the circumstances in this case, that SAIC has met its burden. Therefore, there is no basis for diversity jurisdiction, the District Court concludes. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ePGrDZ SELECT REHABILITATION: Seeks to Correct Docket Entry in McLaughlin ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE MCLAUGHLIN, CRYSTAL VANDERVEEN, and JUSTIN LEMBKE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SELECT REHABILITATION LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00059-HES-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order correcting the docket entry regarding Select's deadline to respond to Plaintiffs' motion to certify class and to confirm that the deadline for Select's filing its Response is not Oct. 30, 2024. A ruling is requested by Oct. 29, 2024, to correct the docket consistent with the Court's instructions to the parties on Sept. 18 and 25, 2024. On Aug. 21, 2024, the Court granted an amended case management schedule of deadlines. On Oct. 24, 2024, Select's counsel reached out to Plaintiffs' counsel under Rule 3.01(g) seeking confirmation from Plaintiffs' counsel consistent with the Court’s instructions, that the Response is not due on October 30, 2024, as the docket currently reflects. The Plaintiffs' counsel responded that it would not agree to an indefinite extension of time but would agree to a 30 day extension until November 29, 2024. Select believes that a Nov. 29, 2024 deadline is unrealistic due to the upcoming Nov. 13 and 21, 2024 depositions of Mr. Gallagher and Ms. Vanderveen, respectively, and pending class certification discovery issues. Select brings this motion in good faith, and not for any improper purpose or to cause undue delay. Select provides comprehensive therapy services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vkVnRj at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Carrie B. Hoffman, Esq. David B. Goroff, Esq. John A. Tucker, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 2021 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1600 Dallas TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 999-4262 E-mail: choffman@ foley.com dgoroff@foley.com jtucker@foley.com - and - Diane G. Walker, Esq. Kristen W. Roberts, Esq. Walker Morton LLP Two Prudential Plaza 180 North Stetson Ave. Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 471-2900 Facsimile: (312) 471-6001 E-mail: dwalker@walkermortonllp.com kroberts@walkermortonllp.com SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Bid to Dismiss Brown Consumer Suit Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Edward S. Kiel of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey grants, without prejudice, the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit styled PATRICIA BROWN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHARKNINJA OPERATING LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-21135-ESK-MJS (D.N.J.). The Plaintiff is a domiciliary of Monmouth County, New Jersey. She seeks to represent a class of consumers, who purchased the Defendant's cookware in New Jersey based on representations that the cookware would not stick, chip, or flake or that the cookware was manufactured at 30,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company principally based in Massachusetts that markets, sells, and distributes household goods. The case was reassigned to Judge Kiel after briefing had concluded. In response to a complaint by the Defendant's competitor, the National Advertising Division of Better Business Bureau National Programs (National Advertising Division) ruled in August 2021 that the Defendant's claims that its NeverStick Premium Cookware "never sticks" conveyed an unsupported superiority message that, unlike traditional non-stick cookware, which rapidly loses its non-stick properties, NeverStick cookware would exhibit a greater level of resistance against sticking, chipping, and flaking. The Defendant later changed its packaging and advertising to include claims that products "[w]on't" rather than will "[n]ever" stick, chip, or flake. Both before and after the ruling, the Defendant promoted its NeverStick Premium Cookware as being manufactured using a 30,000-degree process that ensured that products would not stick, chip, of flake while competitors merely manufactured products at 900 degrees. The Defendant's claims on packaging and in product descriptions are false, misleading, and deceiving to a reasonable consumer for two reasons, according to the Plaintiff. First, the Defendant's products do chip, flake, and lose their nonstick properties within a few months of purchase or lose their nonstick properties more rapidly than the less-expensive products of competitors. Second, the Defendant's purported 30,000-degree manufacturing process not only fails to ensure that products will not chip, flake, or lose their nonstick properties, but the process itself is impossible as aluminum would vaporize at such temperatures. The Plaintiff purchased two of the Defendant's 12-inch frying pans from Macy's website in September 2021. Prior to her purchase, she viewed the Defendant's "NeverStick" brand name; claim that products either never or would not stick, chip, or flake as compared to competing products; and that products would not rapidly lose their nonstick properties due to the Defendant's 30,000-degree manufacturing process. If the Plaintiff knew that the Defendant's products chip, flake, or lose their nonstick properties within a few months or more rapidly than less-expensive competitors; the Defendant's purported 30,000-degree manufacturing process is impossible or fails to ensure that products will not chip, flake, or lose their nonstick properties; and the Defendant's claims were deceptive, she would not have purchased the pans or would not have paid a premium price for them. The Plaintiff asserts a single count, violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (Consumer Fraud Act). The Defendant continues to violate the Consumer Fraud Act through deception, fraud, false promises, or misrepresentations, according to the Plaintiff. She and proposed class members have suffered economic injuries because they otherwise would not have purchased the Defendant's products or would not have paid as much for them. She seeks class certification, damages, statutory treble damages, interest, and reasonable fees and costs. In its motion to dismiss, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff's claims fail for two reasons: she has not alleged a misrepresentation or an ascertainable loss. The Defendant contends that it has represented that super-heated plasma ceramic particles are fused to its pans, not that the pans themselves are heated to 30,000 degrees. The Defendant also contends that the Plaintiff has not pleaded an ascertainable loss because she has not alleged that her pans are worthless. The Plaintiff makes clear that her theory of ascertainable loss is based on the purported premium that she paid for the Defendant's pans as compared to competing products. However, if it was her expectation that the pans would not chip, flake, or lose their nonstick properties due to the Defendant's claims to that effect, "Neverstick" brand name, purported 30,000-degree manufacturing process, or the like, Judge Kiel points out that the complaint does not allege that that expectation was unmet. Again, without an allegation that the Plaintiff herself received a product worth less than her reasonable expectation, the complaint resorts to relying on general allegations and the National Advertising Division ruling. Insofar as a cause of action may exist, Judge Kiel finds the Plaintiff has not demonstrated that she may bring it. The complaint will, therefore, be dismissed for failure to state a Consumer Fraud Act claim, Judge Kiel holds. The Defendant contends that amendment would be futile. Judge Kiel disagrees. Dismissal will, therefore, be without prejudice to the Plaintiff's filing of an amended complaint. If the Plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, Judge Kiel says she will do so in compliance with Local Civil Rule 15.1, including providing a copy of the amended complaint that reflects the differences between the original and amended complaints. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Oct. 23, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yy27f3yt from PacerMonitor.com. SISKIYOU COUNTY, CA: Chang Can File Supplemental Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ger Chong Ze Chang, et al., v. County of Siskiyou, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01378-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint. -- The Plaintiffs are directed to file their proposed supplemental complaint within seven days. -- The court denies without prejudice to renewal plaintiffs' motion for provisional class certification. -- The court grants in part plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, with the terms of the preliminary injunction to be set in a future order. The plaintiffs have demonstrated they are likely to succeed on their Due Process Claim, they have shown irreparable harms are likely in the absence of a preliminary injunction, and they have demonstrated a limited injunction would appropriately balance the competing harms and serve the broader public interest. The plaintiffs in this civil rights action allege Siskiyou County, California and the Siskiyou County Sheriff have recently violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and California law by employing county zoning ordinances in a racially discriminatory manner. The proposed class includes: "all Asian Americans who reside or will reside within Siskiyou County without access to a residential well or municipal water at their property." Siskiyou County is located in inland northern California, adjacent to the Oregon border. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=spzG0f at no extra charge.[CC] SMITH'S FOOD: Has Until Nov. 1 to Reply to Bid to Stay Dempsey Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Anne R. Traum of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada approves the Parties' stipulation granting the Defendants until Nov. 1, 2024, to file a reply in support of their motion for stay of proceedings in the lawsuit captioned BRIAN DEMPSEY, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. SMITH'S FOOD & DRUG CENTERS, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00269-ART-CSD (D. Nev.). Plaintiff Brian Dempsey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and Defendant Smith's Food & Drug Centers, Inc., stipulate and request under Local Rule IA 6-1 that the Court extend the time for the Defendants to respond to the Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings until Nov. 1, 2024. The Plaintiff filed the Collective and Class Action Complaint on June 25, 2024, that the Defendant answered on Aug. 19, 2024. On Sept. 19, 2024, the Defendant filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings (the "Motion"). That same day, the Court vacated a previously scheduled Case Management Conference. The Plaintiff responded to the Defendant's Motion on Oct. 11, 2024. The Defendant's Motion concerns the current split of authorities both among the Circuit Courts and within the Ninth Circuit concerning whether a court has personal jurisdiction over potential opt in plaintiffs, who do not have minimum contacts with the forum state. The Defendant's Reply in Support of its Motion was due on Oct. 18, 2024. The Defendant's counsel seek a two-week extension of time to respond to the Plaintiff's Opposition in Response to Defendant's Motion until Nov. 1, 2024. The Plaintiff and the Defendants consent to this request. This is the first request for extension of time for this deadline. The parties submit that there is good cause for this extension and the requested extension is not for the purpose of delay. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3z7duxch from PacerMonitor.com. Joshua D. Buck -- Josh@thiermanbuck.com -- Leah L. Jones -- Leah@thiermanbuck.com -- THIERMAN BUCK, in Reno, NV 89501, Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the putative classes. Jonathan A. Rich -- JARich@cozen.com -- COZEN O'CONNOR, in Las Vegas, NV 89107, Attorneys for Defendant Smith's Food & Drug Centers, Inc. SPACE COAST: Leyva Seeks to Substitute Exhibits ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE RENDON LEYVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SPACE COAST CREDIT UNION, Case No. 2:24-cv-14168-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his unopposed motion to substitute Exhibits and supplement the Record of Plaintiff's motion for class certification, substituting Exhibits C, D, E, and F, and adding Exhibit H. The evidence in Exhibit H, along with the evidence already offered by Plaintiff, supports Plaintiff's argument that there are individuals who can be identified with common legal and factual questions under Defendant's previous policy relating to non-permanent residents. The evidence in Exhibit H includes a large number of applicants who fall within the statute of limitations who were denied full consideration of their loan applications under Defendant's old non-permanent resident policy prior to the policy’s changes in 2023. Defendant's policy applied broadly to over 1,500 applicants who were not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. This evidence therefore helps establish that Defendant pursued a "common course of conduct" while its old nonpermanent resident policy was in effect: failing to give full and equal consideration to applicants who were not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents as a result of Defendant’s stated policy. The new discovery response provides additional putative class members within the statute of limitations and bears on other issues relevant to certification, it is proper to allow Plaintiff to supplement the record in support of his showing that he meets his burden under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Space Coast is an American state-chartered credit union headquartered in Melbourne, Florida. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 28, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XIsF8a at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francisco Symphorien-Saavedra, Esq. SYMPHORIEN-SAAVEDRA LAW P.A. 189 S. Orange Avenue, Ste. 1800 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 802-1717 E-mail: frank@symphorienlaw.com - and - Andrea E. Senteno, Esq. Thomas A. Saenz, Esq. MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 1016 16th Street NW, Ste. 100 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 293-2828 E-mail: asenteno@maldef.org tsaenz@maldef.org ST. JOHN'S: Bid for More Time to Complete Discovery Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barot v. St. John's University, Case No. 1:22-cv-04823 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 16, 2022), the Hon. Judge Nina R. Morrison entered an order denying motion for extension of time to complete discovery, without prejudice to renew after the completion of the anticipated class certification motion practice. The nature of suit states breach of contract. St. John's University is a private Catholic university in Queens, New York City.[CC] STEEL CONNECT: Agrees to Settle Fiduciary Breaches Suit for $6MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Investing.com reports that Steel Connect, Inc. (NASDAQ:STCN), a company specializing in business services, has reached a settlement agreement in a class and derivative action lawsuit. The lawsuit, filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery under the title Reith v. Lichtenstein, et al., cited alleged fiduciary breaches by certain current and former directors and major stockholders. The parties involved have agreed to a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release to resolve the dispute. The settlement, which is pending court approval, includes a $6 million payment by the defendants' insurers to Steel Connect. This amount, after the deduction of court-approved legal fees and expenses, will be distributed to common stockholders per the terms of an amended Stockholders Agreement. The settlement also mandates the adoption of certain corporate governance enhancements, including a review process for compensation clawbacks and a reduction in the threshold for reviewing related party transactions. The court has scheduled a hearing on December 13, 2024, to consider the approval of the Proposed Settlement and related matters. It is important to note that the settlement's approval is not guaranteed. If the court approves the settlement, it will result in the dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice and the release of all claims against the defendants as outlined in the Stipulation. Under the terms of the Proposed Settlement, Steel Partners Holdings L.P. and its affiliates, as well as current directors and officers of Steel Connect, have waived their rights to any portion of the distribution related to shares held as of May 1, 2023, or issuable upon conversion of convertible instruments. This waiver is intended to ensure a fair distribution to other common stockholders. InvestingPro Insights Steel Connect's recent legal settlement comes amid a complex financial landscape for the company. According to InvestingPro data, Steel Connect has a market capitalization of $66.79 million USD, with a notably low P/E ratio of 3.17. This low valuation is further emphasized by the company's price to book ratio of 0.44, suggesting the stock may be undervalued relative to its assets. InvestingPro Tips highlight that Steel Connect holds more cash than debt on its balance sheet, which could provide financial flexibility as it navigates the aftermath of the lawsuit. Additionally, the company's high shareholder yield and strong free cash flow yield implied by its valuation could be attractive to investors looking for potential value opportunities. It's worth noting that while Steel Connect has seen a significant price decline over the last three months, with a -21.32% total return, the company remains profitable over the last twelve months. This profitability, combined with the company's liquid assets exceeding short-term obligations, may help Steel Connect weather the financial impact of the settlement. For investors seeking a more comprehensive analysis, InvestingPro offers 5 additional tips for Steel Connect, providing a deeper understanding of the company's financial position and market performance. [GN] TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: FWK Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as FWK Holdings LLC et al v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd. et al. (RE AMITIZA ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No. 1:21-cv-11057-MJJ (D. Mass.), the end-payor Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) certifying a Damages Class and an Unjust Enrichment Class; (2) appointing Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. as Lead Class Counsel; (3) designating Premera Blue Cross as Class Representative; and (4) granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Takeda is a Japanese multinational pharmaceutical company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 23, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lxkHgk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter D. St. Phillip, Esq. Uriel Rabinovitz, Esq. Renee Nolan, Esq. Charles Kopel, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 E-mail: PStPhillip@lowey.com URabinovitz@lowey.com RNolan@lowey.com CKopel@lowey.com - and - Scott J. Tucker, Esq. William J. Fidurko, Esq. TUCKER, DYER & O'CONNELL, LLP 199 Wells Avenue Newton, MA 02459 Telephone: (617) 986-6226 - and - Courtney Finerty-Stelzner, Esq. GETNICK & GETNICK LLP 521 Fifth Avenue, 33rd Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (212) 376-5666 E-mail: cfinertystelzner@getnicklaw.com TARGET CORPORATION: Halley's Bid for Class Certification Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Corbin Halley, v. Target Corporation, Case No. 8:17-cv-00692-JGB-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jesus Bernal entered an order: (1) denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification On March 6, 2017, Corbin Halley initiated this action in California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles against Target and Does 1 through 50. On April 14, 2017, the Defendant removed the case to this Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. On May 29, 2024, the Plaintiff filed this motion for class certification. The Plaintiff seeks certification of the following class: "All non-exempt current and former Asset Protection Team Members who worked in California for Defendant Target Corporation at any time from March 6, 2013, through Feb. 18, 2018." In May 2015, the Defendant hired the Plaintiff to work as an Asset Protection Specialist at one of Defendant's retail locations in Los Angeles County. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant until December 2016. Target is a corporation that operates retail stores throughout the United States, including numerous locations in the State of California. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=23qh25 at no extra charge.[CC] TEAM ENTERPRISES: Class Settlement in Cipolla Suit Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FELICIA CIPOLLA, et al., v. TEAM ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-06867-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of settlement and granting counsel's motion for attorney's fees, costs, and service awards as follows: -- The order hereby awards Plaintiffs' counsel attorney's fees of $125,000 and $54,730 in litigation costs and expenses, to be paid from the settlement fund. -- The Plaintiffs' counsel shall be awarded the $54,730 as well as 50 percent of the attorney's fees now; the remaining 50 percent may be recovered only after counsel certifies that the fund is completely wound up. -- Administrator costs totaling $15,995 are approved to be paid from the fund. If problems do arise, and if management of this fund so necessitates, any shortfall in funds to pay class members or the administrator may be deducted from the unpaid attorney's fees. -- Named plaintiffs Jamie Arias, Felicia Cipolla, and Alexis Wood are each awarded a service award of $500, totaling $1,500, to be paid from the settlement fund. -- The Court retains continuing jurisdiction over the class action, named plaintiffs, the class, and defendant for four years from the date of entry of this order in order to supervise the implementation, enforcement, construction and interpretation of the revised settlement agreement and this order. IT IS SO ORDERED This class action was first filed in November of 2018. The Plaintiff Arias is a California resident who worked as a Promotional Specialist for defendants from 2019 to 2023. The Plaintiffs Felicia Cipolla and Alexis Wood, representative members of the PAGA class, both worked as Promotional Specialists within this judicial district from 2013 to 2019. Plaintiffs' first complaint brought both Fair Labor Standards Act and California Labor Code claims alleging that they and other non-exempt employees were denied overtime compensation and other wages, were not provided meal and rest breaks, were not provided lawful wage statements, were not reimbursed for all necessary business expenses, and were not promptly paid their final wages at time of termination. Team Enterprises is a leading provider of repairs and maintenance services for heat exchangers and cooling towers. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yESmdO at no extra charge.[CC] TENNESSEE: Lawrence Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Lawrence et al., v. Tennessee Dept. of Corrections et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01279 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying class of prisoners. Tennessee Department of Correction is a Cabinet-level agency within the Tennessee state government responsible for the oversight of more than 20,000 convicted offenders in Tennessee's fourteen prisons. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cyUgNM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff appears pro se. TONY THOMPSON: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to March 28, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LETICIA ROBERTS and CALVIN SAYERS, v. TONY THOMPSON in his official capacity as Black Hawk County Sheriff, and BLACK HAWK COUNTY, IOWA, Case No. 6:24-cv-02024-CJW-MAR (N.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge Mark Roberts entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to extend deadline to file motion for class certification. The deadline for filing a motion for class certification is extended to March 28, 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HIeLna at no extra charge.[CC] TRACE MINERALS: Espinal Seeks Website's Equal Access to Blind Users ------------------------------------------------------------------- FRANGIE ESPINAL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRACE MINERALS OPCO, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08141 (S.D.N.Y., October 25, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://traceminerals.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), or a text equivalent, empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Trace Minerals Opco, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [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 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal TRAVERS TOOL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Abramson Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL ABRAMSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Travers Tool Co., Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-07547 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services Travers Tool provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.travers.com. When visiting the Website, the Plaintiff, using NonVisual Desktop Access (NVDA), encountered the specific accessibility issues, such as landmark structure incorrectly defined, and improperly formatted website category lists. Consequently, blind customers are essentially prevented from the ability to enjoy and use Defendant's Travers.com, the suit says. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Travers Tool's policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Travers Tool specializes in offering tools and industrial supplies such as abrasives, calipers, drills, cutting, measuring and power tools, screwdrivers, taps, reamers, and other accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com TRC STAFFING: Burke Seeks to Suspend All Class Cert Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Burke v. TRC Staffing Services, Inc. (RE: TRC STAFFING SERVICES INC., DATA BREACH LITIGATION), Case No. 1:24-cv-02398-VMC (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting this motion to suspend all deadlines for Plaintiffs to move for class certification until such deadline is set by the Court in a Scheduling Order. The Plaintiffs have attached a proposed order for the Court's consideration. The Plaintiffs have conferred with Defendant, and Defendant does not oppose this Motion. Clarifying the deadline in this manner will promote efficiency by setting a class certification briefing schedule that fits within a broader case schedule approved by this Court. On July 29, 2024, the Court entered an Order consolidating ten putative class action cases brought against TRC Staffing Solutions, Inc. d/b/a TRC Talent Solutions (“TRC”) that involve an alleged data breach that occurred earlier this year. On September 27, 2024, the Court entered an Order appointing Interim CoLead and Liaison Class Counsel, which started the clock running on the deadline for filing a CAC. TRC Staffing Services provides recruitment services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 28, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NYlr2O at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Tullos Oliver, Esq. BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC 31 Atlanta Street Marietta, GA 30600 Telephone: (678) 227-6375 Facsimile: (770) 227-6373 E-mail: ktullos@barneslawgroup.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 879-8200 Facsimile: (786) 879-7520 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com - and - 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 UNITED STATES: Conklin Seeks to Conditionally Certify Action ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAD E. CONKLIN, et al., v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Case No. 1:23-cv-07122-SHS (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 216(b), and approving that notice be issued to the putative collective. U.S. Postal Service provides mail processing and delivery services to individuals and businesses in the U.S. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LOZa8O at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sarah M. Block, Esq. Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq. John W. Stewart, Esq. Patrick J. Miller-Bartley, Esq. McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Ave., NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 833-8855 Facsimile: (202) 452-1090 E-mail: smb@mselaborlaw.com gkm@mselaborlaw.com jws@mselaborlaw.com pmb@mselaborlaw.com UNITED STATES: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Response ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Berrones Nieto, et al., v. Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Case No. 1:24-cv-00286 (W.D. Tex., Filed March 15, 2024), the Hon. Judge David A. Ezra entered an order granting motion for extension of time to file response as to motion to certify class. -- In light of the briefing schedule for the pending Opposed Motion to Stay, the Court finds an extension is warranted as to Defendant's response to the Motion to Certify Class while it considers the Motion to Stay. -- The Defendant's deadline to respond to the Motion to Certify class is extended to November 13, 2024. The suit alleges violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.[CC] UNITED STATES: Faces Suit for Withholding Immigration Bond Money ---------------------------------------------------------------- LexisNexis reports that a groundbreaking class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), challenging the agency's systemic failure to return bond money to tens of thousands of immigrant families. The lawsuit seeks to rectify ICE's illegal withholding of hundreds of millions of dollars in bond payments, predominantly affecting low-income households. Immigration bonds, which are set at the discretion of ICE and immigration judges, allow noncitizens facing removal proceedings to be released from detention while their cases are decided. The national average bond amount is $6,000. While these amounts are unaffordable for most, families and friends of people in detention who are able to pay are contractually entitled to have the money returned, with interest, once the immigration case has concluded. However, ICE regularly fails to return these funds, even when all conditions have been met and proceedings have concluded. The class representative, Douglas Cortez, signed a contract with ICE in November 2013, for $10,000 to have his friend released from detention. The friend complied with the conditions of the bond and in August 2023, his proceedings were dismissed. Under the terms of the contract, the bond should have been canceled by ICE at that time, and Mr. Cortez should have received notice of the cancellation and been refunded the $10,000 cash deposit, plus interest. More than one year later, that has not happened. The lawsuit, filed by Gupta Wessler LLP and Motley Rice LLC, grows out of a partnership with Envision Freedom Fund and the Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law and seeks to certify a national class of individuals who posted bonds for detained individuals. [GN] UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Plaintiffs Allowed to File SAC -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERELL HARRINGTON and DESERAE COOK, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. UPMC and ALLEGHENY COUNTY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00497-WSH (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge W. Scott Hardy entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file second amended class action complaint to include Gloria Lewis as a Named Plaintiff and Proposed Class Representative. 1. The Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file second amended class action complaint to include Gloria Lewis as a Named Plaintiff and Proposed Class Representative is granted. 2. The Defendants shall file responsive pleadings to the Second Amended Class Action Complaint by Dec. 5, 2024. The Plaintiffs seek to represent two classes. The first class, called the "UPMC Class," consists of the following: "All women who on or after March 11, 2018, were subjected to [a] urine drug test while admitted to a UPMC facility for the purpose of giving birth, whose newborns tested negative for controlled substances and whose urine drug test results or other medical information related to substance use was disclosed to [AC-CYF]." The second class, called the "AC-CYF Class," consists of the following: "All new mothers who, on or after March 11, 2018, were subjected to investigation by [AC-CYF] based solely on reports of past marijuana use or a urine drug test that tested positive for marijuana." On May 14, 2020, Plaintiffs Cherell Harrington and Deserae Cook filed their Amended Class Action Complaint, on behalf of themselves and two putative classes, alleging various claims against Defendants University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and Allegheny County via its Office of Children, Youth and Families. The Plaintiffs' claims arise out of UPMC's purported disclosure of Plaintiffs' confidential medical information to AC-CYF for the purpose of targeting Plaintiffs with highly intrusive, humiliating, and coercive child abuse investigations, starting before taking their newborn babies home from UPMC's hospitals shortly after childbirth. UPMC is an American integrated global nonprofit health enterprise. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rYPe0S at no extra charge.[CC] UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO: Court Grants Martinez's Bid to Seal Docs ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California grants the Plaintiffs' motion to seal in the lawsuit captioned HALEY MARTINEZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-01946-RBM-VET (S.D. Cal.). On May 16, 2024, Plaintiffs Edgar Chavarria, Catherine Holden, and Matthew Sheridan filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Notice Plan ("Motion for Preliminary Approval"). On Sept. 23, 2024, the Court ordered supplemental briefing regarding certification of the class defined in the proposed Settlement Agreement. On Oct. 16, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Preliminary Approval ("Supplemental Briefing"). In conjunction with their Supplemental Briefing, the Plaintiffs filed Notice of Motion to File Under Seal, the Declaration of Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal, and a Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to File Under Seal (collectively referred to as Plaintiffs' "Motion to Seal"). In their Motion to Seal, the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order allowing them to file documents that Defendant University of San Diego has marked confidential, highly confidential, or attorneys' eyes only under seal because they contain financial and student information. The Plaintiffs argue that the "good cause" standard for sealing records governs their Motion to Seal because "this matter concerns a discovery dispute presently pending before Judge Gallo," which is not a dispositive motion. However, Judge Montenegro notes, this matter does not concern a non-dispositive discovery dispute presently pending before Judge Gallo, whom is no longer assigned to this case. This matter concerns the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval and Plaintiffs' Supplemental Briefing regarding class certification, which trigger the "compelling reasons" standard, Judge Montenegro opines. The Plaintiffs also argue that the Court found "good cause" to file the confidential documents under seal when it granted the parties' protective order. They add that other exhibits are logical extensions of the Defendant's prior confidential designations, including the deposition transcript excerpts. However, Judge Montenegro says, under the "compelling reasons" standard, the presumption of public access is not rebutted where documents subject to a protective order are filed under seal as attachments to a dispositive motion. In other words, the Plaintiffs' reliance on the parties' protective order is insufficient. Additionally, the Plaintiffs wrongly state that some of the exhibits lodged with the Court were marked as attorneys' eyes only and that the lodged exhibits include deposition transcript excerpts. Despite the significant substantive errors permeating the Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal, the Court finds "compelling reasons" to grant their Motion to Seal. First, the Court is not inclined to publish the personal, financial, and enrollment information pertaining to unrepresented potential class members. Second, to the extent the lodged exhibits reveal confidential financial information about the Defendant, this information is also subject to protection. Based on the foregoing, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal. The Court directs the Clerk of the Court to file the lodged exhibits under seal. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2zwykkhu from PacerMonitor.com. VECTOR GROUP: Scott Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties ---------------------------------------------------------- Robert Scott, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. VECTOR GROUP LTD., HENRY C. BEINSTEIN, RONALD J. BERNSTEIN, PAUL V. CARLUCCI, RICHARD J. LAMPEN, BENNETT S. LEBOW, HOWARD M. LORBER, JEAN E. SHARPE, BARRY WATKINS, and WILSON L. WHITE, Case No. 654791/2024 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., Sept. 13, 2024), is brought against Vector Group Ltd. and the members of its Board of Directors (the "Board" or "Individual Defendants" and together with the Company, the "Defendants") for breaches of fiduciary duties and/or the aiding and abetting of such breaches of fiduciary duty, and negligent misrepresentation and concealment in connection with the Board's efforts to sell the Company to JT International Holding B.V. ("JTI"). On August 21, 2024, Vector issued a press release announcing that Vector, JTI's affiliate JTI (US) Holding Inc. ("Parent"), and Parent's wholly owned subsidiary, Vapor Merger Sub Inc. ("Merger Sub") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") dated August 21, 2024, pursuant to which Vector stockholders will receive $15.00 in cash per share of Vector common stock (the "Offer Price") (the "Proposed Transaction") via a tender offer (the "Tender Offer"). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced the Tender Offer on September 4, 2024. On September 4, 2024, the Company filed the Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation Statement (the "Recommendation Statement") with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") to, among other things, recommend that Vector stockholders tender their share in favor of the Proposed Transaction. The Recommendation Statement fails to provide the Company's shareholders with material information and/or provides them with materially misleading information thereby rendering the shareholders unable to make an informed decision on whether to tender their shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction. Critically, the Recommendation Statement contains materially incomplete and misleading information, including with respect to Vector's financial projections and the most critical metric for Vector stockholders--Vector's unlevered free cash flow ("UFCF") projections--relied upon by the Board's financial advisor, Jefferies LLC ("Jefferies"), in connection with the financial analyses underlying its fairness opinion, and relied upon by the Board in connection with its decision to approve the Proposed Transaction. The Tender Offer is currently scheduled to expire at 11:59 p.m., New York time, on October 1, 2024. For these reasons, Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, and/or the aiding and abetting of such breaches of fiduciary duty, and negligent misrepresentation and concealment in violation of New York State common law. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Transaction unless and until the material information discussed herein is disclosed to Vector stockholders in advance of the expiration of the Tender Offer or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, recover damages resulting from the Individual Defendants' violations of their fiduciary duties, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a stockholder of Vector. Vector is a Delaware corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. ACOCELLI LAW, PLLC 53 Hill Street, Suite 152 Southampton, NY 11968 Phone: (631) 204-6187 Email: racocelli@acocellilaw.com VERISK ANALYTICS: Continues to Defend Cantinieri Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Verisk Analytics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Cantinieri class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On December 15, 2021, Plaintiff Jillian Cantinieri brought a putative class action against Verisk Analytics, Insurance Services Office and ISO Claims Services, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, titled Cantinieri v. Verisk Analytics Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-6911. The Complaint alleges that the Company failed to safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of Plaintiff and the members of the proposed classes from a purported breach of its databases by unauthorized entities. Plaintiff and class members allege actual and imminent injuries, including theft of their PII, fraudulent activity on their financial accounts, lowered credit scores, and costs associated with detection and prevention of identity theft and fraud. They seek to recover compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, disgorgement of earnings and profits, and attorney's fees and costs. The Company filed its motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims on April 22, 2022. On March 30, 2023, the court denied its motion to dismiss without prejudice, allowing it an opportunity to re-file the motion once limited jurisdictional discovery has been completed. Its renewed motion to dismiss was fully briefed on February 16, 2024. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter, as the case is still in its early stages. Verisk Analytics, Inc. is a strategic data analytics and technology partner to the global insurance industry by empowering clients to strengthen operating efficiency, improve underwriting and claims outcomes, combat fraud and make informed decisions about global risks, including climate change, extreme events, ESG (environmental, social, and governance), and political issues through advanced data analytics, software, scientific research, and deep industry knowledge. VERISK ANALYTICS: Continues to Defend Williams Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Verisk Analytics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Williams class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On June 27, 2022, Plaintiff Loretta Williams brought a putative class action against Lead Intelligence, Inc. d/b/a Jornaya in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, titled Williams v. DDR Media, LLC and Lead Intelligence, Inc. d/b/a Jornaya, Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-03789. The Complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code 631 ("CIPA") and invaded Plaintiff's and class members' privacy rights when Defendants purportedly recorded visitors' visits to the scrappyrent2own.com website without prior express consent. It is further alleged that this conduct constitutes a violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq. and the California Constitution. The Complaint seeks class certification, injunctive relief, statutory damages in the amount of $5,000 for each violation, attorneys fees and other litigation costs. The Company's motion to compel arbitration was fully briefed as of January 27, 2023. It was denied on February 28, 2023. We filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims on April 13, 2023. On August 18, 2023 the court granted its motion, dismissing Plaintiff's claims without prejudice, but giving Plaintiff an opportunity to amend her claims by September 20, 2023. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") on September 20, 2023. The Company's motion to dismiss the SAC was fully briefed on December 18, 2023. It was denied on January 30, 2024. The court held an initial case management conference for February 9, 2024 and allowed the parties to engage in limited discovery. Its renewed motion to dismiss was filed on July 19, 2024 and oral argument was held on September 20, 2024. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter, as the case is still in its early stages. Verisk Analytics, Inc. is a strategic data analytics and technology partner to the global insurance industry by empowering clients to strengthen operating efficiency, improve underwriting and claims outcomes, combat fraud and make informed decisions about global risks, including climate change, extreme events, ESG (environmental, social, and governance), and political issues through advanced data analytics, software, scientific research, and deep industry knowledge. VICOR CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------------- Vicor Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On July 11, 2024, purported stockholders of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and the Company's Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman. The plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), due to allegedly false and misleading statements during earnings calls in 2023 about the Company's commercial relationship with an existing customer. The complaint seeks damages, interest and attorneys’ fees and costs. The plaintiffs were appointed lead plaintiffs on October 24, 2024. The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the lawsuit. Vicor Corp. is into the manufacture of electronic components and is based in Andover, MA. VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Brakes ------------------------------------------------------------ Brian Eckert, writing for Milberg, reports that Volkswagen owners have filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the brakes on their Atlas and Atlas SUV Cross Sport SUVs are defective. The plaintiffs are looking to establish a nationwide class and state subclasses of VW owners or lessees who have experienced squealing, grinding, and erratic function of their vehicles' braking systems. Milberg attorneys Leland Belew, Alex Straus, and Mitchell Breit are representing the plaintiffs and the class members. Which VW Atlas Vehicles Are Part of the Lawsuit? The following vehicles are named in the lawsuit: -- Volkswagen Atlas -- Model Years 2021 -- 2023 -- Volkswagen Atlas Cross Sport -- Model Years 2021 -- 2023 What is the alleged defect? Eight Volkswagen owners/lessees from California, Illinois, and New York filed a class action complaint claiming braking issues with their Volkswagen Atlas vehicles. The alleged defects include: -- Squealing, squeaking, and screeching noises (referred to in the complaint as the "Screeching Defect"); -- A grinding, metal-on-metal rubbing noise sometimes accompanied by vibrating and scraping sensations that can be felt in the brake pedal (the "Grinding Defect"); -- Activation of the vehicle's proximity alert system (i.e., parking aid sensors) even when there are no objects within the vehicle's immediate vicinity (the "Proximity Alert Defect"); and -- Inconsistent braking that at times slips and feels "spongy" and "grabby" (the "Erratic Function Defect"). The complaint collectively refers to these defects as the "Brake Defect." It claims the Brake Defect presents a number of safety concerns, such as loud noises that can startle and distract drivers and cause them to change their braking habits to mitigate the noises, resulting in inconsistent and unreliable braking performance, including "overbraking" and "underbraking." "The Brake Defect distracts Class Members, other Vehicle drivers, and third parties on the road, endangering their physical safety and well-being due to a loss of concentration and focus while driving. Similarly, nearby pedestrians hear the loud braking noise then pay attention to the noise rather than having their full attention on other hazards in their path." In the complaint, plaintiffs Robert and Jacqueline Wright, Jennifer Segarini, Catherine Wilson, Andreas Zembrzycki, Edward Norris, Edward Pishchik and Wamidh Jawad describe some of the braking issues they have experienced. Within days of purchasing a new vehicle Mr. and Mrs. Wright say their 2023 Atlas began to intermittently exhibit squealing, squeaking, screeching, and metal-on-metal grinding noises, as well as inconsistent braking function, when they applied the brakes. A service technician at the VW dealership told them these problems were "pretty common" but there was no remedy other than new brakes. -- Ms. Segarini reported signs of a brake defect in her leased 2021 VW Atlas to a local dealership but was allegedly told that not even replacing the brake pads would resolve her concerns. -- Ms. Wilson bought a certified pre-owned 2021 Atlas Cross Sport that exhibited brake squealing and grinding. She says the dealership dismissed her concerns but later informed her the brakes were so badly worn they needed to be replaced. The repair cost her $800 but did not fix the issues. -- Mr. Norris purchased a 2022 Atlas that he claims had several signs of the Brake Defect, including a loud grinding sound during braking, that the local VW dealership told him on several occasions were "entirely normal," even though on other occasions service technicians agreed the loud sounds were not normal. Attempts to resolve the Brake Defect have not been successful. The complaint cites violations of warranty and consumer protection laws and alleges that Volkswagen was aware of the brake problems but failed to offer an effective remedy. Have There Been Other Complaints About VW Atlas Braking? The plaintiffs accuse Volkswagen of failing to address these defects despite numerous consumer complaints. Their accounts of VW Atlas braking problems match incident reports submitted to the NHTSA. For example: -- A complaint regarding a 2021 Atlas, dated 8/1/2022, states: "Brakes are making loud squeaking and grinding noises when brake is applied at low speeds. It feels like the entire braking system is about to fall apart. Took the vehicle to the Volkswagen dealership and they said Volkswagen brakes are known to make noise." -- A NHTSA complaint about a 2022 Atlas, dated 10/26/2022, describes brakes that "are very squeaky and sound like grinding metal when in use. This happens every day for the past year regardless of weather or moisture. Most recently they have started skipping. I can feel the break pedal pulsing as if the brakes are bouncing and the car 'skids'". -- A consumer told NHTSA in January 2024 that the brakes on their 2023 Atlas Cross Sport "are exhibiting behavior that is not normal for a car of this size and relatively young age (miles). Measurably loud brake noise . . . leave concern on overall safety of brake system based on unexpected behavior of vehicle braking system." Has There Been a VW Atlas Recall? No recall has been issued regarding the alleged braking defect in the 2021 -- 2024 Atlas and Atlas Cross Sport models. However, Volkswagen did issue a recall of 2024 Atlas vehicles due a defect in the brake master cylinder. The defect can reportedly cause reduced brake performance and brake failure that could increase the risk of a crash. Who Can Join the VW Atlas Brake Defect Lawsuit? Anyone who purchased or leased a 2021 -- 2024 VW Atlas and/or VW Atlas Cross Sport is automatically eligible to join this class action. The case has been filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, where it is awaiting class certification. Learn more about the class action lawsuit process. Does it cost anything to join the lawsuit? Eligible class members do not have to pay anything or hire a lawyer to join the VW Atlas braking defect lawsuit. Milberg attorneys are handling the case on behalf of the plaintiffs and the class members and will only get paid if and when there is a settlement or verdict, at which point class members can receive an equitable share of the payout. Milberg's Automotive Practice Group has filed class action lawsuits against some of the largest car manufacturers in the world -- including GM, Hyundai, VW, Subaru, and Nissan -- that have resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars and other benefits for vehicle owners. The Group's Mitchell Breit was recently named one of The Best Lawyers in America in the area of class actions. In 2023, the Group reached a settlement with VW involving a group of consolidated Volkswagen sunroof class actions. [GN] VOLTA INC: Wins Bid to Dismiss Kampe, et al. Securities Fraud Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as KAROLINE KAMPE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VOLTA INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-02055-JST (N.D. Calif.), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted the motion filed by the defendants to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim under Section 10(b) and derivative claim under Section 20(a). The Court also granted the motion filed by the defendants to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims under Section 11 and Section 14(a), as well as the derivative claims under Section 15 and Section 20(a). The dismissal is with prejudice. Before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. Defendant Volta is a public company that partners with real estate and retail businesses to deploy charging stations for electric vehicles at retail locations. The Company generates revenue primarily from selling advertisements that are displayed on media screens on its charging stations. Volta was formed through the merger between Volta Industries, Inc., a private entity, and Tortoise Acquisition Corp. II, a special purpose acquisition company that had completed its initial public offering about a year before the Merger and whose shares were traded on the New York Stock Exchange at the time of the Merger. The Merger was completed on August 26, 2021, with the shares of the new combined entity, Volta, trading on the NYSE. Lead Plaintiff Steve Padget and additional plaintiffs Eric M. Walden and Jason Eckert bring this action in which they assert, on their own behalf and on behalf of three proposed classes, claims against Volta and several of its officers, as well as Tortoise and several of its officers and directors, under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act; Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5. The claims are premised on dozens of statements made before and after Volta's merger with Tortoise, which Plaintiffs allege were false or misleading when made because Defendants failed to disclose substantial flaws in Volta's business and because Defendants covered up those flaws by engaging in serious accounting violations and other financial improprieties before and after the Merger. These allegedly undisclosed flaws, serious accounting violations, and financial improprieties concealed the true state of Volta's business. Plaintiff alleges that from the time Volta went public through the Merger, it failed to disclose substantial flaws in its business that Defendants covered up by engaging in serious accounting violations and other financial improprieties. These troubles began to surface on March 28, 2022, when Volta terminated its CEO and its President after which Volta's stock price fell 18%. But Defendants did not at that time disclose the true extent of Volta's dire financial situation, and portrayed the Company's founders as having resigned on voluntary and amicable terms to maintain investor confidence. Volta's stock price continued to decline as Volta missed its revenue projections and as the risks associated with the undisclosed "improper practices" materialized. On January 18, 2023, Volta announced that it was being acquired by Shell in a deal that valued Volta at $169 million, which fell far short of the $1.4 billion valuation contained in the Registration Statement for the merger with Tortoise. Plaintiffs allegedly suffered damages upon the revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures or materialization of undisclosed risk. Plaintiffs assert a claim under Section 10(b) and a derivative claim under Section 20(a) premised on allegedly false or misleading statements made in the Registration Statement for the Merger, and made after the Merger in Volta's SEC filings, press releases, investor presentations, and earnings calls. Defendants move to dismiss the Section 10(b) claim, arguing that Plaintiffs have not pleaded facts to support the elements of falsity, scienter, and loss causation. The Court finds Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege that the statements at issue were false or misleading. Given this ruling, the Court need not reach Defendants' argument regarding scienter and loss causation. Because the SAC pleads no underlying violation of the Securities Exchange Act, Plaintiffs' "control person" claims under Section 20(a) must also be dismissed. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nFaKTR WARDEN SHROPSHIRE: Plaintiffs Allowed to Amend Complaint -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTONIO MORGAN, et al., v. Warden SHROPSHIRE, et al., Case No. 7:24-cv-00076-WLS-TQL (M.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge W. Louis Sands entered an order granting the Plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint to add additional Plaintiffs. However, because the prisoner Plaintiffs cannot join as Plaintiffs in this civil action nor can Plaintiff Morgan file this claim as a class action on behalf of other inmates and because Plaintiff Morgan has not stated a claim for relief on his own behalf, this case is dismissed in its entirety without prejudice. The Plaintiffs' motions to appoint counsel and the motion for a preliminary injunction are now denied as moot. Because Plaintiff Morgan fails to link a claim to any Defendant, this civil action is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1rN6TH at no extra charge.[CC] WASATCH ADVANTAGE: Final Approval Hearing Set for Jan. 23, 2025 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as United States of America ex rel. Denika Terry, et al., v. Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00799-KJM-SCR (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the unopposed motions for preliminary certification and to dismiss the FCA claim. -- The hearing previously set for Nov. 7, 2024, is vacated. -- The parties must comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement applicable to the FCA claim. -- The court retains jurisdiction over the FCA claim to the extent needed to enforce the settlement. -- By February 1, 2025, defendants shall make the second settlement payment, fully funding the class settlement fund. -- A final approval hearing is set for January 23, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. before the undersigned. Wasatch Advantage offers real estate development and management services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KIpFDc at no extra charge.[CC] WEBMD LLC: Allowed Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA M. JANCIK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WEBMD, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00644-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Thomas Thrash, Jr. entered an order granting Defendant's administrative motion for leave to file under seal Exhibits A, E, F, J, P, Q, and S to the Declaration of Paul A. Rosenthal. The specific portions that WebMD seeks to seal are identified with yellow highlighting in the unredacted copies of the brief and exhibits submitted to the Court. WebMD provides a full-service Internet healthcare portal. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FqYdmU at no extra charge.[CC] WEXFORD HEALTH: Class Certification Bid Amended to Jan. 16, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN SPURLOCK; HEATHER SMITH; and SHAWN ZMUDZINSKI, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INCORPORATED, Case No. 3:23-cv-00476 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert Chambers entered a fourth amended scheduling order as follows: 1. Motions for Plaintiffs to join other parties or to amend the pleadings shall be filed by Dec. 11, 2024. 2. Motions for Defendant to join other parties or to amend the pleadings shall be filed by Jan. 10, 2025. 3. A motion seeking class certification shall be filed by Jan. 16, 2025. 4. Opposition to the motion for class certification shall be filed by Feb. 21, 2025. 5. Any reply to the motion for class certification shall be filed by Mar. 27, 2025. Wexford is an American healthcare services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=htedRe at no extra charge.[CC] WHOOP INC: Sanderson Seeks to Seal Class Cert Documents ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONRICK SANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WHOOP, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-05477-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order authorizing the sealing of certain materials being filed with Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiff has reviewed and complied with Civil Local Rule 79-5(f). The materials that Plaintiff seeks to file under seal are identified in the below chart. Document Portion(s) Designating Entity and Reason(s) to Seal for Sealing Plaintiff's Pages: 1, 3, The material has been designated Motion for 7, 9, 10, 11, "CONFIDENTIAL" by the Defendant Class 14, 16, 17. pursuant to the Protective Order. Certification Plaintiff therefore is not in a position to place this information in the public record. Declaration Pages: 2, 4, The material has been designated of Simon 5, 6. "CONFIDENTIAL" by the Defendant Franzini pursuant to the Protective Order. Plaintiff therefore is not in a position to place this information in the public record. Whoop makes health and fitness trackers that are worn on the wrist and collect biometric data. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KkQWks at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Simon Franzini, Esq. Christin Cho, Esq. Stephen D. Andrews, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: simon@dovel.com christin@dovel.com stephen@dovel.com WHOOP INC: Sanderson Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONRICK SANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WHOOP, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-05477-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on Jan. 17, 2025, to certify this case as a class action. The Plaintiff Sanderson seeks to certify a class and subclass as defined in the memorandum of law, for UCL, FAL, and CLRA claims. The Plaintiff also moves for his appointment as class representatives and for the appointment of Dovel & Luner LLP as class counsel. The motion is based on the attached memorandum of law, declarations, and exhibits. The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following class: "All persons in California who purchased a Whoop Membership through the Whoop website, were enrolled in Defendant's automatically renewing Whoop Membership subscription, and were automatically renewed and charged for at least one renewal term after their initial membership or commitment period ended, during the applicable statute of limitations." The Plaintiff also seeks to certify the following subclass: "All members of the Class who were automatically renewed and charged for at least one renewal term that they did not use (the "No Use Autorenewal" subclass)." Instead of selling its health trackers to consumers outright, Defendant sells so-called "Whoop Memberships." A Whoop Membership consists of a fitness tracker and a preset period of data processing and analytics (for example, one year or 24-months). Whenever a consumer buys a Whoop Membership, Defendant automatically signs them up for automatic renewals. But Defendant fails to conspicuously disclose to consumers that, when they buy a Whoop Membership, they are being signed up for automatic renewals of that membership. Defendant also fails to conspicuously disclose the terms of its autorenewals. Whoop makes health and fitness trackers that are worn on the wrist and collect biometric data. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uEtSEo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Simon Franzini, Esq. Christin Cho, Esq. Stephen D. Andrews, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: simon@dovel.com christin@dovel.com stephen@dovel.com YOUNG CONSULTING: Wasserman Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ann Wasserman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. YOUNG CONSULTING, LLC and CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE d/b/a BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, Case No. 1:24-cv-04119-TWT (N.D. Ga., Sept. 13, 2024), is brought against Defendants for their failure to secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class members' personally identifiable information ("PII") and personal health information ("PHI"), including names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and insurance policy and claims information. The Defendants promised Plaintiff and Class members that they, or the third parties they contract and share PII/PHI with, would implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class members' PII/PHI against unauthorized access and disclosure. Defendants breached those promises by, inter alia, failing to, or sharing PII/PHI with third parties who failed to, implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect Plaintiff's and Class members' PII/PHI from unauthorized access and disclosure. As a result of Defendants' inadequate security and breach of their duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff's and Class members' PII/PHI was accessed and disclosed. This action seeks to remedy these failings and their consequences. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all persons whose PII/PHI was exposed as a result of the Data Breach. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all other Class members, asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment, and seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, equitable relief, and all other relief authorized by law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received health insurance services from BSC. Young Consulting is a developer of software for the marketing, underwriting, and administering of medical stop loss insurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Evangelista, Esq. EVANGELISTA WORLEY, LLC 10 Glenlake Parkway South Tower Suite 130 Atlanta, GA 30328 Phone: 404.205.8400 Email: jim@ewlawllc.com - and - Ben Barnow, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 West Randolph Street, Ste. 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312.621.2000 Fax: 312.641.5504 Email: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com YOUTUBE INC: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amy Heath & Devon Schulz of Covington, in an article for Inside Class Actions, report the in a concise decision issued earlier this month, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that individuals failed to state a claim against YouTube and parent company Google based on alleged violations of Oregon's Automatic Renewal Law ("ARL") and Free Offer Law ("FOL"). See Walkingeagle v. Google, LLC, 2024 WL 4379734 (9th Cir. Oct. 3, 2024). The appellants initially brought their claims as a putative class action, alleging that YouTube/Google failed to comply with ARL and FOL requirements related to subscription services YouTube Music, YouTube Premium, and YouTube TV. The district court dismissed the case with prejudice, which the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The ARL requires merchants to present automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service offer terms in a clear and conspicuous manner at checkout, and the FOL similarly requires disclosure of certain terms for free-trial offers. Under the ARL, a "clear and conspicuous" disclosure is one that is "in larger type than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font or color to the surrounding text of the same size, or set off from the surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks, in a manner that clearly calls attention to the language." Appellants argued that whether a term is clear and conspicuous is a matter of fact that should proceed to summary judgment, but the Ninth Circuit disagreed, ruling that the question could be decided as a matter of law in this case. Specifically, the Court found that the automatic renewal terms were clear and conspicuous at checkout, as required by the laws, since the terms were displayed off-set from any other text and were "the only text on the page." Further, the Court noted that for the YouTube Music and YouTube Premium pages, the most important information was bolded or in another color than the surrounding text. The Ninth Circuit also affirmed the district court's finding that YouTube/Google properly obtained "affirmative consent" to automatic renewal, as required by the ARL. The district court found that affirmative consent was provided by clicking the "subscribe button" after being presented with the terms of the service. Appellants argued that something more was required to demonstrate consent, such as selecting a "checkbox," but the Ninth Circuit explained that such a "requirement is found nowhere in the ARL" or "anywhere in our caselaw." Lastly, the Court found that appellants failed to sufficiently allege YouTube's cancellation policy violated the ARL or FOL, which each require that subscribers can cancel subscriptions via phone, email, a post-office address, or "another cost-effective, timely, and easy-to-use mechanism[.]" Though appellants contended that the online cancellation mechanism was "obscure, confusing, and time-consuming," the Court found these allegations insufficient because appellants had not alleged that they tried to cancel using another cancellation method YouTube provided: a link in the confirmation email. This decision offers useful guidance for companies subject to Oregon's ARL and FOL on what practices comply with those laws. [GN] ZANDER GROUP: Jones Seeks to Certify ESOP Participants Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM H. "CHIP" JONES, II, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ZANDER GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00687 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(1) as follows: (1) certifying the following class: "All ESOP Participants whose accounts were closed since Dec. 31, 2021 in violation of the ESOP's terms and ERISA protections (the "Class"); with the proposed Class consisting of a 2021 Subclass and 2023 Subclass; (2) appointing Plaintiff as representatives of the certified Class; and (3) appointing Music City Law, PLLC, as Lead Class Counsel. Zander is an independent insurance agency headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 28, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SX6mfY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seamus T. Kelly, Esq. David J. Goldman, Esq. MUSIC CITY LAW, PLLC 1033 Demonbreun Street, Suite 300 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 200-0682 E-mail: seamus@musiccityfirm.com david@musiccityfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Lars C. Golumbic, Esq. Sarah M. Adams, Esq. Shaun A. Gates, Esq. Lawrence A. Brett, Esq. GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED 1701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Ste. 1200 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 861-6615 Facsimile: (202) 659-4503 E-mail: lgolumbic@groom.com sadams@groom.com sgates@groom.com lbrett@groom.com - and - Mark E. Stamelos, Esq. FORDHARRISON LLP 150 Third Ave South, Suite 2010 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 574-6700 Facsimile: (615) 574-6701 E-mail: mstamelos@fordharrison.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Faces 4,045 Exposure Claims as of Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 3M Company, as of September 30, 2024, is a named defendant, with multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent approximately 4,045 individual claimants, compared to approximately 4,042 individual claimants with actions pending December 31, 2023, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company generally allege personal injury from occupational exposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the Company, which are often unspecified, as well as products manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at Company premises. The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is substantially lower than it experienced at the peak of filings in 2003. The number of claims alleging more serious injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease, is expected to represent a greater percentage of total claims than in the past. Over the past twenty plus years, the Company has prevailed in nineteen of the twenty cases tried to a jury (including the lawsuits described below) and, in the last twelve months, 3M has successfully defended three respirator product liability trials. In November 2023, a jury in Hawaii delivered a defense verdict in favor of 3M, concluding that 3M's 8710 respirator was not a cause of plaintiff's mesothelioma. In February 2024, a jury in Kentucky delivered a defense verdict in favor of 3M, concluding that 3M's 8710 and 8210 respirators that the plaintiff claimed to have used were not defective. In April 2024, another jury in Kentucky returned a defense verdict in 3M's favor and concluded that 3M's 8710 respirator that the plaintiff claimed to have used was not defective. The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances. Consequently, the Company believes that claimants are unable to establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are attributable to the Company's respiratory protection products. Nonetheless, the Company's litigation experience indicates that claims of persons alleging more serious injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease, are costlier to resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it therefore believes the average cost of resolving pending and future claims on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were asserted by medically unimpaired claimants. In the second half of 2020 and into 2021, the Company experienced an increase in the number of cases filed that allege injuries from exposures to coal mine dust, but the rate of coal mine dust-related case filings decelerated in 2022 and continues to stay significantly lower than in 2021. 3M moved two cases involving over 400 plaintiffs to federal court based on, among others, the Class Action Fairness Act. The federal district court remanded the cases to state court. In March 2023, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals granted 3M's petition to review the remand order, and in April 2023 reversed the district court's remand order; accordingly, those cases will remain in federal court. As previously reported, the State of West Virginia, through its Attorney General, filed a complaint in 2003 against the Company and two other manufacturers of respiratory protection products in the Circuit Court of Lincoln County, West Virginia, and amended its complaint in 2005. The amended complaint seeks substantial, but unspecified, compensatory damages primarily for reimbursement of the costs allegedly incurred by the State for worker's compensation and healthcare benefits provided to all workers with occupational pneumoconiosis and unspecified punitive damages. In October 2019, the court granted the State's motion to sever its unfair trade practices claim, which seeks civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation under the state's Consumer Credit Protection Act relating to statements that the State contends were misleading about 3M's respirators. In April 2024, the court set a trial date for the unfair trade practices claims in December 2024. In October 2024, the court moved the trial date to January 7, 2025, for a bench trial only to determine if any liability exists; if liability is found by the judge, then damages would be determined in a separate trial with an advisory jury at a later date. An expert witness retained by the State has estimated that 3M sold over five million respirators into the state during the relevant time period, and the State alleges that each respirator sold constitutes a separate violation under the Act. 3M disputes the expert's estimates and the State's position regarding what constitutes a separate violation of the Act. 3M has asserted various additional defenses, including that the Company's marketing did not violate the Act at any time, and that the State's claims are barred under the applicable statute of limitations. No liability has been recorded for any portion of this matter because the Company believes that liability is not probable and reasonably estimable at this time. In addition, the Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss due to open factual and legal questions. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OSSQA0 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Westinghouse Air Brake Defends PI Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Claims have been filed against Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation and certain of its affiliates in various jurisdictions across the United States by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The vast majority of the claims are submitted to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity, or to non-affiliated companies that retain the liabilities for the asbestos-containing products at issue. We cannot, however, assure that all of these claims will be fully covered by insurance, or that the indemnitors or insurers will remain financially viable. Our ultimate legal and financial liability with respect to these claims, as is the case with other pending litigation, cannot be estimated. A limited number of claims are not covered by insurance, nor are they subject to indemnity from non-affiliated parties. Management believes that the costs of the Company's asbestos-related cases will not be material to the Company's overall financial position, results of operations and cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Dx784h ********* 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 ***