/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241114.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, November 14, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 229
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Baldwin Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Ballard Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Borjon Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Brightenburg Sues Over Exposure to Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Crutcher Sues Over Exposure to Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Lesure Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Ruley Sues Over Contaminated Drinking Water
ACCELLION INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Negligence Claim in Brown Suit
ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Lopez Suit Removed to N.D. California
ADVANCED RECOVERY: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Laurentz Says
ADVENTHEALTH FOUNDATION: Benore Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
AGC CHEMICALS: Boggs Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
AGC CHEMICALS: Morton Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
ALIBABA GROUP: Final Settlement Hearing Scheduled for March 27
ALPHA METALLURGICAL: Wriston Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Fuelers
AMERICAN BICYCLE: Blaker Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Data
AMERICAN MODULAR: Rodriguez Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages
ARCH RESOURCES: Collins Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
B. BRAUN: Motion for Judgment on Pleadings in Noetic Suit Denied
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Denies Ramirez's Bid for Document Production
BETTER MORTGAGE: Prosser Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
BIO-LAB INC: Ekpe et al. Sue Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
CANNABOY TREEHOUSE: Turner Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
CASH LINK USA: Canada Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas
CERVERA REAL ESTATE: Hernandez Suit Seeks to Recover Proper Wages
CHEFS' WAREHOUSE: Monzon Suit Removed to C.D. California
CHERYL LYNN BAILEY: Day Files Suit in D. Minnesota
CKS PACKAGING: Fails to Secure Employees' Info, Green Alleges
COMMODORE PLAZA: Longhini Sues Over Discriminative Property
COMPASS FLORIDA: Klizner Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
DADE PLAZA: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property
DAPPER LABS: Court Awards $1.3MM in Attorneys' Fees in Friel Suit
DAVID STANLEY DODGE: Prosser Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
DORAL PROJECTS: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property
EARN YOUR LEISURE: Brown Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York
EAST TENNESSEE: Underpays Security Guards, Westerling Suit Claims
ETAIN LLC: Turner Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
FAST PACE: $1.85 Mil. Settlement in Hutchinson Suit Has Final Nod
FATFACE CORP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fernandez Claims
FCA USA: Court Refuses to Dismiss 2nd Amended Johnson Class Suit
FI9 COMPLIANCE: Hernandez Files Suit in C.D. California
FLORIDA BOARD: Hernandez Files 11th Cir. Appeal
FLORIDA: Faces Wilson Suit Over Prisoners' Poor Conditions
GEMMA BY WPDIAMONDS: Riley Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
GENOMMA LAB: Has Agreed in Harris Suit to Stop Making BPO Product
GNOME WELLNESS: Turner Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
GOLDISH INC: Agostini Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
HAMPON, VA: Brown Sues Over Illegal Seizure of Vehicles
HELDRICH ASSOCIATES: Murray Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Properties
HELLERS GAS MARYLAND: Gorney Suit Removed to N.D. West Virginia
HERSHEY COMPANY: Dominici Sues Over Unsafe Organic Fluorine
HIGHER EDUCATION LOAN: Mermigas Sues Over Patterns of Abuse
INNODATA INC: Grondin Named as Lead Plaintiff in D'Agostino Suit
IRONBEAM INC: Records Telephone Conversation, Kurazyan Suit Alleges
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Settlement in San Miguel Suit Has Prelim. Nod
L'OREAL USA: O'Dea Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
LANDMARK ADMIN: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Willis Says
LANDMARK ADMIN: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Whitten Claims
LANDMARK ADMIN: Williams Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
LEARNING CARE: Faces Vaughan Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
LES SCHWAB TIRE: Hill Suit Stayed Pending WA Supreme Court Ruling
LILIUM N.V.: Kloster Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
LINKEDIN CORPORATION: J.P. Suit Removed to N.D. California
LIVE NATION: James Files Suit in D. Montana
LONG ISLAND PLASTIC: Waiters Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI
LONG ISLAND: Waiters Sues Over Failure to Secure Patients' Info
MACLEAN FOGG: Waldorf Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Drill Operators
MAIN ELECTRIC: Arredondo Suit Removed to C.D. California
MARATHON PETROLEUM: Mandel Suit Removed to C.D. California
MARK ZUCKERBERG: Court Tosses Johnson's Amended Complaint
MARTEN TRANSPORT: Jackson Suit Removed to C.D. California
MATCH GROUP INC: N.D. Texas Grants Bid to Dismiss Baker BIPA Suit
MCDONALD'S USA: Williams Sues Over Sale of Contaminated Burgers
MEAD JOHNSON: Taylor Suit Removed to N.D. California
MIDNIGHT HUB: Hermann Sues Over Unregistered Securities
MIGUEL PAREDES: Leduc Sues Over Losses Suffered Under ERISA
MILO'S POULTRY: Abdullah Sues Over Salmonella Contamination
MONEYGRAM PAYMENT: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Krayzman Says
MONSANTO COMPANY: Smith Suit Transferred to N.D. California
MORENA GLOBAL: Martinez Files TCPA Suit to M.D. Florida
MULTIPLAN INC: COSL Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.
MULTIPLAN INC: Noble Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
MY DOCTORS LIVE: Connor Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina
MYSTIC VALLEY: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Avallone Claims
NANO NUCLEAR: Court Appoints Hongyu Xie as Lead Plaintiff
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Plaintiffs in Colon Suit Can Amend Complaint
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in D. Oregon
NEW YORK BEER CO: Sumlin Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
NEW YORK: Arbeeny Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
NEW YORK: Urban Justice Center Sue Over Homeless Sweeps
NICE-PAK PRODUCTS: Court Denies Bid for Judgment in Federal Suit
NLV FINANCIAL: Overcharges Insurance Policies, Virani Suit Says
NOBU RESTAURANT: Zhang Seeks Website's Equal Access to Blind Users
NORMS RESTAURANTS: Casillas Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
OMNI FAMILY HEALTH: Aguirre Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Arizona Court Refuses to Dismiss Williams Suit
PERMIAN RESOURCES: Faces Cavaliere Over Price Fixing Conspiracy
POPLIN TECHNOLOGIES: Bradford Sues Over Invasion of Privacy
PROJECT NEPTUNE: Faces Garritty Suit Over Refusal of Refund Request
RAHAL BIOSCIENCES: Diatlova Sues Over Armra Colostrum's False Ads
RBC CAPITAL: Faces Uzel Suit Over Unfair Cash Sweeps Programs
RRCA ACCOUNTS: Chestnut Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach
SM ENERGY: George Appeals Attorney's Fees Ruling in Chieftain Suit
SPECIALTYCARE INC: Barta Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SRG GLOBAL: 3M's and Atotech's Bids to Dismiss Peeler Suit Denied
TARGET CORP: Court Tosses Amended Complaint in Panelli Suit
TRULIEVE INC: Sued Over Unlawful Tracking Technology
UBISOFT ENTERTAINMENT: Cassell Sues Over Game's Limited License
UPMC: Plaintiffs in Harrington, et al. Suit Can Amend Complaint
VETERANS GUARDIAN: Filing for Ford Class Cert. Due Feb. 15, 2025
VIA RENEWABLES: Class Cert Bid Filing in Clark Due Dec. 16
VIPRI CORP: General Pretrial Managent Order Entered in Cuesta
VISA INC: Broadway Grill Sues Over Anti-Competitive Conduct
VIVENDI TICKETING: Fortune Sues Over Misleading Event Ticket Fees
YNY COSMOPOLITAN: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fernandez Says
*********
3M COMPANY: Baldwin Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Baldwin, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD. CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:24-cv-05338-RMG
(D.S.C., Sept. 26, 2024), is brought for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic
chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances
("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic
acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and
related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or
PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to
develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged
herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further
seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from
the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with bladder cancer
as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Constantine Venizelos, Esq.
CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP
737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440
Cleveland, OH 44115
Phone: 216-815-9000
Facsimile: 216-274-9365
3M COMPANY: Ballard Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Ballard, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD. CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:24-cv-05357-RMG
(D.S.C., Sept. 26, 2024), is brought for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic
chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances
("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic
acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and
related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or
PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to
develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged
herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further
seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from
the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with thyroid
disease and thyroid cancer as a result of exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Constantine Venizelos, Esq.
CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP
737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440
Cleveland, OH 44115
Phone: 216-815-9000
Facsimile: 216-274-9365
3M COMPANY: Borjon Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Borjon, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD. CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:24-cv-05339-RMG
(D.S.C., Sept. 26, 2024), is brought for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic
chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances
("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic
acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and
related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or
PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to
develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged
herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further
seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from
the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with pancreatic
cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Constantine Venizelos, Esq.
CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP
737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440
Cleveland, OH 44115
Phone: 216-815-9000
Facsimile: 216-274-9365
3M COMPANY: Brightenburg Sues Over Exposure to Aqueous Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
George Brightenburg, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD. CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No.
2:24-cv-05335-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 26, 2024), is brought for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per
and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
Malignant neoplasm of kidney as a result of exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frederick T. Kuykendall, III, Esq.
THE KUYKENDALL GROUP, LLC
23710 US Hwy A-1
Fairhope, AL 36532
Phone: (205) 252-6127
Facsimile: (205) 449-1132
Email: ftk@thekuykendallgroup.com
3M COMPANY: Crutcher Sues Over Exposure to Film-Forming Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Crutcher, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD. CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:24-cv-05340-RMG
(D.S.C., Sept. 26, 2024), is brought for personal injury resulting
from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
Lung Cancer, Liver Cancer as a result of exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frederick T. Kuykendall, III, Esq.
THE KUYKENDALL GROUP, LLC
23710 US Hwy A-1
Fairhope, AL 36532
Phone: (205) 252-6127
Facsimile: (205) 449-1132
Email: ftk@thekuykendallgroup.com
3M COMPANY: Lesure Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Lesure, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; AMEREX CORPORATION;
ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION
(f/k/a UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.); CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.;
CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT
CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS,
INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT, INC.); DYNAX
CORPORATION; EIDP, INC. (f/k/a E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY); FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS,
INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC.; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC;
LION GROUP, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY
LLC; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MSA SAFETY, INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY
SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.;
PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP; RICOCHET
MANUFACTURING CO., INC.; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES,
INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY FC, LLC; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION (n/k/a RTX CORPORATION); TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP;
VERIDIAN LIMITED; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.; W.L. GORE &
ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-06291-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 1,
2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter
turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS
includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA")
and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish extremely
hot fires involving materials like alcohol, petroleum greases, and
other flammable or combustible liquids and gases ("Class B Fires").
AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian
firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to
Class B Fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for
heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in
hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal
liner, a moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers
contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional
PFAS.
The Defendants, individually and collectively, designed, marketed,
developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users on,
produced instructional materials for, promoted, sold, handled,
used, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or
TOG or underlying chemicals that were added to AFFF or TOG, with
knowledge that the AFFF or TOG or underlying chemicals contained
highly toxic and biopersistent PFAS, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
The AFFF or TOG containing PFAS was used in fire emergency
responses, fire suppression systems, live fire training, and fire
preparedness equipment testing ("Firefighting Activities"). PFAS
bind to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and
remain and persist over long periods of time. Due to their unique
chemical structure, PFAS accumulate in the blood and bodies of
exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body and present significant health risks to humans.
During his career as a firefighter, Plaintiff regularly used and
was exposed to Defendants' AFFF containing PFAS chemicals and/or
their precursory chemicals. Over the course of his firefighting
career, Plaintiff attended firefighting trainings, including but
not limited to trainings regarding fire suppression, where he was
exposed to AFFF and TOG. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF
and/or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended
manner, without significant change in the products' condition.
Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of Defendants'
AFFF and/or TOG products and relied on Defendants' instructions
regarding the proper handling of the products.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF and/or TOG products at various locations. Plaintiff further
seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from
the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and/or TOG in training and to extinguish fires during their
working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was
diagnosed with Hypothyroidism as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of
PFAS containing AFFF or TOG products or underlying PFAS-containing
chemicals used in the production of AFFF or TOG products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew Haynie, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 North St. Paul Street, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: (214) 210-2100
Facsimile: (214) 346-5909
Email: matthew@foresterhaynie.com
3M COMPANY: Ruley Sues Over Contaminated Drinking Water
-------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Ruley, Robert Ruley, Anna Swietlik, Albert Swietlik,
Catherine Condon, Perry Condon, and Joanne Skokan, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE 3M COMPANY,
ARKEMA INC., BASF CORPORATION, CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC., CHEMGUARD,
INC., CORTEVA, INC., DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS
INC., DYNAX CORPORATION, E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, and THE CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-06281-RMG (D. Mass., Oct. 6, 2024), is
brought against the Defendants for harm resulting from the
contamination of their drinking water, bodies, and real property
with hazardous levels of toxic, carcinogenic chemicals
manufactured, supplied, and/or sold by Defendants.
Nantucket, known for its beauty and historic appeal, now faces a
concerning issue: the contamination of its drinking water supply
with PFAS chemicals. These per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances,
often referred to as "forever chemicals," have entered Nantucket's
groundwater, raising alarms about the long-term safety of this
vital resource, affecting the island's reputation for purity and
tranquility, and necessitating immediate and deliberate action.
The health implications for Plaintiffs and Nantucket residents are
significant. PFAS exposure has been associated with a range of
health problems, including certain cancers, thyroid disorders, and
developmental issues. The contamination of Nantucket's water supply
adds a layer of uncertainty for families, such as Plaintiffs and
their loved ones, who have long valued Nantucket as a healthy and
safe environment. Ensuring safe drinking water is now a priority to
maintain the well-being of those who call the island home.
The contamination will also have repercussions for property values
on the island. Prospective buyers will likely be wary of health
risks and the possible financial burden of dealing with PFAS
contamination. Nantucket's appeal as a desirable destination could
therefore be impacted as the community works to address this
environmental challenge, potentially affecting the local real
estate market. Nantucket's future depends on its ability to restore
confidence in its water quality and safeguard its unique charm.
The Defendants knew the chemicals and/or products to be unsafe but
represented the opposite and continued manufacturing and selling
the chemicals. Defendants failed to warn Plaintiffs, members of the
Class, and the public of specific, substantial risks to human
health, profiting immensely, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are residents of Nantucket, Massachusetts whose
property, drinking water, and bodies have been contaminated with
toxic, carcinogenic perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances
("PFAS") chemicals.
The Defendants are the companies responsible for designing,
manufacturing, selling, supplying, and/or distributing the
chemicals and/or products which caused the contamination of
Nantucket's water supplies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sean K. McElligott, Esq.
Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
Johnathan Seredynski, Esq.
Krystyna D. Gancoss, Esq.
Kate Sayed, Esq.
SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
One Landmark Square, 15th Floor
Stamford, CN 06901
Phone: (203) 325-4491
Facsimile: (203) 325-3769
Email: smcelligott@sgtlaw.com
isloss@sgtlaw.com
jseredynski@sgtlaw.com
kgancoss@sgtlaw.com
ksayed@sgtlaw.com
ACCELLION INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Negligence Claim in Brown Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Brown v. Accellion, Inc. Case No.
5:21-cv-01155 (N.D. Calif.), Judge Edward J. Davila of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
denied Accellion's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' negligence claim.
The plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of an earlier order
dismissing their Confidentiality of Medical Information Act claim
is also denied.
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. In
response, Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against
Accellion.
Accellion is a "cloud solutions company" that develops and offers
products for "preventing data breaches and compliance violations
from third party cyber risk." Among Accellion's offerings is a
product called the File Transfer Appliance. Accellion designed the
FTA to securely transfer files as an alternative to email,
particularly in those situations where file sizes exceed the limits
for email attachments.
On December 16, 2020, the FTA's built-in anomaly detector notified
an Accellion client that unauthorized third parties had breached
the system. The client alerted Accellion, and when Accellion
investigated the issue, it confirmed that the FTA contained
security vulnerabilities. Over the following week, Accellion
released patches to address those vulnerabilities. Despite
Accellion's efforts, a second breach occurred on January 20, 2021.
Accellion learned about this breach two days later and identified
two more security vulnerabilities. According to Plaintiffs,
Accellion struggled to fix those vulnerabilities. Plaintiffs allege
that these breaches exposed their personally identifiable
information, subjecting them to injuries such as identity theft and
fraudulent credit charges.
Motion to Dismiss
In their original Consolidated Class Action Complaint, Plaintiffs
raised eleven claims. Accellion moved to dismiss all eleven claims
and the Court mostly granted Accellion's motion. The Court allowed
Plaintiffs' negligence claim to proceed and dismissed Plaintiffs'
CMIA claim with leave to amend. When Plaintiffs filed their Amended
Complaint, they did not renew their CMIA claim or otherwise attempt
to correct the deficiencies in their CMIA claim. Instead,
Plaintiffs only brought the two claims for which the Court had
denied the motion to dismiss: negligence and one other claim not
pertinent in this case.
Although the Court previously found that the Original Complaint
stated a claim for negligence, Accellion moved again to dismiss
that same claim from the Amended Complaint. In its motion,
Accellion challenges only one element of Plaintiffs' renewed
negligence claim, arguing that the amended allegations do not
establish a special relationship between Accellion and Plaintiffs
such that Accellion owed a duty of care to Plaintiffs. After the
parties finished briefing this second motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs
requested permission to file a motion for reconsideration of the
Court's Prior Order dismissing their CMIA claim.
California courts consider whether four factors are present when
determining if a special relationship exists:
(1) dependence,
(2) control,
(3) limits to the scope of the community to which a duty of care
is owed, and
(4) benefits to the duty-holder.
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.
Motion for Reconsideration
In its Prior Order, the Court found that Plaintiffs failed to state
a CMIA claim because they did not allege facts showing that
Accellion was a "provider of health care" covered by the CMIA.
Specifically, the Court held that Accellion did not meet the
definitions for a provider of health care under either of
California Civil Code Secs. 56.06(a) or (b). The Court held that,
in the Original Complaint, Plaintiffs failed to show that Accellion
fell under the Sec. 56.06(a) definition because Plaintiffs'
allegations were insufficient. Plaintiffs made only two
allegations about Accellion's purpose. The first allegation was
conclusory and therefore insufficient under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) . The second allegation
was not conclusory, but it was insufficient to plead purpose by
itself. Plaintiffs alleged that Accellion sold its file-sharing
services to hospitals and other medical professionals. But this
showed only that hospitals and medical professionals had discovered
that Accellion's products could be useful, not that Accellion had
purposefully designed its products to appeal to medical
professionals. So, the Court accepted Accellion's argument that
there was a "lack of pleaded facts suggesting that Accellion is
organized at all for the purpose" required by Sec. 56.06(a).
The Court points out Accellion's motion for reconsideration does
not address this pleading defect. Instead, Accellion focuses on a
statutory interpretation dispute that the parties had raised in
their briefs on the first motion to dismiss but that the Court did
not address in the Prior Order: Whether Sec. 56.06(a) requires
Plaintiffs to plead that maintaining medical information was
Accellion's sole purpose or if it is enough that maintaining such
information was one of Accellion's purposes.
Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lhfDng
ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Lopez Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Arnulfo Lopez, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ADVANCED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, INC., a
Delaware corporate; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
24CV448362 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Santa Clara, to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, on Nov. 1, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-07582.
The Plaintiff's first cause of action is for the alleged failure to
pay minimum wages and straight time wages for all hours worked. The
Plaintiff's second cause of action is for the alleged failure to
pay overtime compensation pursuant to California Labor Code. In the
third and fourth causes of action, Plaintiff alleges that he and
others were not provided legally compliant meal periods.
Plaintiff's fifth cause of action is a derivative claim for waiting
time penalties for the failure to timely pay wages earned and
unpaid prior to termination, pursuant to California Labor
Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Cory D. Catignani, Esq.
VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 700
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 526-7904
Facsimile: (949) 526-7904
Email: cdcatignani@vorys.com
ADVANCED RECOVERY: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Laurentz Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANAMARI LAURENTZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ADVANCED RECOVERY EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES LLC,
Case No. 1:24-cv-07701 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 4, 2024) sues the Defendant
for failing to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class
Members' sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII") and
personal health information ("PHI"), which, as a result, is now in
criminal cyberthieves' possession.
In June and July 2023, hackers targeted and accessed Defendant's
network systems and stole Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive,
confidential PII and PHI stored therein, including their names,
street addresses, email addresses and/or phone number(s), Social
Security numbers, dates of birth, driver's license or state-issued
identification numbers, credit or debit card numbers or
information, usernames and passwords associated with online
accounts, health insurance policy information, medical diagnosis
and treatment information, and other sensitive data, causing
widespread injuries to the Plaintiff and Class Members, the suit
says.
The Defendant breached their duties owed to the Plaintiff and Class
Members by failing to implement industry standards for data
security to protect against, detect, and stop cyberattacks, which
failures allowed criminal hackers to access and steal approximately
56,000 patients' Private Information from Defendant's care, the
Plaintiff avers.
Although the Data Breach took place in June and July 2023, the
Defendant failed to detect, investigate, or determine that the
Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information has been
compromised in the Data Breach until Sept. 29, 2024—over a year
after the Data Breach occurred—evidencing Defendant's failure to
implement industry-standard logging, monitoring, and alerting
systems that would have notified it of the unauthorized access when
it occurred, the suit claims.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members
suffered and will continue to suffer concrete injuries in fact,
including: financial costs incurred mitigating the materialized
risk and imminent threat of identity theft; actual identity theft
and fraud; loss of time incurred due to actual identity theft; loss
of privacy; and emotional distress including anxiety and stress in
with dealing with the Data Breach.
The Plaintiff is a former patient of Defendant and received DMES
from the Defendant prior to the Data Breach.
The Defendant is a healthcare provider furnishing durable medical
equipment and supplies and related services ("DMES") to patients
throughout the Tri-State Area and beyond.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven Sukert, Esq.
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
E-mail: sukert@kolawyers.com
ostrow@kolawyers.com
ADVENTHEALTH FOUNDATION: Benore Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Benore, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated v.
ADVENTHEALTH FOUNDATION, INC., Case No. 6:24-cv-02027 (M.D. Fla.,
Nov. 6, 2024), is brought to recover unpaid overtime and other
damages from Defendant and in violation the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA).
The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours in a week. But
the Defendant did not pay for all the hours they worked. Instead,
the Defendant automatically deducted 30 minutes a day from these
employees' work time for so-called meal breaks. the Plaintiff and
the Putative Collective Members were thus not paid for that time.
But the Defendant fails to provide the Plaintiff and the Putative
Collective Members with bona fide meal breaks.
Instead, the Defendant requires the Plaintiff and the Putative
Collective Members to remain on-duty throughout their shifts and
continuously subjects them to interruptions during their unpaid
"meal breaks." The Defendant's auto-deduction policy violates the
FLSA, by depriving the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective
Members of overtime pay for all overtime hours worked.
The Defendant also fails to pay the Plaintiff and the Putative
Collective Members overtime wages at the proper premium rate (the
Defendant's regular rate violations). Specifically, the Defendant
pays the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members
non-discretionary bonuses, which the Defendant intentionally
excludes when calculating their regular rates of pay for overtime
purposes.
The Defendant's exclusion of non-discretionary bonuses from the
calculation of the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members'
overtime premium violates the FLSA by paying overtime wages at
rates less than 1.5 times their regular rates of pay--based on all
remuneration received--for their hours worked over 40 in a
workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an RN in Altamonte
Springs,
Florida.
AdventHealth is a healthcare provider and operates several
hospitals throughout Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 337-7992
Fax: (813) 229-8712
Email: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
bhill@wfclaw.com
- and -
Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
FITZ LAW PLLC
3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200
Houston, TX 77098
Phone: (713) 766-4000
Email: carl@fitz.legal
AGC CHEMICALS: Boggs Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Boggs, and other similarly situated v. AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S.
INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.;
CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB
FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS,
INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC;
GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA,INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY
LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES,
INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI
PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.; a, W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), Case No.
2:24-cv-06290-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 1, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to
develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged
herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further
seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from
the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed
with kidney cancer and other injuries, as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF or TOG products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric W. Cracken, Esq.
Steven D. Davis, Esq.
TORHOERMAN LAW LLC
210 S. Main Street
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Phone: 618-656-4400
Facsimile: 618-656-4401
AGC CHEMICALS: Morton Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bobby Morton, and other similarly situated v. AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.;
CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB
FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS,
INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC;
GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA,INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY
LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES,
INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI
PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.; a, W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), Case No.
2:24-cv-06289-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 1, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to
develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged
herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further
seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from
the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed
with thyroid cancer and other injuries, as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF or TOG products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric W. Cracken, Esq.
Steven D. Davis, Esq.
TORHOERMAN LAW LLC
210 S. Main Street
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Phone: 618-656-4400
Facsimile: 618-656-4401
ALIBABA GROUP: Final Settlement Hearing Scheduled for March 27
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge George B. Daniels of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York ordered that the conference scheduled
for November 6, 2024, is adjourned to March 27, 2025 at 10:00 a.m.
for a final hearing to determine whether to approve the proposed
class action settlement in the case captioned as Ciccarello v.
Alibaba Group Holding Limited et al, Case 1:20-cv-09568-GBD-JW
(S.D.N.Y.).
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GrM8p9
ALPHA METALLURGICAL: Wriston Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Fuelers
--------------------------------------------------------------
ARRON WRISTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALPHA METALLURGICAL RESOURCES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00626 (S.D. W. Va., October 31, 2024)
is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Mr. Wriston has been employed by the Defendant as a fueler from
approximately April 2023 to the present.
Alpha Metallurgical Resources, Inc. is a mining company
headquartered in Bristol, Tennessee. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Majestro, Esq.
Graham B. Platz, Esq.
POWELL & MAJESTRO P.L.L.C.
405 Capitol Street, Suite 807
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 346-2889
Facsimile: (304) 346-2895
Email: amajestro@powellmajestro.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@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
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
AMERICAN BICYCLE: Blaker Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Blaker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE AMERICAN BICYCLE GROUP, LLC, a Tennessee limited
liability company; DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
2:24-cv-09429 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 31, 2024), is brought for violations
of California Trap and Trace Law unlawful disclosure of data.
The Defendant operates https://www.quintanarootri.com (the
"Website"). Defendant has installed on its Website software created
by TikTok in order to identify website visitors (the "TikTok
Software"). The TikTok Software acts via a process known as
"fingerprinting." Put simply, the TikTok Software collects as much
data as it can about an otherwise anonymous visitor to the Website
and matches it with existing data TikTok has acquired and
accumulated about hundreds of millions of Americans.
The Defendant's website instantly sends communications to TikTok
when a user lands, and every time a user clicks on a page. The
right side of the image shows the various TikTok scripts being run
by Defendant, and the electronic impulses being sent to TikTok to
add to their collection of user behavior.
California law defines a "trap and trace device" as "a device or
process that captures the incoming electronic or other impulses
that identify the originating number or other dialing, routing,
addressing, or signaling information reasonably likely to identify
the source of a wire or electronic communication, but not the
contents of a communication."
The TikTok Software is a process to identify the source of
electronic communication by capturing incoming electronic impulses
and identifying dialing, routing, addressing, and signaling
information generated by users, who are never informed that the
website is collaborating with the Chinese government to obtain
their phone number and other identifying information. The Defendant
did not obtain Class Members' express or implied consent to be
subjected to data sharing with TikTok for the purposes of
fingerprinting and de-anonymization, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff visited the Defendants' website
The Defendant is a retailer offering bicycles, swimming attire, and
other athletic accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Tauler, Esq. (SBN 241964)
Matthew J. Smith, Esq. (SBN 240353)
TAULER SMITH LLP
626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 927-927
Email: robert@taulersmith.com
matthew@taulersmith.com
AMERICAN MODULAR: Rodriguez Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gaspar Rodriguez, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AMERICAN MODULAR SYSTEMS, INC., Case No.
2:24-at-01392 (E.D. Cal., Oct. 31, 2024), is brought under the
Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") and the California Labor
Code, for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Unfair
Competition Law as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay all
wages.
The core violations Plaintiff alleges against Defendant are:
failure to pay all contractual wages owed; failure to pay all
overtime wages owed; failure to pay all minimum wages owed; failure
to provide timely meal periods, and/or provide appropriate
compensation in lieu thereof; failure to provide timely, complete,
rest periods, and/or provide appropriate compensation in lieu
thereof; and failure to reimburse employees for necessary business
expenditures, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants.
American Modular Systems, Inc. (hereinafter "Defendant"), a
California corporation, conducted and conducts business throughout
the United States, including in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stan S. Malliso, Esq.
Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
Dan Keller, Esq.
MALLISON & MARTINEZ
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
Oakland, CA 94549
Phone: 510-832-9999
Facsimile: 510-832-1101
Email: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com
HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com
DKeller@TheMMLawFirm.com
ARCH RESOURCES: Collins Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Justin Collins, individually and for others similarly situated v.
ARCH RESOURCES, INC., Case No. 5:24-cv-00628 (S.D. Va., Oct. 31,
2024), is brought to recover unpaid wages and other damages from
the Defendant in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The Defendant's pre/post shift off the clock policy violates the
FLSA by depriving the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees of
overtime wages when they work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
Additionally, The Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and the
other Hourly Employees at least 1.5 times their regular rates of
pay--based on all remuneration--for the hours they work in excess
of 40 a workweek.
Instead, The Defendant pays the Plaintiff and the other Hourly
Employees non-discretionary safety and production bonuses, bonuses
for actively participating in safety meetings, as well as shift
differentials, that The Defendant fails to include in their regular
rates of pay for the purpose of calculating their overtime rates of
pay (The Defendant's "bonus pay scheme"). The Defendant's bonus pay
scheme violates the FLSA by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and
the other Hourly Employees at 1.5 times their regular rates of
pay--based on all remuneration--for all hours worked in excess of
40 a workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a coal miner from
January 2021 to October 2023.
Arch owns, operates, and controls coal mines and related operations
in Colorado, West Virginia, and Wyoming.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony Majestro, Esq.
Graham B. Platz, Esq.
POWELL & MAJESTRO, PLLC
405 Capitol Street, Suite 1200
Charleston, WV 25301
Phone: 304-346-2889
Fax: 304-346-2895
Email: amajestro@powellmajestro.com
gplatz@powellmajestro.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
Email: 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
Phone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: 713-877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
B. BRAUN: Motion for Judgment on Pleadings in Noetic Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the motion for
judgment on the pleadings filed by plaintiff in the case captioned
as NOETIC SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY n/k/a PROASSURANCE SPECIALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a NOETIC SPECIAL INSURANCE, Plaintiff, v. B.
BRAUN MEDICAL, INC., et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 22-2398
(E.D. Pa.). The cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by
defendants is denied.
The Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff against Defendants
on Plaintiff's Counts I and II and on Counts I, II, III, and IV of
Defendants' counterclaim.
The Court held that the Plaintiff has no duty to defend or
indemnify Defendants in the litigation pending in:
(i) the class action styled as Mourad Abdelaziz v B. Braun
Medical, Inc., Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas Case No.
2020-C-1984, and
(ii) the individual actions described in Plaintiff's First
Amended Declaratory Judgment Complaint.
The case is closed.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jHIOku
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Denies Ramirez's Bid for Document Production
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, Eureka Division, denies the
Plaintiffs' motion to compel production of documents and
information in the lawsuit entitled ANTHONY RAMIREZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
4:22-cv-00859-YGR (N.D. Cal.).
Now pending before the Court is a jointly-filed letter brief
setting forth four discovery disputes through which the Plaintiffs
wish to compel the production of documents and information falling
into three categories, as well as a response to the Plaintiffs'
narrowed Interrogatory ("ROG").
The Court has previously set forth the background of this putative
class-action case through which the Plaintiffs (a number of bank
customers, who were assessed certain sums in the nature of
overdraft and insufficient funds fees) allege that they were misled
by the Defendant's (hereafter, "the Bank") public statements
regarding pandemic-related financial hardship programs.
The Plaintiffs seek an order compelling the production of three
categories of documents: (1) documents showing changes to
business-as-usual practices; (2) documents governing and analyzing
the implementation of the COVID Client Assistance Program ("CAP");
and, (3) documents attached to, or referenced in previously
produced documents.
The issues concerning the discovery disputes pending before the
Court have been adequately set forth in the Parties' Letter Brief
and, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil
Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds the matter suitable for 28
disposition without oral argument.
As to the first category -- the Plaintiffs seek, as they did
before, internal documents from the Bank concerning its return to
business-as-usual practices vis-a-vis the alterations to the cap on
fee refunds. The Plaintiffs seek documents concerning this change
because of their asserted relevance to the truth of the Bank's
public representations during this period -- including the Bank's
desire to help its customers.
As to the second category -- the Plaintiffs seek internal
documentation governing and analyzing the Bank's implementation of
its pandemic-era fee relief program. Specifically, the Plaintiffs
seek: (1) the Deposit Team Cap Playbook document that the Bank
consulted when determining the relief it would offer in response to
Covid-19; (2) certain email correspondence regarding
implementation, termination, and/or administration of the fee
relief program, which appears based on the deposition testimony of
the Bank's witnesses to contain additional information on whether
the Bank fully implemented the pandemic hardship relief it
promised; and, (3) documents or reports concerning customer
complaints and the daily, weekly, and monthly data on client
hardship requests that informed the Bank's decision-making
regarding its fee relief program.
With regards to the third category -- the Plaintiffs seek
subsequent and/or updated versions of a certain internal Bank
document (referred to as Exhibit 82) discussing the fee relief
program. More specifically, the Plaintiffs want multiple versions
of the document because they contend that it contains statements
and communications the Bank made to customers across various
platforms during the pandemic, and the Plaintiffs submit that those
statements may have evolved or been updated as the pandemic
progressed. They also want any documents attached to and/or
referenced in another internal document (referred to as Deposition
Exhibit 83), which is a policy change document memorializing the
Bank's implementation of its fee relief program.
As to relevance and proportionality, the Plaintiffs submit that
subsequent changes to these statements, as the fee relief program
or other programs changed, bear directly on customers'
understanding of the relief the Bank claimed to be offering and how
the Bank intended for its statements to be understood.
As to the fourth subject of the discovery dispute -- the Plaintiffs
seek a response to ROG 16, which asks the Bank to identify and
briefly describe the COVID relief programs it implemented, along
with their start and end dates. The Plaintiffs state that despite
their agreement to narrow the initial list to 16 programs, and then
to further reduce it to the 8 programs listed on the Bank's still
publicly available Coronavirus Fact Sheet, the Bank rejected these
proposals.
For the reasons stated by the Bank, the Court disagrees with the
Plaintiffs' arguments about relevance and proportionality.
As to internal communications generally, the Bank responds by
noting that the Plaintiffs' previous requests to compel this sort
of internal documentation were rejected as only marginally relevant
(if not outright irrelevant) and disproportionate to the needs of
the case; and the fact that they have now elicited deposition
testimony identifying certain documents does not moot the Court's
order.
As to the Plaintiffs' efforts to seek discovery into other products
(both pandemic-era products that are not at issue in this case, and
pre-pandemic products) -- the Bank argues that discovery into these
areas is irrelevant and disproportionate to the needs of the case.
Judge Illman opines that the Bank correctly points out that the
Court previously rejected the Plaintiffs' effort to compel
discovery related to the Bank's other pandemic-era policies,
practices, and procedures (which are not at issue in this case).
Given the essence of the Plaintiffs' case, Judge Illman opines, the
wide-ranging discovery at issue here consists of inquiries and
information that the Court finds irrelevant. The Plaintiffs'
disagreement with the Bank's interpretation of this Court's prior
discovery order is not well founded, Judge Illman says.
Judge Illman points out, among other things, that the Plaintiffs
have failed to show that the documents and information that they
seek here are relevant to any claim or defense in this case.
Because the Plaintiffs have failed to establish relevance or
proportionality, for the reasons stated by the Bank, the Court
finds -- as it did before -- that the information and documents
that the Plaintiffs seek are not relevant to whether the Bank's
public statements were misleading or whether any Plaintiffs relied
on those statements, and that searching for and producing this
information would be disproportionate to the needs of the case.
Accordingly, the Court denies that Plaintiffs' request to compel
this information.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 30, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8m8b7wh from PacerMonitor.com.
BETTER MORTGAGE: Prosser Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Christopher Prosser, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Better Mortgage Corporation,
Case No. 24JE-CC00934 was removed from the Circuit Court of
Jefferson County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri on Nov. 7, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-01493 to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Better Mortgage Corporation -- https://better.com/ -- is a direct
lender dedicated to providing a fast, transparent digital mortgage
experience backed by superior customer support.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Madelaine Newcomb, Esq.
THOMPSON COBURN LLP - St. Louis
One US Bank Plaza, Suite 2700
St. Louis, MO 63101
Phone: (314) 552-6000
Email: mnewcomb@thompsoncoburn.com
BIO-LAB INC: Ekpe et al. Sue Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
-------------------------------------------------------------
TAMEKA EKPE, ALIDU YALLAH, ANTONIO DAVIS, and JEFFREY COLEMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. BIO-LAB, INC. and KIK CONSUMER PRODUCTS, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-05079-SEG (N.D. Ga., November 5, 2024)
asserts claims for negligence, nuisance, strict liability,
trespass, and medical monitoring in connection with Defendants'
alleged violations of certain state, and local laws, ordinances,
and regulations.
On Sunday, September 29, 2024, at approximately 5:30 A.M., a fire
suppression sprinkler at Defendants' manufacturing facility
activated, spraying water onto chemicals inside the plant, causing
a chemical reaction that produced hazardous gas. The incident also
caused a fire on the roof of the facility, which caused the roof to
collapse. Moreover, the uncontrolled chemical reaction, fire, and
damage to the facility caused hazardous chemicals, including
chlorine-based pool chemicals, to stream into the air and
throughout the surrounding community, says the suit.
Headquartered in Concord, Ontario, Canada, Bio-Lab, Inc. operates a
chemical manufacturing facility on Old Covington Highway in
Conyers, Rockdale County, Georgia. It manufactures pool and spa
chemicals under brands including BioGuard, SpaGuard, ProGuard, Pro
Series, Spa Essentials, Natural Chemistry, SeaKlear, and AquaPill.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Nathan Wade, Esq.
WADE LAW FIRM
1827 Powers Ferry Rd.
Bldg. 25 Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (770) 303-0700
E-mail: nathan@nwadelawfirm.com
- and -
Chantel Cherry-Lassiter, Esq.
WADE LAW FIRM
1827 Powers Ferry Rd.
Bldg. 25 Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (770) 303-0700
E-mail: chantel@nwadelawfirm.com
CANNABOY TREEHOUSE: Turner Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tavon Turner, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CANNABOY TREEHOUSE LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-08296
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2024), is brought against Defendant for their
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's
Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website,
www.cannaboytreehouse.com and therefore its denial of the goods and
services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's
Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired
consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA.
Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content while
using the computer.
CANNABOY TREEHOUSE LLC, is a New Jersey Limited Liability company
that owns and maintains a physical dispensary in South Orange, New
Jersey and associated Website, www.cannaboytreehouse.com..[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (212) 227-5700
Fax: (212) 656-1889
Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
CASH LINK USA: Canada Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cash Link USA, LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Tennille Canada, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cash Link USA, LLC, John
Does 1-10, Case No. 1:24-cv-01358 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 7, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Cash Link USA -- https://www.cashlinkusa.com/ -- is a
state-licensed direct lender for short-term online loans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nayeem N. Mohammed, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NAYEEM N. MOHAMMED
539 W. Commerce St., Ste 1899
Dallas, TX 75208
Phone: (972) 767-9099
Email: nayeem@nnmpc.com
- and -
Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD
2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181 x114
Fax: (630) 575-8188
Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
CERVERA REAL ESTATE: Hernandez Suit Seeks to Recover Proper Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILDALIA HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff v. CERVERA REAL ESTATE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-24341-RNS (S.D. Fla., November 5, 2024)
is a class action accusing the Defendant of violating the mandatory
minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a salesperson from
approximately May 17, 2021 through March 2023. Allegedly, the
Defendant has a longstanding policy of misclassifying its employees
as purported independent contractors. In doing so, the Defendant
required and/or permitted Plaintiff, and others similarly situated,
to work as realtors on their property in excess of 40 hours per
week but refused to compensate them at the applicable minimum wage
and overtime rates, alleges the suit.
Headquartered in Miami-Dade County, Florida, Cervera Real Estate,
Inc. is a domestic corporation engaged in real estate sales,
marketing, finance, and development, with operations throughout the
United States, and internationally. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond R. Dieppa, Esq.
FLORIDA LEGAL, LLC
261 N.E. 1st Street, Suite 502
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 901-2209
Facsimile: (786) 870-4030
E-mail: ray.dieppa@floridalegal.law
CHEFS' WAREHOUSE: Monzon Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Francisco Robledi Fuentes Monzon, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE CHEFS'
WAREHOUSE, INC.; THE CHEFS' WAREHOUSE WEST COAST, LLC; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV24965 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, on Nov. 1, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-09496.
The Plaintiff's Complaint purports to bring his claims on behalf of
himself and a class based on alleged violations of the California
Labor Code, seeking to recover among other claims, unpaid wages,
including minimum wages; overtime wages; meal and/or rest periods;
accurate wage statements; timely payment of wages upon discharge or
resignation; failure to maintain accurate records of all hours
worked; and failure to reimburse all necessary business
expenses.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michele J. Beilke, Esq.
Julia Y. Trankiem, Esq.
Alexander W. Simon, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
601 South Figueroa Street | Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793
Phone: (213) 270-9600
Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
Email: mbeilke@seyfarth.com
jtrankiem@seyfarth.com
asimon@seyfarth.com
CHERYL LYNN BAILEY: Day Files Suit in D. Minnesota
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cheryl Lynn Bailey,
M.D., et al. The case is styled as Roger Jerome Day, M.D. -
assistance needed to identify and list all similarly situated and
affected citizens v. Cheryl Lynn Bailey, M.D.; Janet Silversmith,
Elizabeth Cowan Wright, Federal Bar Association, Case No.
0:24-cv-04122-ECT-DLM (D. Minn., Nov. 5, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Racketeer/Corrupt Organization for
the Racketeering (RICO) Act.
Dr. Cheryl Bailey is a Board-Certified Gynecologic Oncologist.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
CKS PACKAGING: Fails to Secure Employees' Info, Green Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
TEASHIA GREEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. C.K.S. PACKAGING INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-05062-SDG (N.D.
Ga., Nov. 4, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to properly
secure and safeguard Plaintiff and the Class's highly sensitive
personally identifiable information ("PII") and private health
information ("PHI").
The suit says that the Defendant confirmed that an unauthorized
actor accessed Defendant's systems on Dec. 22, 2023. The Defendant
sent notice to those potentially affected by its services starting
in October 2024. The potentially impacted Private Information
contained name, social security number, financial information,
medical information and/or other health information.
Now, the PII and PHI is in the hands of cybercriminals who will use
the sensitive information for an unlimited time. Because of the
Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members suffered ascertainable
losses in the form of the losses, out-of-pocket expenses, and the
value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the
effects of the attack and the substantial and imminent risk of
identity theft, the suit asserts.
Plaintiff Green was an employee of CKS prior to the Data Breach.
Thus, CKS obtained and maintained Plaintiff Green's Private
Information.
CKS is a nationwide manufacturer and global supplier of
extrusion/blow and injection molded rigid plastic containers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ainsworth G. Dudley, Esq.
DUDLEY LAW, LLC
Atlanta, GA 30355
Telephone: (404) 687-8205
E-mail: adudleylaw@gmail.com
- and -
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com
COMMODORE PLAZA: Longhini Sues Over Discriminative Property
-----------------------------------------------------------
Doug Longhini, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. COMMODORE PLAZA, LLC, and BIANCO FINE FOODS LLC d/b/a
BIANCO GELATO, Case No. 1:24-cv-24345-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 5,
2024), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's
discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him
access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the
commercial property and restaurant and bar business within the
commercial property.
Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of
Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities
accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided
commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act.
The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant
lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since
1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who
are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of
Defendants' property and the businesses.
The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property, and the business
located within the Commercial Property and Restaurant Property to
be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered
architectural barriers at the Commercial Property, Restaurant
Property, and businesses located within the Commercial Property and
wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises.
The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property, Restaurant
Property, and businesses located within the Commercial Property.
The barriers to access at the Commercial Property and businesses
located within the Commercial Property have each denied or
diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property,
Restaurant Property, and businesses located within the Commercial
Property, and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA.
The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff
by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located
therein, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate.
COMMODORE PLAZA, LLC, owned and operated the commercial buildings
located in Miami, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beverly Virues, Esq.
Armando Mejias, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, Fl 33134
Phone: (305) 553-3464
Primary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com
Secondary Emails: amejias@lawgmp.com
jacosta@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL, 33155
Phone: (305) 350-3103
Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com
COMPASS FLORIDA: Klizner Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Compass Florida, LLC.
The case is styled as Scott Klizner, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Compass Florida, LLC, Case No.
0:24-cv-62101-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 7, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Compass -- https://www.compass-fla.com/ -- is a licensed real
estate broker and abides by Equal Housing Opportunity laws.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com
DADE PLAZA: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property
-------------------------------------------------
Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated mobility-impaired individuals v. DADE PLAZA NORTH LLC and
GOLDEN GLADES PLAZA LLC D/B/A GOLDEN GLADES PLAZA/PILOT AKA MOBIL
PILOT #897, Case No. 1:24-cv-24338-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 5, 2024),
is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation
expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA") as a result of the Defendants' commercial retail plaza
(hereinafter the "Commercial Property") being inaccessible to
people who are disabled.
Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of
Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities
accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided
commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act.
The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant
lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since
1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who
are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of
Defendants' property and the businesses.
The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property, and the business
located within the Commercial Property and Restaurant Property to
be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered
architectural barriers at the Commercial Property, Restaurant
Property, and businesses located within the Commercial Property and
wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises.
The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property, Restaurant
Property, and businesses located within the Commercial Property.
The barriers to access at the Commercial Property and businesses
located within the Commercial Property have each denied or
diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property,
Restaurant Property, and businesses located within the Commercial
Property, and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA.
The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff
by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located
therein, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae
down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate.
DORAL PROJECTS CORP., owns, operates, and oversees the commercial
property all areas open to the public located within 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
Phone: (786) 361-9909
Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
Primary Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com
DAPPER LABS: Court Awards $1.3MM in Attorneys' Fees in Friel Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Victor Marrero of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York entered an order awarding
attorneys' fees, reimbursement of litigation expenses and awards to
plaintiffs in the case captioned as JEEUN FRIEL, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DAPPER
LABS, INC. AND ROHAM GHAREGOZLOU, Defendants, Case No.:
1:21-cv-05837-VM (S.D.N.Y.).
The Court has granted final approval of the Settlement of the class
action.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., appointed by the Court as Lead Counsel
for purposes of the Settlement, has petitioned the Court for an
award of attorneys' fees in compensation for services provided to
Lead Plaintiff Gary Leuis and Named Plaintiff John Austin and the
Settlement Class, along with reimbursement of expenses incurred in
connection with prosecuting this action, and awards to Plaintiffs,
to be paid out of the Settlement Fund established pursuant to the
Settlement.
The Court has reviewed the fee application and the supporting
materials. It has also heard the presentation made by Lead Counsel
during the final approval hearing on September 27, 2024.
The Court entered an order as follows:
1. Rosen Law is awarded one-third of the Settlement Fund or
$1,333,333.33 as attorneys' fees in this action, together with a
proportionate share of the interest earned on the fund, at the same
rate as earned by the balance of the fund, from the date of the
establishment of the fund to the date of payment.
2. Lead Counsel shall be awarded expenses in the amount of
$20,549.07, with interest.
3. Plaintiffs shall be awarded $10,000 each as reimbursement
for their lost time and expenses in connection with their
prosecution of the Action.
4. Except as otherwise provided herein, the attorneys' fees,
reimbursement of expenses, and awards to Plaintiffs shall be paid
in the manner and procedure provided for in the Stipulation.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Nfudbq
DAVID STANLEY DODGE: Prosser Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Christopher Prosser, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. David Stanley Dodge LLC, Case
No. 24JE-CC00905 was removed from the Circuit Court of Jefferson
County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri on Nov. 1, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-01466 to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
David Stanley Dodge LLC -- https://www.davidstanleydodge.com/ -- is
a car dealer in Midwest City, Oklahoma.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Madelaine Newcomb, Esq.
THOMPSON COBURN LLP - St. Louis
One US Bank Plaza, Suite 2700
St. Louis, MO 63101
Phone: (314) 552-6000
Email: mnewcomb@thompsoncoburn.com
DORAL PROJECTS: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property
-----------------------------------------------------
Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated mobility-impaired individuals v. DORAL PROJECTS CORP. and
IL FORNO RISTORANTE CORP D/B/A IL FORNO RISTORANTE, Case No.
1:24-cv-24331-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 5, 2024), is brought for
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result
of the Defendants' commercial retail plaza (hereinafter the
"Commercial Property") being inaccessible to people who are
disabled.
Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of
Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities
accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided
commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act.
The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant
lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since
1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who
are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of
Defendants' property and the businesses.
The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property, and the business
located within the Commercial Property and Restaurant Property to
be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered
architectural barriers at the Commercial Property, Restaurant
Property, and businesses located within the Commercial Property and
wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises.
The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property, Restaurant
Property, and businesses located within the Commercial Property.
The barriers to access at the Commercial Property and businesses
located within the Commercial Property have each denied or
diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property,
Restaurant Property, and businesses located within the Commercial
Property, and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA.
The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff
by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located
therein, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae
down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate.
DORAL PROJECTS CORP., owns, operates, and oversees the commercial
property all areas open to the public located within 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
Phone: (786) 361-9909
Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
Primary Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com
EARN YOUR LEISURE: Brown Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Earn Your Leisure
LLC. The case is styled as Angela Brown, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Earn Your Leisure LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-07615 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Earn Your Leisure -- https://earnyourleisure.com/ -- is a college
business class mixed with pop culture.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ross Howard Schmierer, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
275 Seventh Avenue
10001, Suite 410, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Email: ross@kazlg.com
EAST TENNESSEE: Underpays Security Guards, Westerling Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL WESTERLING, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EAST TENNESSEE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL
ASSOCIATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00445 (E.D. Tenn.,
October 31, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a security guard
employee from approximately December 2020 to September 2023.
East Tennessee Children's Hospital Association, Inc. is a nonprofit
pediatric medical center based in Knoxville, Tennessee. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Forester, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
Facsimile: (469) 399-1070
Email: jay@foresterhaynie.com
ETAIN LLC: Turner Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------
Tavon Turner, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ETAIN, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-08289 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31,
2024), is brought against Defendant for their failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's Website to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website,
www.etain.com and therefore its denial of the goods and services
offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's Website is
not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers;
therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff now
seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's
corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's
Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content while
using the computer.
ETAIN, LLC owns and maintains numerous physical dispensaries
including one in White Plains, New York, which offers for sale,
various cannabis-related products, on the associated Website,
www.etain.com.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (212) 227-5700
Fax: (212) 656-1889
Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
FAST PACE: $1.85 Mil. Settlement in Hutchinson Suit Has Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr., of the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division,
finally approves the $1,850,000 settlement in the lawsuit captioned
CHRISTY HUTCHINSON, CHRISTINA COURTNEY, and KAREN HARRIS,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs v. FAST PACE MEDICAL CLINIC PLLC, d/b/a FAST PACE
HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00511 (M.D. Tenn.).
Pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion for final
approval of class action settlement and approval of service
payments, attorneys' fees, and costs. In support of the motion, the
Plaintiffs filed a declaration of the settlement administrator,
Makenna Snow, and the class member claim form and opt-in consent
form. The Plaintiffs previously filed a copy of the settlement
agreement. One class member, Kathryn Farr, filed an objection to
the claims-made process and amount of the settlement.
The Court held a hearing on the settlement on Oct. 23, 2024. The
Court has reviewed the parties' settlement agreement and Farr's
objections to the settlement agreement.
With regard to Farr's objection to the claims-made process of the
settlement, Judge Campbell says courts in this Circuit routinely
approve settlements requiring Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
class members to opt-in to receive payment and opt-out of a Rule 23
class to be excluded.
The Court finds that this approach is consistent with other similar
settlements approved in the Sixth Circuit and is well suited to the
settlement in this case, particularly as this is a hybrid FLSA
collective and Rule 23 class action. Accordingly, the Court
overrules Farr's objections to the claims-based settlement.
With regard to Farr's objections to the settlement amount and
attorneys' fees, the Court finds that the requested amount of
attorney fees and costs is reasonable in light of the circumstances
of this case.
The Plaintiffs request $616,666.67, including $20,789.19 for
litigation costs incurred to date and $595,877.48 for attorneys'
fees. The requested fees of $595,877.48 represent 32% of the
$1,850,000 total settlement.
The Court finds that it is appropriate to use the percentage of the
fund method and cross reference it with the lodestar method to
account for the total benefit to the settlement class. Moreover,
Judge Campbell explains, the percentage of the fund method has the
advantage of establishing reasonable expectations on the part of
counsel as to their expected recovery, and encouraging early
settlement before substantial fees and expenses have accumulated.
The Court has considered the attorneys' fees in light of the
reasonableness factors and has determined that the Plaintiffs'
counsel achieved a positive result for class members. The Court
acknowledges that the Plaintiffs' counsel also provided services on
a contingency fee basis without guarantee that they would be paid
for their work. Moreover, the Court finds that this action involves
complex issues that require representation by competent counsel and
that the public interest weighs in favor of awarding the requested
fees. Finally, the Plaintiffs' counsel represents that when
cross-referencing the percentage of the fund method with the
lodestar method, the Plaintiffs' counsel used a lodestar multiplier
of 2.06, which is within the range approved in other similar
settlements in the Sixth Circuit.
Having reviewed the Plaintiffs' filings and Farr's objections and
based on the discussion during the hearing, the Court finds the
settlement is a fair and reasonable settlement for the claims
presented. Accordingly, the objections to the settlement are
overruled, and the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the
settlement and for attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of
$616,666.67 is granted. Moreover, due and adequate notice having
been given to the settlement class as required in the Court's Order
preliminarily approving the settlement and providing for notice.
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court affirms its determination in the Preliminary Approval Order
and finally certifies, solely for purposes of effectuating the
Settlement Agreement, a Class defined as: all hourly-paid current
and former employees, who have worked for Fast Pace, or one of its
current or former affiliates, including FPMCM, LLC, in a non-exempt
position and are/were subject to Fast Pace's meal-break deduction
policy and/or have received one or more bonuses that were not
included in their regular rate(s) of pay in: (1) Kentucky at any
time between July 8, 2017, through the date of the Court's
preliminary approval of the Class Action Settlement; (2) Tennessee
at any time between July 8, 2016, through the date of the Court's
preliminary approval of the Class Action Settlement; (3) Indiana at
any time between July 8, 2019, through the date of the Court's
preliminary approval of the Class Action Settlement; (4) Louisiana
at any time between July 8, 2016, through the date of the Court's
preliminary approval of the Class Action Settlement; and (5)
Mississippi at any time between July 8, 2016, through the date of
the Court's preliminary approval of the Class Action Settlement.
These classes are collectively referred to herein as the
"Settlement Class."
The Settlement Class excluded any persons, who completed and
submitted a timely and valid Request for Exclusion in accordance
with the Preliminary Approval Order.
The Court affirms its determination in the Preliminary Approval
Order that, for purposes of this Settlement only, the "Collective
Action Members" as defined in the Parties' Settlement Agreement,
are "similarly situated" to each other and to the Named Plaintiffs,
within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).
Pursuant to Rule 23, the Court approves the Settlement Agreement
and finds that it is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and
adequate and in the best interest of the Settlement Class.
The Court further finds that the Settlement Agreement resolves a
bona fide dispute between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant
regarding the Defendant's alleged liability under the FLSA.
The Court confirms its prior preliminary appointment of Christy
Hutchinson, Christina Courtney, and Karen Harris as Class
Representatives.
The Court confirms its prior preliminary appointment of Nicholas
Conlon and Jason T. Brown of Brown LLC and Justin G. Day of Milberg
Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC, as Class Counsel on behalf
of the Settlement Class Members.
Accordingly, the Court authorizes and directs implementation and
performance of all the terms and provisions of the Settlement
Agreement, as well as the terms and provisions hereof. Except as to
any individual claim of those persons, who completed and submitted
a timely and valid Request for Exclusion in accordance with the
Preliminary Approval Order, the Court dismisses the Litigation and
all claims asserted therein with prejudice. The Plaintiffs and the
Defendant are to bear their own costs, except as and to the extent
provided in the Settlement Agreement and herein.
The objections submitted by Settlement Class Member Kathryn A. Farr
are overruled.
The Court approves: a. the Service Payments in the amount of $7,000
to each of Named Plaintiffs Christy Hutchinson, Christina Courtney,
and Karen Harris, as provided in the Settlement Agreement; b. the
proposed attorneys' fees and costs of Class Counsel, in the amount
of $616,666.67; and c. the proposed payment to the Settlement
Administrator for its expenses in administering the Settlement, in
the amount of $24,000.
The Court directs immediate entry of this Judgment by the Clerk of
the Court. Accordingly, this case is dismissed with prejudice. This
Order will constitute the final judgment in this case pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. The Clerk is directed to close the file.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Oct. 30,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/56ntw33z from
PacerMonitor.com.
FATFACE CORP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fernandez Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEVIN FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Fatface Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-07712 (S.D.N.Y., November 5, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website,
Fatface.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Plaintiff browsed and intended to purchase a jumper provided by
Defendant on its website. Despite his efforts, however, Plaintiff
was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual
due to the website's lack of a variety of features and
accommodations. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts that Defendant
has violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, and/or the laws
of New York by failing to update or remove access barriers on its
website.
Headquartered in New Castle, Delaware, Fatface Corporation owns and
operates the website which provides consumers with access to an
array of apparel and accessories for men, women, kids, and pets.
[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
FCA USA: Court Refuses to Dismiss 2nd Amended Johnson Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Matthew F. Leitman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, denies the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action
Complaint in the lawsuit entitled DORTHEA JOHNSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. FCA USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:20-cv-12690-MFL-DRG (E.D. Mich.).
The Plaintiffs bring this case on behalf of owners or lessors of
Subject Vehicles equipped with uniformly defective interior trim
panels designed, manufactured, distributed, warranted, and
sold/leased by FCA. These panels warp and pull away from the
vehicle frame, leaving gaps between the panel and the frame that
expose the "guts" of the vehicle, including side airbags, wiring,
controls, and electrical components ("the Defect"). Service
personnel refer to the Defect as "delamination" of the panels.
The Subject Vehicles are 2014-2021 Dodge Chargers, Dodge
Challengers, and Chrysler 300s.
On Oct. 28, 2024, the Court held a hearing on Defendant FCA USA,
LLC's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action
Complaint. For the reasons explained on the record during the
motion hearing, the Court denies the motion.
As further discussed on the record, the parties will conduct and
complete all discovery in this action by no later than March 3,
2025. Finally, FCA will file its summary judgment motion by no
later than April 7, 2025.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 30, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4yhuvpdb from PacerMonitor.com.
FI9 COMPLIANCE: Hernandez Files Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FI9 Compliance LLC.
The case is styled as Myriam Hernandez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. FI9 Compliance LLC formerly
known as: Form I-9 Compliance LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-02388-JFW-DFM
(C.D. Cal., Oct. 31, 2024).
The Nature of Suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Form I-9 Compliance, LLC (Fi9) provides enterprise level Form I-9
Auditing, web based electronic I-9 applications, full integration
with the Department of Homeland Security.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
KRISTENSEN LAW GROUP
120 Santa Barbara Street Suite C9
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Phone: (805) 837-2000
Email: john@kristensen.law
- and -
Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
EKSM LLP
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (888) 350-3931
Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com
FLORIDA BOARD: Hernandez Files 11th Cir. Appeal
-----------------------------------------------
STEVEN W. HERNANDEZ, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
in their lawsuit entitled Steven W. Hernandez, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Florida Board of Bar Examiners, et al., Defendants, Case No.
4:21-cv-00247-AW-MAF, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Florida.
The Plaintiffs bring this class action complaint to challenge the
constitutionality of a state statute.
On Aug. 17, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
On Sept. 7, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint.
On Sept. 8, 2021, Judge Allen C. Winsor denied the Defendants'
motion to dismiss as moot.
On Oct. 5, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint for failure to state a claim, which Judge Winsor
granted on Jan. 11, 2022.
On July 7, 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for leave
to amend.
On July 21, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint,
which Judge Winsor denied on Dec. 29, 2022.
On May 5, 2023, the Defendants filed a joint motion for protective
order, which Judge Winsor granted on May 10, 2023.
The appellate case is captioned Steven Hernandez, et al. v. Florida
Board of Bar Examiners, et al., Case No. 24-13543, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on October
29, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants STEVEN W. HERNANDEZ, et al., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Michael DeBenedictis, Esq.
DEBENEDICTIS & DEBENEDICTIS, LLC
1415 Rt. 70 E., Ste. 103
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
Telephone: (856) 795-2101
Defendants-Appellees FLORIDA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS, et al. are
represented by:
James Joseph Dean, Esq.
Robert Andrew McNeely, Esq.
MESSER CAPARELLO, PA
P.O. Box 15579
Tallahassee, FL 32317
Telephone: (850) 222-0720
- and -
William Pafford, Esq.
FLORIDA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS
1891 Eider Ct.
Tallahassee, FL 32399
Telephone: (850) 487-1292
FLORIDA: Faces Wilson Suit Over Prisoners' Poor Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------
DWAYNE WILSON, TYRONE HARRIS, and GARY WHEELER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RICKY DIXON,
in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of
Corrections, FRANCISCO ACOSTA, in his official capacity as Warden
of Dade Correctional Institution, and FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, an agency of the State of Florida, Defendants, Case
No. 1:24-cv-24253 (S.D. Fla., October 31, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Eighth Amendment, the
Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to protect the lives
and health of the people incarcerated at Dade Correctional
Institution (CI). The dormitories lack air conditioning, and to the
extent they ever had functional ventilation systems, those systems
have fallen into abysmal disrepair. As a result, the hot air is
stagnant, fetid, and contaminated with rust, bacteria, and mold.
These conditions cause people incarcerated at Dade CI to suffer,
fall ill, and die, while the Florida Department of Corrections
(FDC) ignores their pleas for relief. The FDC knowingly subjects
the Plaintiffs and the Class to unbearable heat and abysmal air
quality in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
Constitution.
Florida Department of Corrections is an agency of the State of
Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Dante P. Trevisani, Esq.
Ray Taseff, Esq.
Andrew Udelsman, Esq.
FLORIDA JUSTICE INSTITUTE, INC.
40 NW 3rd Street, Suite 200
Miami, FL 33128
Telephone: (305) 358-2081
Facsimile: (305) 358-0910
Email: dtrevisani@floridajusticeinstitute.org
rtaseff@FloridaJusticeInstitute.org
audelsman@FloridaJusticeInstitute.org
GEMMA BY WPDIAMONDS: Riley Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AMANIE RILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffv.GEMMA BY WPDIAMONDS, LLC,Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-08456 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 6, 2024)alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.mygemma.com, is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff,
in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Gemma by Wp Diamonds is a company that operates in the Jewelry &
Watch Retail industry. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher Cohen, Esq.
ASHER COHEN PLLC
2377 56th Dr.
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Tel: (718) 914-9694
GENOMMA LAB: Has Agreed in Harris Suit to Stop Making BPO Product
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California signed the Amended Consent Decree,
pursuant to which the company agreed to stop making its BPO
Product, filed by the parties in the lawsuit styled CHINYERE HARRIS
on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated, and the
general public, Plaintiffs v. GENOMMA LAB USA, INC. and DOES 1 to
50, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00289-JLT-SAB (E.D.
Cal.).
Plaintiff Chinyere Harris and Defendant Genomma Lab USA, Inc., by
and through their respective counsel of record, agree to entry of
this Amended Consent Decree (the "Decree") without contest, and
before any discovery, evidence, or testimony is taken in this
case.
The Plaintiff filed her class action complaint against the
Defendant on March 8, 2024 (the "action") alleging the Defendant
designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold acne treatment products
formulated with benzoyl peroxide ("BPO Products"), that degrade to
benzene when exposed to normal and expected temperatures use,
handing and storage conditions. The Defendant's BPO Product is
Aspexia Acne Treatment Cream formulated with 10% BPO ("Defendant's
BPO Product"). This is the only BPO Product made or sold by the
Defendant.
Benzene is a known human carcinogen linked to blood cancers, and
other adverse health effects. Drug products contaminated with
benzene are deemed misbranded, adulterated, and not legally
available for sale in the United States.
BPO Products are regulated by the U.S. Federal Drug Administration
("FDA") as "drug products"; thus, the Defendant was required to
follow the FDA's regulations on labeling requirements,
manufacturing practices, and product stability to ensure its BPO
Product did not degrade or form contaminants, such as benzene. In
manufacturing BPO Products, benzene is not used nor allowed in any
finished drug product except under a rare exception -- where the
use of benzene is unavoidable to produce a drug product with a
significant therapeutic advantage otherwise not available. In that
instance, benzene must be restricted to two parts per million
(ppm).
The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant's BPO Product does not meet
this rare exception; thus, there should not be any benzene in the
Defendant's BPO Product. The Defendant denies these allegations.
The action was filed on March 8, 2024, by the Plaintiff on behalf
of herself and other consumers similarly situated, who used the
Defendant's BPO Product without knowing they degraded to benzene.
The action was filed after the release of independent testing by
Valisure, LLC, which found on-market acne treatment drugs
formulated with BPO degrade to benzene when exposed to expected
consumer use, handling, and storage conditions and can form levels
of benzene up to 800 times the FDA 2 ppm maximum.
Valisure's methodology and testing has been peer-reviewed and
published in the prestigious epidemiological journal, Environmental
Health Perspectives. However, Valisure's methodology and testing
has also been criticized by industry manufacturers as deficient, as
well as inappropriate for regulatory evaluation under FDA
standards.
In March 2024, the Defendant voluntarily stopped all marketing and
production of its BPO Product and does not intend to continue
selling it in the future.
The parties agree that the Decree will apply only to the Defendant
and its agents, who are involved with the manufacture, processing,
preparing, packing, labeling, holding, marketing, or distribution
of its BPO Product, and will remain in effect until specifically
dissolved or vacated by an Order from this Court.
The Defendant will not resume marketing and production of its BPO
Product in the future unless its manufacturing policies include a
requirement that its BPO Product be tested by an independent third
party to ensure it does not degrade to benzene, under normal and
expected consumer use. Defendant agrees to provide written notice
to the FDA outlining its BPO Product testing protocol before
recommencing any BPO Product production in the future.
To the extent the Defendant retains its BPO Product that has not
been sold, the Defendant will not sell such Inventory BPO Product.
To the extent applicable, the Defendant will maintain records of
the number of Inventory BPO Product, identify where it is stored,
and whether/when it has been destroyed, for one year upon the
issuance of this Decree.
The Defendant represents, that its BPO Product is no longer
available or soon to be unavailable On Market, and that primary
retailers of the Defendant's BPO Product have exhausted, or will
soon exhaust, all stock of the BPO Product. The Defendant further
represents that the BPO Product's market share since 2019 is less
than one-twentieth of one percent of all US Acne Products;
therefore, the current presence of its BPO Product On Market is de
minimis.
To the extent the Defendant locates any BPO Product in its
possession, custody, or control, the Defendant will destroy it. The
Defendant will bear the costs of destruction and will be
responsible for ensuring the destruction is carried out in a way
that complies with all applicable federal and state environmental
laws, and any other applicable federal or state law. To the extent
that the Defendant is under a separate legal obligation to preserve
all or a portion of any products, the Defendant will be allowed to
segregate and keep the products for the duration of such
preservation obligation.
The parties also agree, among other things, that within five (5)
calendar days of the Plaintiff's receipt of the Defendant's
affidavit of compliance with the terms of the Decree, the Plaintiff
will file a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice of the action
with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
41(a)(1)(A)(ii).
A full-text copy of the Court's Amended Consent Decree dated Oct.
30, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5n889ctj from
PacerMonitor.com.
R. Brent Wisner -- rbwisner@wisnerbaum.com -- Stephanie B. Sherman
-- ssherman@wisnerbaum.com -- WISNER BAUM, L.L.P, in Los Angeles,
CA 90025, Attorneys for the Plaintiff.
Paul S. Chan -- pchan@birdmarella.com -- Ashley D. Bowman --
abowman@birdmarella.com -- Abraham Rejwan --
arejwan@birdmarella.com -- BIRD, MARELLA, RHOW, LINCENBERG, DROOKS
& NESSIM, LLP, in Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561, Attorneys for
Defendant Genomma Lab USA, Inc.
GNOME WELLNESS: Turner Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tavon Turner, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. GNOME WELLNESS, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-08283 (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 31, 2024), is brought against Defendant for their failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's Website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website,
www.gnomewellness.com and therefore its denial of the goods and
services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's
Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired
consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA.
Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content while
using the computer.
GNOME WELLNESS, LLC owns and maintains a physical dispensary in
Johnsonville, New York which offers for sale, various hemp-related
products, and the associated Website, www.gnomewellness.com.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (212) 227-5700
Fax: (212) 656-1889
Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
GOLDISH INC: Agostini Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
Lunique Agostini, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Goldish, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-08424 (E.D.N.Y., Nov.
5, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for their failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to services Stadium
Enterprises provides to their non-disabled customers through
https://www.begoldish.com (hereinafter "Begoldish.com" or "the
website"). Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its
website, and therefore denial of its services offered, and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the
"ADA").
Because Defendant's website, Begoldish.com, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change
in Stadium Enterprises' policies, practices, and procedures to 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, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
Begoldish.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials and other programs offered by
Goldish.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: +1 347-941-4715
Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com
HAMPON, VA: Brown Sues Over Illegal Seizure of Vehicles
-------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN BROWN, On behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. CITY OF HAMPTON, VIRGINIA ET AL.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-00128 (E.D. Va., November 5, 2024),
accuses the Defendants of violating the Servicemembers' Civil
Relief Act's (SCRA) bar by executing on automobile liens without
first obtaining a court order as required by the SCRA.
The Plaintiff seeks money damages for conversion against Defendants
Southern Auto Finance Company, LLC (SAFCO), SAFCO Warehouse SPV 1,
and MVTRAC LLC and pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)
for, among other things, the seizure of his automobile by
Defendants, when they had no right to do so, for their failure to
comply with Title 8.1 and with Title 9A of the UCC, for their
wrongful conversion of his vehicle, and for trespass to chattels.
The Plaintiff also alleges damage for violations of the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act in connection with Defendants' said
illegal seizure of Plaintiff’s motor vehicle.
City of Hampton is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of
Virginia. It operates a police department.
The Plaintiff is represented by;
Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
Adam W. Short, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A
Newport News, VA 23601
Telephone: (757) 930-3660
Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
craig@clalegal.com
adam@clalegal.com
HELDRICH ASSOCIATES: Murray Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Properties
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brianna Murray, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. HELDRICH ASSOCIATES, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-10370
(D.N.J., Nov. 7, 2024), is brought arising from the Defendant's
failure to make its digital properties accessible to legally blind
individuals, which violates the effective communication and equal
access requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities
Act ("ADA").
Because Defendant's website, https://www.theheldrich.com/, (the
"Website" or "Defendant's website"), is not equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA.
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. Defendants Website, and its online
information, is heavily integrated with its brick-and-mortar
locations.
Upon visiting Defendant's website, https://www.theheldrich.com/
(hereinafter referred to as "Website"), Plaintiff quickly became
aware of Defendant's failure to maintain and operate its website in
a way to make it fully accessible for herself and for other blind
or visually impaired people. The access barriers make it impossible
for blind and visually-impaired users to enjoy and learn about the
services at https://www.theheldrich.com prior to entering
Defendant's physical location.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its goods and the ability to frequent the
physical locations and other services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the ADA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired person.
The Defendant operates the Theheldrich.com website and advertises,
markets, and operates in the State of New Jersey and throughout the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF DAVID GLANZBERG
123 S. Broad Street, Suite 1640
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Phone: (215) 981-5400
Email: DGlanzberg@aol.com
HELLERS GAS MARYLAND: Gorney Suit Removed to N.D. West Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Mikhail Gorney, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated v. Hellers Gas Maryland Inc., Heller's
Gas, Inc., Case No. CC-19-02023-C-69 was removed from the Circuit
Court of Jefferson County, West Virginia, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of West Virginia on Nov. 6, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00146-GMG to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.
Heller's Gas -- https://www.hellersgas.com/ -- is your hometown
propane supplier providing reliable delivery and service to
residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural
customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen G. Skinner, Esq.
SKINNER LAW FIRM
PO Box 487
Charles Town, WV 25414
Phone: (304) 725-7029
Fax: (304) 725-4082
Email: sskinner@skinnerfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Lyle Washowich, Esq.
BURNS WHITE LLC - PITTSBURGH
Burns White Center
48 26th Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 995-3004
Fax: (412) 995-3300
Email: ldwashowich@burnswhite.com
- and -
Phillip T. Glyptis, Esq.
BURNS WHITE - WHEELING
The Maxwell Centre
32 20th St., Suite 200
Wheeling, WV 26003
Phone: (304) 231-1013
Fax: (304) 233-1363
Email: ptglyptis@burnswhite.com
HERSHEY COMPANY: Dominici Sues Over Unsafe Organic Fluorine
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Dominici, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. THE HERSHEY COMPANY, Case No. 2:24-cv-09414 (C.D. Cal.,
Oct. 31, 2024), is brought on behalf similarly situated consumers
("Class Members") who purchased for personal, family, or household
use, Defendant's chocolate or other confectionery products
("Confectionery Products") which are unfit ordinary purpose because
the packaging in which they are wrapped and sold, which is
essential and integral to the delivery of the product to Plaintiff
and the Class, contain heightened levels of dangerous, unsafe
organic fluorine and/or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
("PFAS").
PFAS are a group of synthetic chemicals which are harmful to both
the environment and humans. PFAS persist and accumulate over time,
and are harmful even at very low levels. Fluorine is an atomic
element present in the molecular structure of PFAS. PFAS is known
as a "forever chemical" because its synthetic molecular structure
is exceedingly strong, such that PFAS do not break down easily.
This is particularly problematic toxic and carcinogenic.
As awareness of carcinogenic PFAS, or "forever chemicals," has
grown, testing to determine the existence and levels of PFAS in
consumer products and packaging has become more common. Recent
tests have shown the existence of PFAS in the packaging of a number
of consumer products. In response to the detection of PFAS in
consumer products or their packaging, bans and phase-outs for
plastic food and candy packaging have been introduced in multiple
U.S. states. Additionally, as of February 2024, the United States
Federal Food and Drug Administration, ("FDA") does not allow the
intended use of PFAS in food packaging.
Notwithstanding the known dangers posed by PFAS and the recent FDA
prohibition of PFAS in food packaging, recent independent testing
has found heightened levels of PFAS in the wrappers or packaging
for Hershey's Confectionery Products. Testing of the wrappers for
Hershey's Confectionery Products revealed PFAS contamination over
10 mg/kg, and readings as high as 81.5 mg/kg of total Fluorine.
Hershey brands itself as a confectioner selling premium products of
the utmost quality, spending extra effort to optimize the value
impression of its packaging compared to its competitors. Hershey
also touts the quality and safety of its products, including the
Confectionery Products' wrappers, to convey a message to consumers
that the Confectionery Products are safe, high-quality,
merchantable, and free of any unwanted substances or
contamination.
Yet, as the recent product testing reveals, Hershey's
representations, warranties, statements, and disclosures are false
and misleading. Contrary to the foregoing, Hershey omits that the
Confectionery Products' wrappers contain dangerous levels of PFAS
and/or organic fluorine, and pose a substantial health risk to
unsuspecting consumers. Neither before nor at the time of purchase
does Hershey notify consumers like Plaintiff that the Confectionery
Products are wrapped in unsafe and harmful wrappers that contain
heightened levels of organic fluorine and/or PFAS, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff has purchased the Confectionery Products from
Defendant.
The Hershey Company is a publicly traded, iconic, multi-brand U.S.
confectionery maker with a multi-billion dollar market share of the
confectionery segment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Allan Kanner, Esq.
Conlee S. Whiteley, Esq.
David J. Stanoch, Esq.
KANNER & WHITELEY, L.L.C.
701 Camp Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (504) 524-5777
Email: a.kanner@kanner-law.com
c.whiteley@kanner-law.com
d.stanoch@kanner-law.com
- and -
Andrew Bizer, Esq.
BIZER & DEREUS
3319 St. Claude Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70117
Phone: (504) 619-9999
Email: andrew@bizerlaw.com
- and -
Peter J. Farnese, Esq.
FARNESE P.C.
700 S. Flower St., Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (310) 356-4668
Email: pjf@farneselaw.com
HIGHER EDUCATION LOAN: Mermigas Sues Over Patterns of Abuse
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Mermigas, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. THE HIGHER EDUCATION LOAN AUTHORITY OF THE
STATE OF MISSOURI, Case No. 1:24-cv-11505 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 7,
2024), is brought seeking relief from MOHELA's pattern of abuse on
behalf of itself, its members, and the thousands of consumers
affected by MOHELA's misconduct in violation the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act.
Since 2011, the U.S. Department of Education ("USED") has paid
MOHELA over $1.1 billion dollars to help borrowers manage their
student loan options. MOHELA has consistently failed at its
responsibilities to the borrowers' detriment. MOHELA misleads and
misinforms borrowers, fails to process applications for
income-driven repayment ("IDR") plans in a timely manner or
entirely, fails to provide refunds, miscalculates balances,
over-charges borrowers, processes unauthorized debit transactions
from borrowers accounts, fails to respond to borrower inquiries,
and denies borrowers information to
which they are entitled.
MOHELA's servicing system is rife with errors, misinformation, and
broken promises. In doing so, MOHELA commits common law fraud,
negligent misrepresentation, and violates the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act. MOHELA's actions impact thousands or more individuals,
their families, and communities--people who are working hard and
playing by the rules, but whose financial futures are imperiled by
MOHELA's actions. MOHELA's misconduct is more than just
incompetence. MOHELA knew the responsibilities it took on as a
servicer and willfully disregarded those responsibilities at the
expense of student loan borrowers. MOHELA's servicing failures are
exacerbated by a scheme it designed to inhibit borrowers' ability
to access live customer service representatives and instead divert
borrowers to inadequate "self-service" phone and website
platforms.
This scheme results in long call wait times and poor service,
leaving borrowers unable to get basic information about their
accounts or correct the problems MOHELA causes. Borrowers who
connect with a live customer service representative encounter
people whom MOHELA has failed to train or supervise, resulting in
the dissemination of inaccurate, unhelpful, and often damaging
information. Individually, it is impossible for borrowers to
correct account errors, make important decisions to protect their
economic well-being, or even confirm basic information about their
student loan accounts. MOHELA's failings cause student loan
borrowers to suffer from mental and physical distress as well as
incur financial hardship through unauthorized debit transactions.
MOHELA sent Plaintiff and thousands of potential class members
incorrect billing statements, made unauthorized changes to
borrower's accounts and repayment plans, and made unauthorized
debits to Plaintiff and Class Members bank accounts, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff experienced first-hand MOHELA'S incompetence and
intention disregard for the rights of its customers.
Higher Education Loan Authority of the State of Missouri ("MOHELA")
is currently the largest servicing company for student loan debt
for American consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith L. Gibson, Esq.
KEITH GIBSON LAW, P.C.
586 Duane Street, Suite 102
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Phone: (630) 677-6745
Email: keith@keithgibsonlaw.com
- and -
Bogdan Enica, Esq.
KEITH GIBSON LAW, P.C.
1200 N. Federal Highway, Suite 375
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Phone: (305) 306-4989
Email: bogdan@keithgibsonlaw.com
INNODATA INC: Grondin Named as Lead Plaintiff in D'Agostino Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jamel K. Semper of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey grants Francis Grondin's motion for appointment as
lead plaintiff and approval of counsel in the lawsuit styled DAVID
D'AGOSTINO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. INNODATA, INC., JACK ABUHOFF, MARK SPELKER,
and MARISSA ESPINELI, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00971-JKS-JSA
(D.N.J.).
The matter comes before the Court upon competing motions to appoint
lead plaintiff and lead counsel filed by Plaintiff Francis Grondin
and Plaintiff Curtis Gardner. Both Grondin and Gardner filed
opposition briefs. Both Grondin and Gardner filed reply briefs.
The lawsuit is a putative federal securities class action brought
on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired Innodata
Inc. common stock during the period from May 9, 2019, through Feb.
14, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"), who were damaged thereby
(the "Class"). This action is brought on behalf of the Class for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
Innodata is a global data engineering company that purports to be
delivering the promise of artificial intelligence, referred to as
AI, to many of the world's most prestigious companies. Innodata
states that it provides AI-enabled software platforms and managed
services for AI data collection/annotation, AI digital
transformation, and industry-specific business processes.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Innodata, Jack Abuhoff, Mark
Spelker, and Marissa Espineli made false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material facts regarding,
among other things, Innodata's AI technology and use of AI.
On Feb. 21, 2024, Plaintiff David D'Agostino filed the Complaint
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. On
April 22, 2024, both Plaintiff Francis Grondin and Plaintiff Curtis
Gardner filed a motion to appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel.
Plaintiff Grondin suffered $27,798.69 in losses. Plaintiff Gardner
suffered $24,426 in losses. Although Grondin suffered a greater
loss than Gardner, Gardner argues that he should be appointed lead
plaintiff because he purchased and retained more shares than
Grondin and expended greater funds.
Accordingly, Judge Semper finds Grondin has the largest financial
interest in the relief sought by the class and will be the
presumptive most adequate plaintiff if he "otherwise satisfies" the
typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23.
At this stage of appointing lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), the Court finds Grondin
satisfies Rule 23's adequacy requirement. The Court also finds that
Grondin has timely filed a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff
in compliance with the PSLRA, and that the presumption that Grondin
is the most adequate plaintiff has not been rebutted.
Because the Court finds Grondin to be the most adequate plaintiff,
the task of counsel selection falls to him. Grondin moved for
approval of Block & Leviton LLP as Lead Counsel, and Carella,
Byrne, Cecchi, Brody & Agnello, P.C., as Local Counsel.
Judge Semper opines that Grondin's chosen law firms have prosecuted
numerous securities fraud class actions on behalf of investors.
After reviewing the firms' resumes, the Court finds that both firms
have substantial experience litigating securities fraud class
actions and are, thus, competent to fulfill the duties of lead
counsel and liaison counsel.
For these reasons, the Court grants Grondin's motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of counsel, and
Gardner's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of
counsel is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Oct. 30, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/n7z67jyb from PacerMonitor.com.
IRONBEAM INC: Records Telephone Conversation, Kurazyan Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVETIK KURAZYAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. IRONBEAM INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-09510 (C.D. Cal., Nov.
4, 2024) alleges that the Defendant knowingly, and/or willfully
employed and/or cause to be employed certain recording equipment in
order to record to the telephone conversations of the Plaintiff
without the knowledge or consent of the Plaintiff, in violation of
California Penal Code sections 630 et seq., thereby invading
Plaintiff's privacy.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant continues to violate Penal
Code section 632.7 by impermissibly recording its telephone
conversations with California residents while said residents are on
cellular telephones.
On Aug. 23, 2024, Aug. 26, 2024, and Oct. 1, 2024, the Plaintiff
made a call from his cellular telephone number 818-967-8767 to the
Defendant, to the telephone number 800-341-1941. During the course
of the above-mentioned calls, the Plaintiff disclosed sensitive
personal information, which included his financial details and
personal identifying information, the lawsuit claims.
The Defendant never informed Plaintiff that the calls would be
recorded, except during the Oct. 2, 2024, call, when the Plaintiff
specifically asked about it. The Plaintiff was shocked that such
confidential communications were recorded by the Defendant without
Plaintiff's knowledge or consent. The Plaintiff finds the
Defendant's clandestine recording to be highly offensive due to the
delicacy of the topics discussed during said conversations, the
lawsuit asserts.
The Plaintiff brings this class action for damages, injunctive
relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies,
resulting from the illegal actions of IRONBEAM, INC. and its
related entities.
Ironbeam provides a broad range of brokerage services to
institutional and retail clients alike.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Gor Antonyan, Esq.
David J. McGlothlin, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800)400-6808
Facsimile: (800)520-5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
gor@kazlg.com
david@kazlg.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Settlement in San Miguel Suit Has Prelim. Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned SAN MIGUEL HOSPITAL CORPORATION, d/b/a/
ALTA VISTA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Johnson & Johnson, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00903-KWR-JFR (D.N.M.), Judge Kea
Riggs of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico
issued an Order:
(I) preliminarily approving settlement pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(e)(1);
(II) appointing the notice and claims administrators and
special master;
(III) approving form and manner of notice to class members;
(IV) scheduling a final fairness hearing to consider final
approval of the settlement; and
(V) granting related relief.
Before the Court is the Motion of proposed Settlement Class Counsel
for Preliminary Approval of the Teva Defendants Class Action
Settlement Agreement with Acute Care Hospitals (the "Preliminary
Approval Motion"), pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b), and 23(e) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which seeks: (1) Preliminary
Approval of the Settlement Agreement; (2) preliminary
certification, for settlement purposes only, of the Settlement
Class; (3) approval of the form and manner of the proposed Notice
to the Settlement Class; (4) appointment of Interim Settlement
Class Counsel; (5) appointment of Settlement Class Representatives;
(6) appointment of the Notice and Claims Administrators; (7)
appointment of the Special Master; (8) appointment of the Escrow
Agent; (9) approval of the Escrow Agreement; (10) establishment of
the Qualified Settlement Fund; (11) scheduling of a Fairness
Hearing; (12) a stay of all proceedings brought by Releasors in the
Action and Other Actions in any forum as to the Teva Defendants,
and an injunction against the filing of any new such proceedings
for Released Claims; and (13) a directive to the Settlement Class
Representatives to file motions to sever and stay Other Actions as
to the Teva Defendants, to the extent the Other Actions are not
already stayed.
An action is pending before the Court entitled San Miguel Hospital
Corp., d/b/a/ Alta Vista Regional Hospital v. Johnson & Johnson, et
al., 1:23-cv-00903-KWR-JFR (D.N.M.) (the "Action").
The Settlement Class Representatives, on behalf of the proposed
Settlement Class, having made a motion, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(e), for an order preliminarily approving the
Settlement of this Action as to Defendants Teva Pharmaceuticals
Industries, Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Cephalon, Inc.,
Actavis Pharma, Inc., Actavis LLC, Watson Laboratories, Inc. and
Anda, Inc. (collectively, "Teva Defendants") in accordance with the
Teva Defendants Class Action Settlement Agreement with Acute Care
Hospitals (the "Settlement Agreement" or "Settlement"), which,
together with the exhibits attached thereto, sets forth the terms
and conditions for proposed Settlement of the Action and Other
Actions as to the Teva Defendants and for dismissal of the Action
and Other Actions with prejudice as to the Teva Defendants upon the
terms and conditions set forth therein.
The Teva Defendants do not oppose the Court's entry of the proposed
Preliminary Approval Order.
The Court has reviewed the Settlement Agreement and does
preliminarily approve the Settlement between the Plaintiffs and the
Teva Defendants set forth therein as fair, reasonable, and
adequate, subject to further consideration at the Fairness
Hearing.
The Settlement Class will consist of all entities that fall within
one or more of the following categories:
(1) All Acute Care Hospitals in the United States that (a) are
not owned or operated by a federal, state, county, parish,
city, or other municipal government; and (b) treated
patients diagnosed with opioid use disorder and/or other
opioid related conditions at any time from Jan. 1, 2009,
through the date of entry of the Preliminary Approval
Order;
(2) all entities listed on Exhibit A to the Settlement
Agreement; and
(3) all Plaintiffs in the Other Actions listed on Exhibit B to
the Settlement Agreement.
Exhibits A and B to the Settlement Agreement are non-exhaustive
lists and do not purport to identify all members of the Class.
The following are excluded from the Settlement Class: (1) Any Acute
Care Hospital whose Released Claims have been released by any other
settlement with Teva Defendants.
The Court preliminarily finds that the proposed Settlement Class
satisfies all relevant requirements under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), for certification for settlement
purposes only.
The Court preliminarily finds that the proposed Settlement of the
Action between the Settlement Class Representatives and the Teva
Defendants should be approved as: (i) the result of serious,
extensive arm's-length and non-collusive negotiations; (ii) falling
within a range of reasonableness warranting final approval; (iii)
having no obvious deficiencies; and (iv) warranting notice of the
proposed Settlement to Settlement Class Members and further
consideration of the Settlement at the Fairness Hearing.
The Court appoints as Interim Settlement Class Counsel John W.
("Don") Barrett ("Barrett") of Barrett Law Group, P.A.; Warren T.
Burns of Burns Charest LLP; Robert A. Clifford of Clifford Law
Offices, P.C.; Steven B. Farmer of Farmer Cline & Campbell, PLLC;
Charles J. LaDuca of Cuneo, Gilbert, & LaDuca, LLP; and Steven A.
Martino of Taylor Martino, P.C. Barrett is designated as Lead
Counsel. Interim Settlement Class Counsel and Teva Defendants are
authorized to take, without further Court approval, all necessary
and appropriate steps to implement the Settlement, including the
approved notice program.
The Plaintiffs in the Action and the following Other Actions are
appointed as Settlement Class Representatives: Florida Health
Sciences Center, Inc., et al. v. Richard Sackler, et al., Case No.
19-018882 (Cir. Ct. Broward Cnty., Fla.); The DCH Health Care
Authority, et al. v. Purdue Pharma, L.P., et al., Case No. CV-19-07
(Cir. Ct. Conecuh Cnty., Ala.); Fort Payne Hospital Corporation, et
al. v. McKesson Corporation, et al., Case No. 21-cv-2021-900016.00
(Cir. Ct. Conecuh Cnty., Ala.); and Lester E. Cox Medical Centers
d/b/a Cox Medical Centers, et al. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC,
et al., No. 6:22-cv-3192 (W.D. Mo.).
If not already stayed, and to the extent not already filed, Judge
Riggs directs Interim Settlement Class Counsel to file motions to
sever and stay the Other Actions brought by the Settlement Class
Representatives as to the Teva Defendants until the Court renders a
final decision regarding the approval of the Settlement.
The Fairness Hearing will be held before the Court on March 4,
2025, at 9:00 a.m., (A) to determine whether the proposed
Settlement of the Action on the terms and conditions provided for
in the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to
the Settlement Class and should be finally approved by the Court.
The Court approves, as to form and content, the Notice
substantially in the form attached as Exhibit H to the Settlement
Agreement. The Court approves, as to form and content, the
Registration Form, Claim Form, and Summary Notice (together, the
"Notice Package"), substantially in the forms attached as Exhibits
D, E, and I to the Settlement Agreement, respectively.
The firms of A.B. Data Group and Cherry Bekaert Advisory, LLC (the
"Notice and Claims Administrators") are appointed to supervise and
administer the notice procedure, as well as the processing of
claims.
The Honorable Thomas L. Hogan (Ret.) ("Special Master") is
appointed to oversee the process of allocating the Net Settlement
Funds as provided in the Plan of Allocation.
Not later than Nov. 20, 2024 (the "Notice Date"), the Notice and
Claims Administrators will commence distribution of the Notice
Package to all Settlement Class Members that can be identified with
reasonable effort and to be posted on the case-designated website,
www.acutecarehospitalsettlement.com, according to the Notice Plan
in the Declaration of Eric Schachter filed in support of
Preliminary Approval. The Notice will be given as soon as
practicable after entry of this Order but not later than Nov. 20,
2024.
No later than Dec. 4, 2024, Interim Settlement Class Counsel will
serve on the Teva Defendants and file with the Court proof, by
affidavit or declaration, of such distribution.
In accordance with Sections IV.E & F of the Settlement Agreement
and the terms of the Escrow Agreement, the Court appoints Pinnacle
Bank as Escrow Agent, which will control and administer an Escrow
Account to be established as set forth in the Settlement Agreement
as a qualified settlement fund within the meaning of Treasury
Regulation Section 1.468B-1. Within thirty (30) calendar days of
entry of this Order, no later than Nov. 30, 2024, the Teva
Defendants will pay their first settlement payment of one million
U.S. Dollars ($1,000,000) into the Escrow Account.
All fees and expenses incurred in identifying and notifying
Settlement Class Members will be paid from the Settlement Funds.
The Escrow Agent may direct payment of up to $1,000,000 for
reasonable Notice and Administrative Costs as approved by the
Court. Any money paid for Notice and Administrative Costs will not
be returned or repaid to the Teva Defendants.
Consistent with the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 1 and 23 and due process, the Notice and Claims
Administrators will coordinate with the Settling Parties to
minimize costs in effectuating its duties.
All Settlement Class Members will be bound by all determinations
and judgments in the Action concerning the Settlement, whether
favorable or unfavorable to the Settlement Class, regardless of
whether such Settlement Class Members or entities seek or obtain by
any means, including by submitting a Registration Form, Claim Form,
or any similar documentation, any Allocated Amount.
All opening briefs and supporting documents in support of the
Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and any application by Interim
Settlement Class Counsel for attorneys' fees, charges, and expenses
and Service Awards to the Settlement Class Representatives will be
filed and served by no later than Dec. 20, 2024, and any reply
papers, including any responses to Objections, will be filed and
served no later than Feb. 3, 2025.
The Released Entities will have no responsibility for the Plan of
Allocation or any application for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses
submitted by Interim Settlement Class Counsel or any Service Award
to the Settlement Class Representatives, and such matters will be
considered separately from the fairness, reasonableness, and
adequacy of the Settlement.
Any Settlement Class Member wishing to opt out of the Settlement
Class and Settlement must submit a written and signed Opt-Out Form
to the Notice Administrator and email it to Teva Defendants and
Interim Settlement Class Counsel as set forth in the Notice. Such
written request must be received by the Notice Administrator,
Interim Settlement Class Counsel, and Teva Defendants no later than
Jan. 6, 2025, which is the last day of the opt out period (the
"Opt-Out Deadline").
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 30, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mv5f2mj6 from PacerMonitor.com.
L'OREAL USA: O'Dea Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Lucinda O'Dea, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. L'Oreal, USA, Case No.
1:24-cv-02762 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on Nov. 1, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-08352-UA to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
L'Oreal, USA -- https://www.loreal.com/en/usa/ -- offers all women
and men worldwide the best of cosmetics, haircare and perfume in
terms of quality, efficacy and safety.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nick Suciu, III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Phone: (313) 303-3472
Fax: (865) 522-0049
Email: nsuciu@milberg.com
- and -
John Hunter Bryson, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
900 W. Morgan St.
Raleigh, NC 27603
Phone: (919) 600-5023
Fax: (919) 600-5035
Email: hunter@wbmllp.com
- and -
Luis Angel Cardona, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
1311 Ponce De Leon Avenue
San Juan, PR 00985
Phone: (516) 862-0194
- and -
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR AND FISHER P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Fax: (212) 989-9163
Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
Russell Busch, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
rbusch@milberg.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jane E. Fedder, Esq.
SPENCER FANE LLP
1 North Brentwood Blvd., Suite 1200
Clayton, MO 63105
Phone: (314) 863-7733
LANDMARK ADMIN: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Willis Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
SHALENE WILLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LANDMARK ADMIN, LLC, and LIBERTY BANKERS
INSURANCE GROUP, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-02741-S (N.D. Tex.,
October 31, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence and negligence per se, breach of implied contract,
breach of bailment, invasion of privacy, and third-party
beneficiary.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and
protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly
situated patients stored within their information systems following
a data breach discovered on May 13, 2024. The Defendants also
failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private
information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and
damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and
unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
Landmark Admin, LLC is a provider of personalized third party
administrative services based in Brownwood, Texas.
Liberty Bankers Insurance Group is a life insurance agency in
Dallas, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Grayson Wells, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
gwells@stranchlaw.com
LANDMARK ADMIN: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Whitten Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
EDNA WHITTEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LANDMARK ADMIN, LLC and LIBERTY BANKERS
INSURANCE GROUP, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-02723-S (N.D. Tex.,
October 29, 2024) is a class action against Defendants for their
failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of
Plaintiff and Class Members.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information
-- which they entrusted to Defendants on the mutual understanding
that Defendants would protect it against disclosure -- was
targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the data
breach. Landmark collected and maintained certain personally
identifiable information and protected health information of
Plaintiff and the putative Class Members, who are or were customers
at Landmark's clients, including LBIG, says the suit.
The data breach was a direct result of Defendants' failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and
protocols necessary to protect consumers' private information from
a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Plaintiff's and
Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendants'
negligent conduct because the private information that Defendants
collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired by data
thieves, the suit contends.
Landmark Admin, LLC is a third-party administrator for insurance
carriers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.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
- and -
William Peerce Howard, Esq.
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM
401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 500-1500
E-mail: billy@theconsumerprotectionfirm.com
LANDMARK ADMIN: Williams Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
------------------------------------------------------------
LA'TONYA WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LANDMARK ADMIN, LLC and LIBERTY BANKERS
INSURANCE GROUP, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-02714-E (N.D. Tex.,
October 29, 2024) is a class action against Defendants for their
failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of
Plaintiff and Class Members.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information
-- which they entrusted to Defendants on the mutual understanding
that Defendants would protect it against disclosure -- was
targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the data
breach. Landmark collected and maintained certain personally
identifiable information and protected health information of
Plaintiff and the putative Class Members, who are or were customers
at Landmark's clients, including LBIG, says the suit.
The data breach was a direct result of Defendants' failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and
protocols necessary to protect consumers' private information from
a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Plaintiff's and
Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendants'
negligent conduct because the private information that Defendants
collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired by data
thieves, the suit contends.
Landmark Admin, LLC is a third-party administrator for insurance
carriers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
LEARNING CARE: Faces Vaughan Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
AAMAIYAH VAUGHAN and GLADYS TAVERAS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LEARNING CARE GROUP,
INC. and EVERBROOK ACADEMY, LLC, and any other related entities
and/or individuals, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-07634 (E.D.N.Y.,
October 31, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the New York Labor Law including failure to pay
timely wages, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, and
retaliation for protected whistleblower activity.
Plaintiffs Vaughan and Taveras worked for the Defendants as a head
teacher and an assistant teacher at Everbrook Academy location in
Glen Head, New York from August 2022 until October 31, 2022, and
from June 27, 2022, through November 4, 2022, respectively.
Learning Care Group, Inc. is a child care and early childhood
education company, with its principal executive office in Novi,
Michigan.
Everbrook Academy, LLC is a subsidiary of Learning Care Group,
Inc., with its principal executive office in Novi, Michigan. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lauren R. Reznick, Esq.
Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 248-5550
Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
LES SCHWAB TIRE: Hill Suit Stayed Pending WA Supreme Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants the Defendant's
motion to stay and stays the lawsuit titled JEFFREY HILL, Plaintiff
v. LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF WASHINGTON LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-00425-BJR (W.D. Wash.).
Plaintiff Jeffrey Hill originally filed this case in King County
Superior Court alleging that Defendant Les Schwab Tire Centers of
Washington, LLC ("Les Schwab") had violated a specific provision of
Washington State's Equal Pay and Opportunities Act ("EPOA"), RCW
49.58.110, which requires certain employers to disclose the wage
scale or salary range, and a general description of other
compensation and benefits, in each posting for an available
position. Les Schwab removed the case to this Court on the basis of
diversity jurisdiction and under the Class Action Fairness Act
("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d).
Now pending before the Court is the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss,
the Plaintiff's motion to remand this case, and the Defendants'
motion to stay. Having reviewed the materials and the relevant
legal authorities, the Court will grant the Defendant's motion and
stay this case pending a decision by the Washington Supreme Court
on the definition of the term "job applicant" under the EPOA.
On Jan. 7, 2024, Jeffrey Hill applied for a job opening with Les
Schwab in North Bend, King County, Washington. He alleges that the
posting for the job opening did not disclose the wage scale or
salary range to be offered. He further alleges that he applied to
work for the Defendant in good faith with the intent of gaining
employment, so long as the wage scale or salary range, which
remains unknown, meets his and his family's needs. He claims to
represent more than 40 potential class members, who also applied
for jobs with Les Schwab for positions that did not disclose the
wage scale or salary range.
Other than his allegation of applying in good faith, Judge
Rothstein notes that Mr. Hill's complaint was virtually identical
to numerous other putative class-action lawsuits filed by multiple
plaintiffs represented by Emery Reddy, PLLC, and subsequently
removed to this Court by the Defendants.
Les Schwab filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that Mr. Hill is
a professional plaintiff, who lacks statutory standing under the
EPOA and failed to plausibly allege an EPOA claim. He, then, filed
a motion to remand the case back to state court on the basis that
this Court lacks federal jurisdiction under CAFA and asserting that
he lacks standing to proceed in federal court. Both motions are
fully briefed.
On Aug. 20, 2024, the Honorable Judge Chun certified a question in
a similar case to the Washington Supreme Court, asking it to
interpret the term "job applicant" as used in the EPOA statute.
(referring to Branson v. Washington Fine Wines & Spirits, LLC,
2:24-CV-00589-JHC, 2024 WL 4510680, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 20,
2024)), certified question accepted, 103394-0, 2024 WL 4471756
(Wash. Oct. 11, 2024)).
On Oct. 11, 2024, the Supreme Court of Washington issued an Order
accepting the federal certified question for consideration. Les
Schwab filed the pending motion to stay the case pending the answer
to the certified question, but Mr. Hill agrees only to a partial
stay, asking the Court to first rule on his motion to remand.
Mr. Hill argues that the Court should first rule on his remand
motion because the question certified before the Washington Supreme
Court relates to statutory liability and not this Court's
subject-matter jurisdiction. He argues that this Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over this action based on lack of
diversity and removal jurisdiction under CAFA.
Mr. Hill also argues that he lacks Article III standing, similar to
the plaintiffs in other EPOA cases that this Court has remanded due
to lack of standing. In those similar cases, this Court found that
the plaintiffs failed to allege an injury-in-fact, required for
Article III standing, because they did not allege that they had
applied in good faith with the intent of gaining employment. The
Court concluded that plaintiffs must allege, at minimum, that they
applied for the job with good-faith intent, and as such, became
personally exposed to the risk of harm caused by the statutory
violation.
Mr. Hill's complaint differs in at least one respect from the other
complaints this Court has dismissed: Mr. Hill alleges that he
applied for the job "in good faith with the intent of gaining
employment, so long as the wage scale or salary range, which
remains unknown, meets his and his family's needs." Like the other
complaints, he adds that he lost valuable time applying for jobs
and suffered economic and non-economic harm as a result of the
inability to evaluate the pay and benefits.
As Les Schwab notes, Mr. Hill's complaint is virtually identical to
the Branson complaint, which also included the "good faith"
allegation, and was distinguished from the complaints that were
dismissed for lack of standing.
The defendant in Branson then moved to bifurcate discovery to have
an initial phase that focused on whether plaintiffs are bona fide
applicants, and Judge Chun ultimately certified a question to the
Supreme Court of Washington regarding the interpretation of a key
term, "job applicant." The Branson case is stayed pending the
Washington Supreme Court's decision on the certified question.
The Court agrees with Les Schwab that this case should also be
stayed pending the Washington Supreme Court's decision. The
definition of "job applicant" in the EPOA will provide clarity to
the meaning and intent of the statute, which informs this Court's
interpretation of the procedural violation and who is harmed
thereby for purposes of analyzing Article III standing.
Further the weighing of hardships favors a stay, Judge Rothstein
says. Mr. Hill is not prejudiced by the delay in ruling on his
remand motion, because denying remand would still result in a stay
as agreed by the parties, and granting remand would likely also
result in a stay of the case moving forward in state court pending
the Washington Supreme Court's decision. On the other hand, ruling
on Mr. Hill's remand motion, which is focused solely on the
Defendant's removal under CAFA, is premature as Les Schwab has
requested jurisdictional discovery on Mr. Hill's challenge.
Accordingly, the Court will stay this case and defer ruling on the
Plaintiff's motion to remand and the Defendant's motion to dismiss
pending the Washington Supreme Court's opinion on the certified
question.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendant's Motion to Stay.
The parties will file a joint status report no later than fourteen
(14) days after the Washington Supreme Court issues a final
decision in the certified question in the Branson case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 30, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2fw9cxrc from PacerMonitor.com.
LILIUM N.V.: Kloster Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Markus Kloster, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LILIUM N.V., KLAUS ROEWE, and JOHAN MALMQVIST, Case No.
1:24-cv-08479 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 7, 2024), is brought on behalf of
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Lilium
securities between June 11, 2024 and November 3, 2024, inclusive
(the "Class Period") under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").
Lilium has been engaged in pre-order sales of the Lilium Jet as the
Company purportedly finalizes its design, completes an ongoing
certification process, and builds out manufacturing capacity.
On October 24, 2024, before the market opened, Lilium disclosed
that it had been unable to raise sufficient additional funds to
continue the operations of the Company's principal operating wholly
owned German subsidiaries. As a result, the managing directors of
the subsidiaries determined that they are overindebted and are, or
will, become unable to pay their existing liabilities. The Company
disclosed that, subject to certain limited exceptions, the Company
will lose control of the subsidiaries. On this news, Lilium's stock
price fell $0.33, or 61.6%, to close at $0.21 per share on October
24, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume. The Company's stock
price continued to fall in the subsequent trading day, falling
$0.06, or 28.8%, to close at $0.15 per share on October 25, 2024,
on unusually heavy trading volume.
Then, on November 4, 2024, before the market opened, the Company
reported that, following the insolvency of the Company's
subsidiaries, Lilium had not been able to raise sufficient
additional funds to conduct its ongoing business consistent with
past practice. The Company disclosed that "funding for the Company
is not feasible." As a consequence, the Company would be "obliged
to file for insolvency." On this news, Lilium's stock price fell
$0.015, or 15.5%, to close at $0.083 per share on November 4, 2024,
on unusually heavy trading volume. The Company's stock price
continued to fall in the subsequent trading day, falling $0.031, or
36.97%, to close at $0.052 per share on November 5, 2024, on
unusually heavy trading volume.
The Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors: Defendants overstated
the progress of the Company's fundraising activities; Defendants
overstated the likelihood and/or feasibility of obtaining
sufficient funding to continue operations; Defendants failed to
sufficiently disclose the imminent insolvency of the Company and
its subsidiaries; and that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Lilium securities during the Class Period.
Lilium, together with its consolidated entities, is a start-up
aviation company which is engaged in the research and development
of an electric vertical takeoff and landing jet.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rebecca Dawson, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave, Suite 358
New York, NY 10169
Phone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
Email: rdawson@glancylaw.com
- and -
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
- and -
Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800
Century City, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 914-5007
LINKEDIN CORPORATION: J.P. Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as J.P. individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LINKEDIN CORPORATION, Case No. 24CV447940 was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, on Nov. 1, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 5:24-cv-07586-NC.
The Plaintiff "brings this action on behalf of all LinkedIn account
holders in the United States who booked a therapy appointment on
www.headway.co" (the "Website"). According to Plaintiff, through
the use of the "LinkedIn Insight Tag," "LinkedIn intentionally
intercepted" "sensitive and confidential communications, including
information concerning the medical conditions for which Website
users were seeking therapy." Based on these allegations, he pleads
that "LinkedIn eavesdropped and/or recorded confidential
communications through an electronic amplifying or recording
device" in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act
("CIPA"), and "intentionally invaded Plaintiff's and Class Members'
privacy rights under the California Constitution."[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gutkin, Esq.
Aarti Reddy, Esq.
Amy M. Smith, Esq.
Morgan Lewis, Esq.
Julia M. Irwin, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4004
Phone: +1 415 693 2000
Facsimile: +1 415 693 2222
Email: jgutkin@cooley.com
areddy@cooley.com
amsmith@cooley.com
melewis@cooley.com
JIrwin@cooley.com
- and -
Jorge L. Sarmiento, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
55 Hudson Yards
New York, NY 10001-2157
Phone: +1 212 479 6000
Facsimile: +1 212 479 6275
Email: jsarmiento@cooley.com
LIVE NATION: James Files Suit in D. Montana
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Live Nation
Entertainment, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Danielle James,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Live
Nation Entertainment, Inc., Ticketmaster L.L.C., Snowflake, Inc.,
Case No. 2:24-cv-00172-BMM (D. Mont., Nov. 1, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract.
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. --
https://www.livenationentertainment.com/ -- is an American global
entertainment company and monopoly that was founded in 2010
following the merger of Live Nation and Ticketmaster.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Robinson, Esq.
ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
19 Corporate Plaza Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 720-1288
Email: drobinson@robinsonfirm.com
- and -
John C. Heenan, Esq.
Joseph Patrick Cook, Esq.
HEENAN & COOK
1631 Zimmerman Trail
Billings, MT 59102
Phone: (406) 839-9091
Fax: (406) 839-9092
Email: john@lawmontana.com
joe@lawmontana.com
LONG ISLAND PLASTIC: Waiters Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI
------------------------------------------------------------------
Natasha Waiters, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LONG ISLAND PLASTIC SURGICAL GROUP, P.C., D/B/A NEW
YORK PLASTIC SURGICAL GROUP, Case No. 1:24-cv-07635 (E.D.N.Y., Oct.
31, 2024), is brought arising from Defendant's failure to safeguard
the Personally Identifiable Information1 ("PII") and Protected
Health Information ("PHI") (together, "Private Information") of its
patients, which resulted in unauthorized access to its information
systems between January 4, 2024 and January 8, 2024, and the
compromised and unauthorized disclosure of that Private
Information, causing widespread injury and damages to Plaintiff and
the proposed Class members.
Long Island Plastic Surgical Group detected unusual activity in its
computer systems and ultimately determined that an unauthorized
third party accessed its network and obtained certain files from
its systems between January 4 and January 8, 2024 ("Data Breach").
As a result of the Data Breach, which Defendant failed to prevent,
the Private Information of Defendant's patients, including
Plaintiff and the proposed Class members, were stolen, including
their name, Social Security number, date of birth, driver's
license, state identification number, passport number, financial
account information, credit card number, debit card number, medical
information, health insurance information, biometric information,
and clinical photographs.
The Defendant's investigation concluded that the Private
Information compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff's and
other individuals' information (together, "Patients"). Th
eDefendant's failure to safeguard Patients' highly sensitive
Private Information as exposed and unauthorizedly disclosed in the
Data Breach violates its common law duty, New York law, and
Defendant's implied contract with its Patients to safeguard their
Private Information.
The Plaintiff and Class members now face a lifetime risk of
identity theft due to the nature of the information lost, which
they cannot change, and which cannot be made private again. The
Defendant's failure to protect Patients' Private Information has
harmed and will continue to harm Defendant's Patients, causing
Plaintiff to seek relief on a class wide basis, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff received plastic surgery services from Defendant
Long Island Plastic Surgical Group, is plastic surgery practice
with its principle place of business in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
Leanna Loginov, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
lloginov@shamisgentile.com
LONG ISLAND: Waiters Sues Over Failure to Secure Patients' Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
NATASHA WAITERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LONG ISLAND PLASTIC SURGICAL GROUP, P.C.,
D/B/A NEW YORK PLASTIC SURGICAL GROUP, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-07635-NJC-LGD (E.D.N.Y., October 31, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se,
breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of implied contract.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and
protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly
situated patients stored within its network systems following a
data breach between January 4, 2024, and January 8, 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.
Long Island Plastic Surgical Group, P.C., doing business as New
York Plastic Surgical Group, is a plastic surgery services provider
based in Garden City, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
Leanna Loginov, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
lloginov@shamisgentile.com
MACLEAN FOGG: Waldorf Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Drill Operators
---------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA WALDORF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MACLEAN FOGG COMPONENT SOLUTIONS, LLC D/B/A
MACLEAN FOGG COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-11272 (N.D. Ill.,
October 31, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a drill/robot operator.
MacLean Fogg Component Solutions, LLC, doing business as MacLean
Fogg Company, is a manufacturer of fastener solutions, engineered
solutions, plastic solutions and additive solutions, headquartered
in Mundelein, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Kunze, Esq.
Martin Stainthorp, Esq.
WORKPLACE LAW PARTNERS P.C.
155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 719
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (630) 355-7590
Facsimile: (630) 778-0400
MAIN ELECTRIC: Arredondo Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Juan Arredondo, individual and class
representative on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated non-exempt former and current employees v. MAIN ELECTRIC
SUPPLY COMPANY LLC, a Company Limited Liability Company; CENTERLINE
DRIVERS, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company, PEOPLEREADY, INC.
a Washington Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. 30-2024-01428458-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Orange, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California, on
Nov. 1, 2024, and assigned Case No. 8:24-cv-02390.
The Complaint asserts the following claims for relief: Failure to
Provide Required Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Required Rest
Periods; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Minimum
Wages; Failure to Timely Pay Wages; failure to Pay All Wages Due to
Discharged and Quitting Employees; Failure to Maintain Required
Records; Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Statements; Failure
to Indemnify for Necessary Expenditures Incurred in Discharge of
Duties; and Unfair and Unlawful Business Practices.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
David R. Ongaro, Esq.
Cara R. Sherman, Esq.
ONGARO PC
1604 Union Street
San Francisco, CA 94123
Phone: (415) 433-3900
Facsimile: (415) 433-3950
Email: dongaro@ongaropc.com
csherman@ongaropc.com
MARATHON PETROLEUM: Mandel Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Joshua Mandel, on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated, and the general public v. MARATHON PETROLEUM
COMPANY LP, a Delaware limited partnership; TESORO REFINING &
MARKETING COMPANY LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
TREASURE FRANCHISE COMPANY LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 24STCV25449 was removed from
the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, on Nov. 7, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-09647.
The Plaintiff filed a civil action against Defendants seeking
restitution for alleged unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business
practices and false advertising, injunctive relief, and attorneys'
fees and costs. The complaint asserts claims under Cal. Bus. Prof.
Code arising from the alleged failure to disclose certain debit
card fees that consumers are required to pay.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Phillip Allan Trajan Perez, Esq.
MILLER NASH LLP
340 Golden Shore, Suite 450
Long Beach, CA 90802
Phone: 562.435.8002
Facsimile: 562.435.7967
Email: trajan.perez@millernash.com
MARK ZUCKERBERG: Court Tosses Johnson's Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as TYLER D. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. MARK
ZUCKERBERG, et al., Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-03910-AMO (PR) (N.D.
Calif.), Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed
the plaintiff's amended complaint as duplicative.
Plaintiff Tyler D. Johnson, an inmate in Missouri, filed the
present civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983,
representing himself. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis.
The Court determined that while Johnson argued in a conclusory
fashion that his suit had "nothing to do with the legal claims
related to In re Facebook,†the plaintiff's argument was
"unavailing,†especially since his allegations and request for
monetary damages were duplicative of those in In re Facebook (Case
No. 18-md-2843-VC).
The Court further found that Johnson seemed to meet the criteria of
being a class member and, as a Missouri resident, a member of the
Missouri "subclass†of In re Facebook. The Court pointed out that
that case had reached a settlement, but that Johnson did not allege
he opted out of the settlement. Because Johnsons did not allege he
opted out, the Court directed him to "submit any claim for damages
to the settlement administrator of In re Facebook, whose contact
information is listed in the settlement website:
www.FacebookUserPrivacySettlement.com.â€
The Court further instructed Johnson that if he wished to seek
other forms of equitable relief, then he must do so by urging
further action through the class representative and class counsel,
or by intervention in the class action, not by filing a separate,
individual case.
Finally, because it was possible that Johnson could have opted out
of the settlement agreement, the Court concluded that the instant
dismissal was with leave to amend, and Johnson will need to allege
that he opted out of the class action settlement in an amended
complaint.
Johnson subsequently filed an amended complaint. According to the
Court, Johnson names similar defendants and makes similar
allegations as in his original complaint. He also attempts to name
multiple plaintiffs, but, as mentioned, the Court has previously
denied Johnson's motion for class certification.
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, the
Court notes.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the complaint should be
dismissed as duplicative.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TvsMuV
MARTEN TRANSPORT: Jackson Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Alexander W. Jackson, an individual; on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. MARTEN TRANSPORT,
LTD., and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2404789 was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, on Nov. 1, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 5:24-cv-02368-JGB-DTB.
The Complaint alleges violations of California Labor Code;
California Wage Order No. 9-2001 ("IWC Wage Order 9"); and
California's Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code
("UCL"), based on Marten's alleged failure to: pay minimum wages,
provide meal and rest breaks, furnish accurate itemized wage
statements, and pay all wages owed upon termination of
employment.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael E. Brewer, Esq.
BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 11th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3802
Phone: +1 415 576 3000
Facsimile: +1 415 576 3099
Email: michael.brewer@bakermckenzie.com
- and -
Kimberly F. Rich, Esq.
BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
1900 North Pearl Street, Suite 1500
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: (214) 978-3000
Facsimile: (214) 978-3099
Email: kimberly.rich@bakermckenzie.com
- and -
Phillip R. Di Tullio, Esq.
BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 1850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 201-4728
Facsimile: (310) 201-4721
Email: phillip.ditullio@bakermckenzie.com
MATCH GROUP INC: N.D. Texas Grants Bid to Dismiss Baker BIPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge David C. Godbey of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, grants the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled MARCUS BAKER, et
al., Plaintiffs v. MATCH GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-02761-N (N.D. Tex.).
This Order addresses Defendants Match Group, Inc., et al.'s Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint. Because the
Court finds that Texas law applies, the Plaintiffs' claims fail as
a matter of law. Therefore, the Court grants the motion to dismiss
on choice of law grounds and does not reach the issue of failure to
state a claim.
The Plaintiffs are five residents of Illinois, who are users of
multiple dating websites owned by Match. They allege that Match is
collecting biometric data without users' consent. They filed suit
in Illinois state court, alleging violations of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"). The Defendants removed
to federal court. The Illinois court transferred the case to this
Court, because the Terms of Use ("TOUs") in the contract between
the parties selected Texas law.
Match now moves to dismiss this action under two theories: (1) that
Texas law applies, and because the Plaintiffs allege only
violations of Illinois law, there is no plausible legal basis for
relief, and (2) if Illinois law did apply, the Plaintiffs have
failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim.
The Court grants the motion to dismiss because it determines that
Texas law applies. Because this is an independently sufficient
ground for dismissal, the Court declines to address the sufficiency
of the facts to state a claim.
Judge Godbey opines that the place of performance favors Texas.
While the dating sites were available in Illinois for the
Plaintiffs to use, there is no evidence to suggest that Match
performed any of its duties outside of its headquarters in Texas.
While Illinois may have a materially greater interest than Texas,
Judge Godbey points out that the Plaintiffs have failed to
demonstrate that Illinois has a more significant relationship to
the parties and the transaction than Texas or that the application
of Texas law would be contrary to Illinois fundamental policy.
Therefore, because two out of the three elements that must be
established to overcome the choice of law provision have not been
met, Texas law is the appropriate law to govern this case, not
Illinois law.
The Court holds that Texas law applies to the claims here, and the
Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Because all the
asserted claims arise under Illinois law, they must be dismissed
with prejudice as a matter of law.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Order and Opinion dated
Oct. 30, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4japzk2z from
PacerMonitor.com.
MCDONALD'S USA: Williams Sues Over Sale of Contaminated Burgers
---------------------------------------------------------------
TAMMY WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MCDONALD'S USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-11275 (N.D. Ill., October 31, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, negligence, and unjust
enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Quarter
Pounder Burgers with and without cheese. According to the
complaint, the Defendant failed to disclose to consumers on its
advertising that the burgers are contaminated with Escherichia coli
(E. coli). The Plaintiff and Class members lost the entire benefit
of their bargain as a result of the Defendant's omissions and
misrepresentations, says the suit.
McDonald's USA, LLC is an owner and operator of fast-food chain
restaurants with its principal place of business in Chicago,
Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
Email: mreese@reeellp.com
- and -
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Telephone: (845) 483-7100
Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com
- and -
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
Email: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
- and -
Russell M. Busch, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe St., Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (630) 796-0903
Email: rbusch@milberg.com
- and -
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: (313)303-3472
Email: nsuciu@milberg.com
- and -
Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
402 West Broadway St., Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 810-7047
Email: tkashima@milberg.com
MEAD JOHNSON: Taylor Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Christina Taylor, on her own behalf and as a
Parent and Natural Guardian of I.H., a Minor v. MEAD JOHNSON &
COMPANY, LLC; MEAD JOHNSON NUTRITION COMPANY; and ABBOTT
LABORATORIES, Case No. 220302606 was removed from the First
Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County, to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on Oct. 31, 2024, and assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-05835.
The Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action against Abbott
and defendants Mead Johnson & Company, LLC and Mead Johnson
Nutrition Company ("Mead Johnson"): strict liability for design
defect (Count I); strict liability for failure to warn (Count II);
negligence (Count III); intentional misrepresentation (Count IV);
and negligent misrepresentation (Count V).[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Thomas R. Klein, Esq.
Tobias L. Millrood, Esq.
Elizabeth A. Crawford, Esq.
Timothy A. Burke, Esq.
John P. O'Neill, Esq.
KLINE & SPECTER, P.C.
125 Locust Street, 19th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: (215) 772-1000
Email: Thomas.kline@klinespecter.com
Tobi.millrood@klinespecter.com
Elizabeth.crawford@klinespecter.com
Timothy.burke@klinespecter.com
Jack.oneill@klinespecter.com
- and -
Benjamin Whiting, Esq.
KELLER POSTMAN LLC
150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 741-5220
Fax: (312) 971-3502
Email: ben.whiting@kellerpostman.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Sean P. Fahey, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
3000 Two Logan Square
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 215.981.4296
Email: Sean.Fahey@troutman.com
- and -
Ronni E. Fuchs, Esq.
Noël B. Ix, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
301 Carnegie Center, Suite 400
Princeton, NJ 08540
Phone: 609.951.4183
Fax: 609.951.4102
Email: Ronni.Fuchs@troutman.com
Noel.Ix@troutman.com
- and -
Joseph E. O'Neil, Esq.
Ryan J. O'Neil, Esq.
CAMPBELL CONROY & O'NEIL, P.C.
1205 Westlakes Drive, Suite 330
Berwyn, PA 19312
Phone: 610.964.6388
Email: JONeil@campbell-trial-lawyers.com
RONeil@campbell-trial-lawyers.com
- and -
Marques Hillman Richeson, Esq.
JONES DAY
901 Lakeside Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44114
Phone: 216.586.7195
Email: mhricheson@jonesday.com
MIDNIGHT HUB: Hermann Sues Over Unregistered Securities
-------------------------------------------------------
NOAH HERMANN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BRIAN VELUZ-NEPOMUCENO, PERCIVAL ONG,
MIDNIGHT HUB, AND ROOMS.TV, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-07704
(N.D. Cal., November 5, 2024), alleges violations of the Securities
Act of 1933, California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act and
California's Unfair Competition Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants promoted a Web3
ecosystem that they called Midnight Hub. In order to fund the
development of this project, Defendants created and sold two
non-fungible tokens (NFTs) that were inspired by decentralization
and the concept of the non-traditional, remote work lifestyle--the
Midnight Hub: ROOMS NFT and, separately, the Digital Nomads NFT.
However, shortly after selling the Digital Nomads NFTs and raising
substantial amounts of money, the Defendants allegedly went radio
silent and never did anything substantial to develop the Midnight
Hub ecosystem or its underlying projects further. In addition, no
registration statement was ever filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission to register the Securities for sale. The
Defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions
designed to prop the value of the Midnight Hub: ROOMS NFT and the
Digital Nomads NFT for their own benefit in violation of the
Securities Act of 1933, says the suit.
Headquartered in San Bruno, CA, Rooms.tv is a general stock
corporation that provides live streaming services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip M. Black, Esq.
Matthew Insley-Pruitt, Esq.
Justyn Millamena, Esq.
WOLF POPPER LLP
845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 759-4600
E-mail: pblack@wolfpopper.com
minsley-pruitt@wolfpopper.com
jmillamena@wolfpopper.com
- and -
Max Burwick, Esq.
BURWICK LAW, PLLC
43 West 43rd Street, Suite 114
New York, NY 10036
E-mail: max@burwick.law
MIGUEL PAREDES: Leduc Sues Over Losses Suffered Under ERISA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Deanna R. Leduc, on behalf of the ACCT Holdings, Inc. Employee
Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons
similarly situated v. MIGUEL PAREDES, PRUDENT FIDUCIARY SERVICES,
LLC, CHRISTOPHER J. DEBBAS, JAMES R. GRIFFITHS, and JOHN AND JANE
DOES 1–20, Case No. 2:24-cv-05970 (E.D. Pa., Nov. 7, 2024), is
brought against under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), for losses suffered by the Plan and
its participants caused by the Trustee when it caused the Plan to
buy shares of ACCT for more than fair market value and thereby
misused the Plan's money to the benefit of Selling Shareholders,
and other plan-wide relief.
The Plan has been injured and its participants have been deprived
of hard-earned retirement benefits resulting from Defendants'
violations of ERISA.
ACCT was a privately held company and the Plan's sponsor. ACCT
adopted the Plan effective retroactively as of January 1, 2021. On
December 22, 2021, the Plan, through its trust, the ACCT Holdings,
Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Trust ("ESOT"), purchased from
Selling Shareholders, directly or indirectly, 17,386,919 shares of
ACCT common stock, which represented all of the issued and
outstanding common stock of ACCT, for $320,000,000, which was
financed by cash paid by the ESOT to Selling Shareholders in the
amount of $118,500,000, financed by a loan received from ACCT in
the same amount (the "Initial ESOP Company Loan") and note payables
issued by the ESOT to Selling Shareholders aggregating $201,500,000
(the "Seller Notes"). ACCT, the ESOT, and Selling Shareholders
entered into an assignment agreement on December 22, 2021, whereby
ACCT assumed the ESOT's obligations under the Seller Notes and the
ESOT issued to ACCT a note payable in the amount of $201,500,000
(the "Second ESOP Company Loan") and ACCT and the ESOT agreed to
consolidate the Initial ESOP Company Loan and the Second ESOP
Company Note into one loan in the amount of $320,000,000 (the "ESOP
Loan," and the purchase and loan transactions together, the "ESOP
Transaction" or "Transaction").
The Trustee represented the Plan and its participants as fiduciary
trustee in the ESOP Transaction. It had sole and exclusive
authority to negotiate the terms of the ESOP Transaction and to
authorize the Transaction on the Plan's behalf. The ESOP
Transaction allowed Selling Shareholders to unload their interests
in ACCT above fair market value, for the reasons explained below,
and saddle the Plan with hundreds of millions of dollars of debt
over a 50-year repayment period to finance the Transaction. The
Trustee failed to fulfill its ERISA duties, as trustee and
fiduciary, to the Plan and its participants, including Plaintiff.
Selling Shareholders sold shares and were transferred the Plan's
money in the ESOP Transaction. Selling Shareholders are liable
under ERISA for knowingly participating in the prohibited stock
transaction.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to enforce her rights under
ERISA and the Plan, to recover the losses incurred by the Plan and
the improper profits realized by Defendants resulting from their
causing prohibited transactions and breaches of fiduciary duty or
knowingly participating in the prohibited stock transaction, and
equitable relief, including reformation of Transaction contracts,
rescission of the Transaction, and removal and enjoinment of the
Trustee from acting as a fiduciary for any employee benefit plan
that covers or includes any ACCT employees or members of the Class.
Plaintiff requests the Trustee be required to restore any losses to
the Plan arising from its ERISA violations, Defendants be ordered
to disgorge to the Plan any improper profits, that these prohibited
transactions be declared void, and any monies recovered for the
Plan to be allocated to the accounts of the Class members, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a participant in the Plan who was vested under the
terms of the written Plan Document.
Miguel Paredes is and was at the time of the ESOP Transaction the
President, founder, and owner of PFS.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patricia Mulvoy Kipnis, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
923 Haddonfield Road, Suite 300
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
Phone: (215) 274-9420
Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
Email: pkipnis@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 540
Washington, DC 20007
Phone: (202) 463-2101
Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
Email: gporter@baileyglasser.com
rjenny@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Peter K. Stris, Esq.
STRIS & MAHER LLP
777 S Figueroa St., Ste. 3850
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 995-6800
Facsimile: (213) 261-0299
Email: pstris@stris.com
MILO'S POULTRY: Abdullah Sues Over Salmonella Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joel Abdullah, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MILO'S POULTRY FARMS, LLC, (S.D. Wis., Oct. 31, 2024),
is brought on behalf of similarly situated who purchased all carton
sizes and all egg types labeled with "Milo's Poultry Farms" (recall
covers all expiration dates), all carton sizes of "Tony' s Fresh
Market" branded eggs, (recall covers all expiration dates) and all
cases of eggs for retail foodservice distribution, (recall covers
all expiration dates) (collectively herein "the Products") because
these eggs were contaminated with Salmonella.
Unfortunately, the Products are unfit for their intended
consumption because they are contaminated with the harmful
bacteria, Salmonella. On September 6, 2024, Defendant made the call
announcement due to the potential of the eggs they produce to be
contaminated with Salmonella. FDA initiated the recall after some
environmental samples tested positive for Salmonella.
The Center for Disease Control (CDC) has stated that exposure to
the bacteria Salmonella can cause an illness called salmonellosis.
The Salmonella bacteria is considered the "leading cause of
foodborne illness, hospitalizations, and deaths in the United
States and worldwide."
The Products are manufactured, advertised, sold, and distributed by
Defendant or its agents, to consumers, including Plaintiff, across
the United States. Each Of the products was manufactured by
Defendant, distributed to other corporations and then sold to
consumers across the United States.
Through marketing and sale, Defendant represented that the Products
are safe for people, including pregnant women and their newborns,
adults aged 50, 65 or older, and people with weakened immune
systems. Plaintiff and consumers do not know, and did not have a
reason to know, that the Products purchased were contaminated with
Salmonella. Consumers expect the food they purchase to be safe for
consumption and not contaminated by a harmful bacterium, which can
cause a serious infection.
The Plaintiff and consumers do not know, and did not have a reason
to know, that the, Products purchased were contaminated with
Salmonella. Consumers expect the food they purchase to be safe for
consumption and not contaminated by a harmful bacterium, which can
cause a serious infection, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff bought Milo's Poultry Farm's eggs back on September
2, 2024 for personal household consumption.
The Defendant is a company that operates the production of multiple
poultry related brands.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel P. Bach, Esq.
LAWTON CATES, S.C.
146 E. Milwaukee Street, Suite 120
Jefferson, WI 53549
Phone: (920) 6744567
Email: dbach@lawtoncates.com
- and -
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN I WILLEY I ANASTOPOULO, LLC
32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (803) 222-2222
Email: pauldoolittle@poulinwilley.com
MONEYGRAM PAYMENT: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Krayzman Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
LARION KRAYZMAN, individually, and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons, v. MONEYGRAM PAYMENT SYSTEMS, INC.,
Case No. 2:24-cv-09513 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 4, 2024) alleges that the
Defendant failed to protect the personal identifiable information
of the Plaintiff and the Class from being accessed and
compromised.
In September 2024, unauthorized persons accessed MoneyGram's
information systems and stole the PII of Plaintiff and the Class
Members. MoneyGram did not discover the Data Breach until Sept. 27,
2024.
On Oct. 7, 2024, MoneyGram notified Plaintiff and the Class Members
that unauthorized persons had stolen their PII. MoneyGram admitted
that the stolen information included consumer names, contact
information (such as phone numbers, email and postal addresses),
dates of birth, Social Security numbers, government-issued
identification documents, utility bills, bank account numbers,
MoneyGram Plus Rewards numbers, transaction information and, for a
limited number of consumers, criminal investigation information.
As a result of Defendant's lax security, hackers have accessed the
PII in a readily usable form that is of great value to them,
causing the Plaintiff and Class Members to be exposed to criminals
seeking to use the PII for illegal activities, such as identity
theft schemes, the suit contends.
The criminals' theft of the Plaintiff's and the Class Members' PII
invaded their privacy interests, decreased the value of their PII,
and placed them at imminent, immediate, and continuing risk of
further identity theft-related harm, added the suit.
The Plaintiff was a customer of MoneyGram.
MoneyGram Payment provides money transfer and payment
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James F. Clapp, Esq.
Marita Murphy Lauinger, Esq.
CLAPP & LAUINGER LLP
701 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300
Carlsbad, CA 92011
Telephone: (760) 209-6565 ext. 101
Facsimile: (760) 209-6565
E-mail: jclapp@clapplegal.com
mlauinger@clapplegal.com
- and -
Edward J. Wynne, Esq.
George R. Nemiroff, Esq.
WYNNE LAW FIRM
80 E. Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Ste. 3G
Larkspur, CA 94939
Telephone: (415) 461-6400
Facsimile: (415) 461-3900
E-mail: Ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com
Gnemiroff@wynnelawfirm.com
MONSANTO COMPANY: Smith Suit Transferred to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as James Smith, individually, and others
similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, DOES 1-50, Case No.
5:24-cv-01916 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on Nov. 7, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-07797-VC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for
Product Liability.
The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an
American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation
founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lindsay R. Stevens, Esq.
GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS
655 W. Broadway Suite 1700
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 237-3490
Fax: (619) 237-3496
Email: lstevens@gomeztrialattorneys.com
- and -
John H. Gomez, Esq.
GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS
755 Front Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 237-3490
Fax: (619) 237-3496
Email: john@getgomez.com
MORENA GLOBAL: Martinez Files TCPA Suit to M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Morena Global, Inc.
The case is styled as Margaret Martinez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Morena Global, Inc., Case No.
3:24-cv-01126 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 31, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Morena Technologies is one of the leading providers of IT-enabled
services, spearheading its way into the world of technology.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan Lee McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
2221 Camino Del Rio S., Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Email: ryan@kazlg.com
MULTIPLAN INC: COSL Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Center for Orthopaedics & Spine LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
MultiPlan, Inc., Multiplan Corp., Viant Inc., Case No.
2:24-cv-01363 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on Nov. 5, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-11401 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust.
MultiPlan, Inc. -- https://www.multiplan.us/ -- provides healthcare
cost management solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd A. Townsley, Esq.
David Harmon Hanchey, Esq.
TOWNSLEY LAW FIRM
3102 Enterprise Blvd
Lake Charles, LA 70601
Phone: (337) 478-1400
Fax: (337) 478-1577
Email: ahebert@townsleylawfirm.com
MULTIPLAN INC: Noble Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as John W. Noble, individually & on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. MultiPlan, Inc., Multiplan Corp.,
Viant Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-01361 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Nov. 5,
2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-11400 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust.
MultiPlan, Inc. -- https://www.multiplan.us/ -- provides healthcare
cost management solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd A. Townsley, Esq.
David Harmon Hanchey, Esq.
TOWNSLEY LAW FIRM
3102 Enterprise Blvd
Lake Charles, LA 70601
Phone: (337) 478-1400
Fax: (337) 478-1577
Email: ahebert@townsleylawfirm.com
- and -
Tom Kherkher, Esq.
KHERKHER LAW FIRM
5909 West Loop South Ste 525
Bellaire, TX 77401
Phone: (713) 244-6363
Email: tom@attorneytom.com
MY DOCTORS LIVE: Connor Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against My Doctors Live, LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Jay Connor, individually and on behalf
of a class of all persons entities similarly situated v. My Doctors
Live, LLC, Jorant Wellness LLC, Health and Life Networking LLC,
Case No. 2:24-cv-06361-DCN (D.S.C., Nov. 7, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
My Doctors Live -- https://mydoctorslive.com/ -- facilitates
non-emergency medical consultations to patients anywhere digitally
24/7.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dave Maxfield, Esq.
DAVE MAXFIELD, ATTORNEY, LLC
PO Box 11865
Columbia, SC 29211
Phone: (803) 509-6800
Fax: (855) 299-1656
Email: dave@consumerlawsc.com
MYSTIC VALLEY: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Avallone Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
ELAINE AVALLONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MYSTIC VALLEY ELDER SERVICES, INC., a Massachusetts
nonprofit corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-12783-FDS (D. Mass., Nov.
4, 2024) is a class action arising out of the recent data security
incident and data breach that was perpetrated against the
Defendant, which held in its possession certain personally
identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information
("PHI") of the Plaintiff and other current and former clients of
Defendant, the putative class members ("Class").
This Data Breach occurred on April 5, 2024. The Private Information
compromised in the Data Breach included certain personal or
protected health information of Defendant's clients and/or
employees, including the Plaintiff. This Private Information
included "names, dates of birth, passport numbers, taxpayer
identification numbers, financial account numbers, payment card
numbers, online credentials, Social Security numbers, driver's
license numbers, health insurance information, and medical
information."
According to the Defendant's reports to the Health and Human
Services Office of Civil Rights, a total of 87,535 individuals were
affected. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf
of those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate
safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information, and for failing
to provide timely and adequate notice to the Plaintiff and other
Class Members that their information was subjected to unauthorized
access by an unknown third party and precisely what specific type
of information was accessed.
Because of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members have
been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and
identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the
future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against
identity theft, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff used Defendant's services, requiring her to provide
her Private Information to the Defendant. The Plaintiff received
notice of the Data Breach around Oct. 22, 2024, informing her that
her sensitive information was part of Defendant's alleged Data
Breach.
MVES provides social services to older adults, adults living with
disabilities, and caregivers residing in urban and suburban
communities north of Boston.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
KRISTENSEN LAW GROUP
53 State Street, Ste. 500
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone (617) 913-0363
- and -
Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
EKSM, LLP
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (888) 350-3931
Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com
NANO NUCLEAR: Court Appoints Hongyu Xie as Lead Plaintiff
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jesse M. Furman of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York appointed Hongyu Xie as lead
plaintiff, and Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel, in the case captioned
as HONGYU XIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, -v- NANO NUCLEAR ENERGY INC. et al.,
Defendants, 24-CV-6057 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.).
On August 9, 2024, Plaintiff Yvette Yang filed a putative class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Nano Nuclear Energy, Inc.
securities between May 8, 2024 through July 18, 2024. The Complaint
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78a et seq., and Rule 10b-5,
promulgated thereunder. On October 8, 2024, five movants filed
competing motions for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of
lead counsel pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i). Two movants later
withdrew their motions, leaving three: those filed by Thomas
Reynolds, Olivier Anfry, and Hongyu Xie.
The PSLRA directs courts to presume that the most adequate lead
plaintiff is the movant who, "in the determination of the court,
has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the
class" and "otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."
According to the Court, there is no dispute that Xie is the movant
with "the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the
class." Nevertheless, Anfry argues in his opposition to Xie's
motion that Xie should not be appointed because Xie is "an atypical
in and out trader and day trader."
Judge Furman says these holdings do not call for rejection of Xie's
motion here, substantially for the reasons set forth in her reply
memorandum of law. Thus, Xie's trading in NNE shares bears no
resemblance to the trading activity in the cases on which Anfry
relies to oppose her motion."
The Court finds that Xie has the largest financial interest in the
relief sought by the class. The Court also finds that Xie satisfies
the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Accordingly, Xie is appointed as lead plaintiff, and
Pomerantz LLP -- her counsel -- is appointed as lead counsel.
A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xDGrIr
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Plaintiffs in Colon Suit Can Amend Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable William B. Shubb of the United States District Court
the Eastern District of California granted the plaintiffs' motion
for an order granting leave to file a second amended class action
complaint in the case captioned as JOSEPH COLON, SHANNON RAY, KHALA
TAYLOR, PETER ROBINSON, and KATHERINE SEBBANE, individually and on
Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. NATIONAL
COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated association;
Defendant, No. 23-cv-00425-WBS-CSK (E.D. Calif.).
The motion seeks to substitute Rudy Barajas for Joseph Colon as a
proposed class representative and omitting Patrick Mehlert, whose
voluntary dismissal was stipulated after the first amended class
action complaint was filed. This motion is unopposed.
The December 9, 2024 motion hearing date is vacated.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w7w1SL
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in D. Oregon
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationstar Mortgage
LLC. The case is styled as Chet Michael Wilson, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC
doing business as: Mr. Cooper, Case No. 6:24-cv-01855-MK (D. Ore.,
Nov. 7, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Nationstar Mortgage LLC, doing business as Mr. Cooper --
https://www.mrcooper.com/ -- offers mortgage services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq.
PERRONG LAW LLC
2657 Mt. Carmel Ave
Glenside, PA 19038
Phone: (215) 225-5529
Fax: (888) 329-0305
Email: a@perronglaw.com
- and -
Anthony Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Phone: (617) 485-0018
Fax: (508) 318-8100
Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com
NEW YORK BEER CO: Sumlin Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Sumlin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. New York Beer Co., LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-08448
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 6, 2024), is brought against Defendant for their
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to services Soho Gem
provides to their non-disabled customers through
https://www.jacobspickles.com (hereinafter "Jacobspickles.com" or
"the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to
its website, and therefore denial of its services offered, and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the
"ADA").
Because Defendant's website, Jacobspickles.com is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change
in Soho Gem's policies, practices, and procedures to 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, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
New York Beer provides to the public a website known as
Jacobspickles.com which offers Southern-inspired dishes, spaces for
private events, catering options, and merchandise for
purchase.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher H. Cohen, Esq.
ASHER COHEN PLLC
2377 56th Dr,
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Phone: (718) 914-9694
Email: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com
NEW YORK: Arbeeny Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL N. ARBEENY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Daniel N. Arbeeny, as the
administrator for the estate of Norman Arbeeny (Deceased), et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Andrew M. Cuomo, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-2336, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York.
The suit is brought over the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Civil Rights Act.
On Jan. 23, 2024, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a claim, which Judge LaShann DeArcy
Hall granted on Sept. 30, 2024.
The appellate case is captioned Arbeeny v. Cuomo, Case No. 24-2856,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed
on October 29, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants DANIEL N. ARBEENY, as the administrator for
the estate of Norman Arbeeny (Deceased), et al., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Michael S Kasanoff, Esq.
MICHAEL S. KASANOFF, LLC
9 Stillwell Street
Matawan, NJ 07747
Defendants-Appellees ANDREW M. CUOMO, et al. are represented by:
Nelson Andrew Boxer, Esq.
PETRILLO KLEIN & BOXER LLP
655 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10017
- and -
Elizabeth Edmondson, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
1155 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
NEW YORK: Urban Justice Center Sue Over Homeless Sweeps
-------------------------------------------------------
URBAN JUSTICE CENTER-SAFETY NET PROJECT and GERALD BETHEL, TRESE
CHAPMAN, ANTONIA HAYES, BETHANY HINE, EDUARDO VENTURA, and DAMIAN
VOORHEES, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons, Plaintiffs v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, ERIC ADAMS,
MOLLY WASOW PARK, JOSLYN CARTER, JESSICA TISCH, THOMAS G. DONLON,
SUE DONOGHUE, YDANIS RODRIGUEZ, MARIE THERESE DOMINGUEZ, ANDREW
KIMBALL, NEW YORK CITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, and JOHN
AND JANE DOES 1–20, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-08221 (S.D.N.Y.,
October 29, 2024) arises from the City of New York's policies and
customs of conducting homeless sweeps that violates the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article
XVII of the New York State Constitution, Section 14-151 of the New
York City Administrative Code, and New York State's Common Law
principles.
This is a putative class action challenging the policy and custom
of "homeless sweeps," also referred to herein as "sweeps," where
Defendant City of New York and its agents and agencies, seize and
destroy the personal belongings of homeless New Yorkers residing
outdoors without due process and force them to move along from
relatively established locations, depriving some of the City's most
vulnerable residents of their basic necessities and leaving them
endangered and in peril.
The City consistently fails to give adequate, timely notice to
homeless residents in advance of sweeps and, in many instances,
does not give any notice at all. In cases where the City does
provide advance notice of a sweep, the notice does not state the
basis for the sweep, offer any avenue for homeless residents to
contest the sweep, or sufficiently alert homeless residents to the
risk that they may have their personal property seized and
destroyed during a sweep, says the suit.
Organizational Plaintiff Urban Justice Center-Safety Net Project is
a direct services provider that renders assistance to homeless New
Yorkers who experience homeless sweeps and has diverted significant
organizational resources to doing so.
The City of New York is a municipal entity created and authorized
under the laws of the State of New York and the New York City
Charter.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Natalie Druce, Esq.
Marika Dias, Esq.
URBAN JUSTICE CENTER-SAFETY NET PROJECT
40 Rector St, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (646) 923-8316
E-mail: ndruce@urbanjustice.org
- and -
Siya U. Hegde, Esq.
NATIONAL HOMELESSNESS LAW CENTER
1400 16th Street NW, Suite 425
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 638-2535
E-mail: shegde@homelesslaw.org
- and -
Keegan Stephan, Esq.
Luna Droubi, Esq.
BELDOCK LEVINE & HOFFMAN, LLP
99 Park Avenue, PH/26th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 277-5820
Facsimile: (212) 277-5880
E-mail: kstephan@blhny.com
NICE-PAK PRODUCTS: Court Denies Bid for Judgment in Federal Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff v.
NICE-PAK PRODUCTS, INC. and COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP.,
Defendants/Counterclaimants v. TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Counterclaim Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-05512-CM-OTW (S.D.N.Y.),
Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denies the Defendants' motion for judgment on
the pleadings, without prejudice to renewal.
The Plaintiff, Federal Insurance Company, brought this insurance
coverage dispute against Defendants Nice-Pak Products, Inc., and
Costco Wholesale Corp. in June 2023, asking for a declaratory
judgment that Federal owes no duty, under certain commercial
general liability insurance policies issued to Nice-Pak, to
indemnify Nice-Pak and putative additional insured, Costco for a
settlement of an underlying consumer class action involving
Nice-Pak's 'flushable' wipes products (the "Complaint").
The underlying class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York on Feb. 21, 2014, and
has proceeded for over a decade -- first before Judge Weinstein and
now before Judge Chen (Kurtz v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., et al., No.
1:14-cv-01142 (the "Underlying Action") (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2014)).
The Underlying Action is ongoing. Judge Chen held a Final
Settlement Approval Hearing on Aug. 30, 2024, during which she
reserved judgment on final approval of the settlement and ordered
the parties to submit billing records in support of their
attorneys' fee requests.
Federal argues that the two Commercial General Liability policies
issued to Nice-Pak do not obligate them to fund any class action
settlement in the Underlying Action. These policies were issued for
the following policy periods: (i) July 1, 2010, to Aug. 15, 2011,
and (ii) Aug. 15, 2011, to Aug. 15, 2012. Federal claims to have
attached true and correct copies of the insurance policies as
Exhibits 5 and 6 to the Complaint.
Judge McMahon notes that that does not appear to be the case.
Exhibit 5 was filed in eight sub-parts of approximately 100 pages
each; Exhibit 6 was filed in two sub-parts of approximately 100
pages each. There may well be portions of an insurance policy
somewhere in these 1,000 pages, but Judge McMahon cannot locate
critically important sections that are part of every insurance
policy -- for example, neither exhibit seems to contain a complete
"definitions" section, which Judge McMahon prepared to wager that
no insurance policy is without, and from which the Plaintiff
purports to quote in the complaint.
Judge McMahon also notes that there is no central table of contents
(often found when policies are very large) and no index.
Furthermore, in their papers in support of and in opposition to the
motion, neither Plaintiff nor Defendants inserts any page
citations; the Defendants, in their briefs, provide only generic
citations to the Plaintiff's exhibits, without including specific
page numbers. "Perhaps the parties think otherwise, but it is not
my job to do their work," Judge McMahon points out.
There is another problem with the record on the pending motion. In
September 2023, the Defendants sought leave to join a second
insurance provider, Twin City Fire Insurance Company ("Twin City"
and together with Federal, the "Insurers") as a counterclaim
defendant. The Defendants counterclaimed against both Insurers,
alleging breach of contract and seeking declaratory judgments
against each, stating that the Insurers are obligated under their
respective policies to defend and indemnify Defendants in the
Underlying Action. Judge McMahon granted the motion for joinder in
December 2023.
The Defendants' counterclaims allege that Twin City issued three
Commercial General Liability policies to Nice-Pak with the
following policy periods: (i) Aug. 15, 2012, to Aug. 15, 2013; (ii)
Aug. 15, 2013, to Aug. 15, 2014; (iii) Aug. 15, 2014, to Aug. 15,
2015. The Defendants attach to their answer what they claim to be a
true and accurate copy of the 2014-15 Twin City Policy. The
Defendants allege that the 2012-13 and 2013-14 policies are
"substantially identical" to the 2014-15 policy. However, they do
not provide copies of the policies and they offer an insufficient
basis for their "information and belief" that the policies are
substantially identical.
Twin City has also not provided copies of the missing policies,
though it undoubtedly has them in its files. Judge McMahon
disagrees with the Defendants' claim that Twin City's pointing out
the fact that there is no copy of these policies in the record is
just "a diversion."
The Defendants' pending motion for judgment on the pleadings is
denied, given the state of the record, Judge McMahon holds. It is
denied without prejudice. The Defendants have 20 business days to
refile their motion, and to deliver a courtesy copy (that means a
hard copy, not a digital copy) to the Court's chambers. Opposing
parties have 14 business days to file opposition papers, and the
Defendants have seven business days to file replies. There will be
no extension of these deadlines. The parties have already briefed
the issues; what they need to do is include appropriate citations
to the record.
Judge McMahon explains that just so counsel understand what is
expected of them: every reference to a policy provision in a brief
must be accompanied by a citation to the relevant page or pages of
that policy. And so that the Court can easily locate the relevant
page or pages: attached to a supporting affidavit or declaration,
each party must provide me with copies of those cited pages -- a
different exhibit number for each citation.
Additionally, Judge McMahon says someone must provide the Court
copies of the Twin City Policies covering the period 2012-13 and
2013-14. If, as the Defendants claim in their Reply Brief, "Twin
City produced all three Policies last week," then they should be
easy to provide.
Accordingly, the Court denies the Defendants' motion for judgment
on the pleadings, without prejudice to renewal on the terms and
conditions cited here. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate
the motion at Docket No. 43.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 30, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4nycp37n from PacerMonitor.com.
NLV FINANCIAL: Overcharges Insurance Policies, Virani Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
SANYA VIRANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NLV FINANCIAL CORPORATION, NATIONAL LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, and LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE SOUTHWEST,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01150 (D. Vt., October 31, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendants for breach of contract and
violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act.
The Plaintiff brings this action to address the Defendants'
breaches of contract and their racketeering through the use and
control of an enterprise of marketing entities that duped consumers
by providing them with the Defendants' materially misleading
representations and omissions in connection with the sale of
Indexed Universal Life (IUL) insurance policies. As a consequence
of the Defendants' false and/or misleading representations and
material omissions, the Defendants and their co-conspirators were
able to increase the price and cost of the policies, including the
fees and charges collected by members of the Enterprise, for all
members of the Class, thereby overcharging all such class members.
The Plaintiff and Class members have and will continue to earn less
money to cover future premium obligations, receive as income
benefits, or withdraw in a cash surrender, the suit says.
NLV Financial Corporation is a financial services company based in
Montpelier, Vermont.
National Life Insurance Company is an insurance company based in
Montpelier, Vermont.
Life Insurance Company of the Southwest is an insurance company
based in Addison, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Pietro J. Lynn, Esq.
LYNN, LYNN, BLACKMAN & TOOHEY, P.C.
76 St. Paul Street
Burlington, VT 05482
Telephone: (802) 777-7759
Facsimile: (802) 860-1500
Email: PLynn@lynnlawvt.com
- and -
Robert A. Izard, Esq.
Craig A. Raabe, Esq.
Seth R. Klein, Esq.
IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP
29 South Main Street, Suite 305
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 493-6292
Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
Email: rizard@ikrlaw.com
craabe@ikrlaw.com
sklein@ikrlaw.com
- and -
Joseph Gentile, Esq.
Ronen Sarraf, Esq.
SARRAF GENTILE LLP
10 Bond Street #212
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 699-8890
Facsimile: (516) 699-8968
Email: joseph@sarrafgentile.com
ronen@sarrafgentile.com
NOBU RESTAURANT: Zhang Seeks Website's Equal Access to Blind Users
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW ZHANG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NOBU RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-08298 (S.D.N.Y., October 31, 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 Civil Rights Law, and the New York State Human 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,
https://www.noburestaurants.com, contains access barriers which
hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its
online goods, content, and services offered to the public through
the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but
not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate focus
order, ambiguous link texts, inaccessible contact information,
inaccurate alt-text on graphics, unclear labels for interactive
elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL
address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely
with a mouse, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Nobu Restaurant Group, LLC is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (718) 705-8706
Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
NORMS RESTAURANTS: Casillas Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Edith Casillas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NORMS RESTAURANTS; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No.
24STCV28515 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 31, 2024), is
brought against the Defendant for rest break violations, failure to
pay all hours worked, wage statement violations, unlawful
competition, PAGA Allegations and violation of the Labor Code.
The Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with compliant rest
breaks because no rest breaks were provided. Despite not being
provided with compliant rest breaks, Defendant did not pay premium
pay for these missed breaks at Plaintiffs regular rate of pay. THE
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff for all hours worked because
Plaintiff was required to work off the clock, such as but not
limited to filling salt and pepper shakers and cleaning the
restaurant after being instructed to clock out.
Further, Plaintiff was required to clock-out at the designated
shift time despite continuing work related tasks in order to avoid
being eligible to take meal breaks even if she had to continue
working. THE Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with accurate
wage statements because the wage statements issued to Plaintiff did
not accurately list total wages owed and hours worked, among other
things, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants at around December 2022 as
a server.
NORMS RESTAURANTS is a Delaware Corporation with its principal
place of business located in Los Angeles County, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manny Starr, Esq.
Daniel Ginzburg, Esq.
FRONTIER LAW CENTER
23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 1084
Calabasas, CA 91302
Phone: (818) 914-3433
Facsimile: (818) 914-3433
Email: manny@frontierlawcenter.com
dan@frontierlawcenter.com
OMNI FAMILY HEALTH: Aguirre Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alfred Aguirre, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. OMNI FAMILY HEALTH, Case No. 1:24-cv-01361-KES-CDB
(E.D. Cal., Nov. 6, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable
information ("PII") of Plaintiff and the Class members, including,
without limitation: names, dates of birth, home addresses, phone
numbers, protected health information, and Social Security
numbers.
In the course of its operations, Defendant is entrusted with an
extensive amount of Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII. By
obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII, Defendant assumed non-delegable
legal and equitable duties to Plaintiff and the Class members. On
August 7, 2024, an intruder gained entry to Defendant's network,
accessed Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII, and exfiltrated
information (the "Data Breach Incident").
The Defendant did not notify Plaintiff and the Class members of the
incident until on or about October 10, 2024, depriving Plaintiff
and the Class Members of almost one month to protect themselves
from the fallout of the Incident. The Plaintiff's and the Class
members' PII that was acquired in the Data Breach Incident can be
sold on the dark web. Hackers can access and then offer for sale
the unencrypted, unredacted PII to criminals. Plaintiff and the
Class members face a lifetime risk of identity theft.
The Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII was compromised due to
Defendant's negligent acts and omissions and the failure to protect
Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII. The Plaintiff and Class
Members continue to be at significant risk of identity theft and
various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. The
risk will remain for their respective lifetimes.
The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and the Class
members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently
failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure their PII was safeguarded, failing to take available steps
to prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to
follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and
procedures regarding the encryption of data in the possession of
its vendor. As a result, the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was
compromised through access to and exfiltration by an unknown and
unauthorized third party, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff provided relied on Defendant to keep their PII
confidential and securely maintained.
The Defendant is a California corporation with its principal place
of business in Bakersfield, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (754) 444-7539
Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com
PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Arizona Court Refuses to Dismiss Williams Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John J. Tuchi of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit
entitled Anthony Williams, Plaintiff v. Pacific Sunwear of
California LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02015-JJT (D. Ariz.).
At issue are three related motions. Defendant Pacific Sunwear of
California LLC filed a Motion to Dismiss (MTD) under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) arguing that the Court lacks personal
jurisdiction in this case. Rather than file a substantive response
thereto, Plaintiff Anthony Williams filed a Motion for Leave to
Conduct Limited Jurisdictional Discovery for the purpose of
ascertaining additional facts that bear upon the question of
whether the Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant.
In the same filing, the Plaintiff also submitted a Motion to Extend
Time to Respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Court finds
these matters appropriate for resolution without oral argument. For
the reasons set forth in this Order, the Court denies the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and denies as moot both of the
Plaintiff's Motions.
The Defendant is a California clothing retailer with its
headquarters in California. The Plaintiff is an Arizona resident,
who has sued the Defendant on his own behalf and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals in the state of Arizona.
The action arises out of allegations that the Defendant routinely
embeds its marketing emails with "hidden spy pixel trackers" that
allow the Defendant to capture sensitive information, including the
time and place where the Plaintiff and other Arizona residents open
the email and what contents they clicked on. The Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendant utilizes this spyware in order to monitor his
and other Arizona residents' behavior by collecting and storing the
tracking data to build a detailed profile of the email recipients'
interests.
According to the Complaint, the Defendant has sent marketing emails
laden with spyware to numerous individuals in Arizona but has not
procured any of the recipients' consent to collect, retain, or use
their personal digital information. The class, of which the
Plaintiff is the putative representative, consists of all persons
within Arizona, who have opened a marketing email containing a
tracking pixel from the Defendant.
Judge Tuchi notes that the condition that class members have
actually opened, rather than merely received, the Defendant's
emails is important because the spy pixels are alleged to become
operative only when the host email is opened. There are apparently
thousands of members in this class.
The Complaint asserts a claim under Arizona Revised Statute Section
44-1376.01(A)(1), which provides that a person will not knowingly
procure, attempt to procure, solicit or conspire with another to
procure a public utility record, a telephone record or
communication service record of any resident of this state without
the authorization of the customer to whom the record pertains or by
fraudulent, deceptive or false means.
The Plaintiff initially filed this lawsuit in state court, but the
Defendant removed pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005. The Defendant then filed its MTD for lack of personal
jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2).
Judge Tuchi says general jurisdiction is not at issue here. The
Complaint alleges that the Defendant is a California company with
its headquarters in California. The Court, therefore, lacks general
jurisdiction over the Defendant.
The Complaint pleads an intentional tort that, but for its digital
character, is materially indistinguishable from the tort of a
thrown rock, Judge Tuchi notes. Absent binding caselaw to the
contrary, the Court concludes that it possesses personal
jurisdiction over the Defendant in this case.
Judge Tuchi opines that the Plaintiff's claim of illicit digital
surveillance is materially different from a claim of trademark
infringement. Although each email containing an alleged trademark
violation in some sense constitutes the violation itself, it is
more sensible to view such emails as distinct manifestations of a
single violation, at least for purposes of personal jurisdiction.
In contrast, each instance of the Defendant's alleged spying on the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals is a specific,
factually distinct tort.
Judge Tuchi explains that the emails in this case are not mere
marketing materials by which a preexisting trademark violation is
further disseminated to a wider audience. Instead, the emails here
are alleged to be trojan horses containing spyware that effects a
discrete, intentional tort on each victim, who opens the email. The
myriad instances of alleged spying are, thus, not iterations of an
ongoing violation, but are each separate offenses unto themselves,
with unique facts and unique victims.
In other words, Judge Tuchi opines, the offensive emails in
trademark cases can be viewed as evidence of a violation against a
competing company, but the recipient of the email is hardly a
victim of the complained-of conduct. Here, the emails are the
offensive conduct, and the recipients are the victims. Although the
circumstances surrounding the receipt of an email containing a
trademark violation may be fortuitous to the trademark violation
itself, the circumstances surrounding a deliberate act of spying
are not fortuitous to the spying.
This conclusion is the basis of the Ninth Circuit's unequivocal
holding that the commission of an intentional tort generally
confers personal jurisdiction upon courts in the forum where the
tort occurred, Judge Tuchi says. In short, the emails sent by the
Defendant in this case are akin to the Ninth Circuit's proverbial
rock. Thus, under Freestream Aircraft (Berm.) Ltd. v. Aero L. Grp.,
905 F.3d 597 (9th Cir. 2018), the first two elements of the minimum
contacts test are satisfied, and it becomes the Defendant's burden
to establish that personal jurisdiction in this case would
contravene traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice.
Judge Tuchi finds the Defendant has not attempted to make such a
showing, and nor could it. The Defendant concedes that it conducts
activities in this forum. Although the Defendant's Arizona
activities are unrelated to the Plaintiff's claims and are,
therefore, insufficient to satisfy the purposeful direction test,
the Court can consider such activities in the context of the
substantial justice analysis.
Because the Defendant already conducts business in this forum, the
Court concludes that it would not be unduly burdensome for the
Defendant to litigate this case in Arizona. Therefore, personal
jurisdiction is proper. Because the Court rejects the Defendant's
MTD, it need not consider the Plaintiff's motions for limited
jurisdictional discovery and an extension of time to respond to the
MTD.
Although it is procedurally anomalous for a district court to
dispose of a motion to dismiss without adversarial briefing, Judge
Tuchi says in this case the alternative course of action would have
required adjudication of two laborious and vigorously contested
motions, the relevance of which depends entirely on the validity of
the Defendant's MTD. Rather than waste the time and resources of
all involved, the Court elects to simply deny the Defendant's MTD
on the merits.
The Court, therefore, denies the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Complaint. The Court denies as moot the Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave to Conduct Limited Jurisdictional Discovery and to
Extend Time to Respond to Motion to Dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 30, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/262a5cdd from PacerMonitor.com.
PERMIAN RESOURCES: Faces Cavaliere Over Price Fixing Conspiracy
---------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS CAVALIERE, ROGER CHAVEZ JR., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, et al., v. PERMIAN RESOURCES CORP.
f/k/a CENTENNIAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, INC.; EXPAND ENERGY
CORPORATION f/k/a CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION, et al., Case No.
1:24-cv-01128 (D.N.M., Nov. 4, 2024) is an action arising from
Defendants' conspiracy to coordinate, and ultimately constrain,
domestic shale oil production, which has had the effect of fixing,
raising, and maintaining the price of crude oil, and thereby the
price paid by end-users of oil-derivative products, including
gasoline, distillate fuel (including diesel fuel home heating oil),
marine fuel, and jet and aviation fuel in and throughout the United
States of America.
According to the complaint, the Defendants' agreement is allegedly
complimented by their cooperation and collusion with the
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries ("OPEC"), the
international cartel of large oil producing nations, that also
sought to raise oil prices by limiting oil production during this
period. The Defendants' cartel is a per se unlawful restraint of
trade under numerous state antitrust and competition laws.
The Plaintiffs and the Classes suffered substantial harm from the
supracompetitive prices they paid for crude oil derivative fuel
products, including, gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil, marine
fuel, and jet fuel, as a direct and proximate result of the cartel
to constrain domestic production of shale oil in the United States,
the lawsuit asserts.
Mr. Cavaliere is the sole proprietor of Cavaliere Art & Antiques
LLC which is registered in New Mexico and through which he sells
Native American art. Mr. Cavaliere purchased gasoline on
approximately a weekly basis in New Mexico for personal and
commercial use from gas stations and purchased gasoline in Arizona,
Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, and Utah during the Class Period for
commercial use from gas stations.
The Plaintiffs include MICHAEL CLANCY; SCOTT HAMILTON; RAFAEL
HERNANDEZ; ROBERT JONES; LAURENCE KIRCHER; ROBERT RAICHLE; JEFFREY
TAUB; DON WATKINS; DEBORAH GOGUEN; PRESCOTT CHARTIER; MICHAEL
SCOTT; FREDDIE TEWES; DAVID SAMPLE; CHARLES ROMANEK; GREEN ACRES
OUTDOOR SERVICES LLC; SAMANTHA BARSKY O/B/O NOTEIFY; CATHIE
GILSTRAP O/B/O CRAIG GILSTRAP & ASSOCIATES; KEVIN ALLEN O/B/O KEVIN
ALLEN PHOTOGRAPHY; A LITTLE BIT OF SUMMER LLC; TRACEY M. BOSTON
LLC; EAGLEWOOD HOLDINGS LLC; THE DIFFERENCE LANDSCAPES; AEGIS
HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC.; CRAIG B. GREENFIELD ATTORNEY AT LAW PC;
BARBARA FORMICHELLA; XOCHITL POBLANO; MICHAEL SEGEL; CHERIE GRANT
JOHNSON; SHIRLEY HECHT-ASHER; CATHERINE FOSTER; ANGELA MATHES; JOEL
BELLEFEUILLE, JR.; PATRICK WITT; DEBRA FRENCH; DENEIGE KAPOR;
MARLIN SVITAK, JR.; ANNE LANE; VERA MCKELLEY; SUE JONES; GARRETT
MAIR; KIM FRANZEN; ERIC WILIM; SEAN HODGES; and RUSSELL DEMAN,
Permian Resources is an oil and gas company that produces shale oil
in Texas and New Mexico for sale in the U.S. domestic market.
The Defendants include CONTINENTAL RESOURCES INC.; DIAMONDBACK
ENERGY, INC.; EOG RESOURCES, INC.; HESS CORPORATION; OCCIDENTAL
PETROLEUM CORPORATION; PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES COMPANY; SCOTT D.
SHEFFIELD, and individual; and JOHN B. HESS, an individual,
Permian Resources is an oil and gas company that produces shale oil
in Texas and New Mexico for sale in the U.S. domestic market.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
Carmen Medici, Esq.
Daniel J. Brockwell, Esq.
Isabella De Lisi, Esq.
Patrick McGahan, Esq.
Michael Srodoski, Esq.
Zachary Kranc, Esq.
Karin E. Garvey, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-4565
E-mail: pcoughlin@scott-scott.com
cmedici@scott-scott.com
dbrockwell@scott-scott.com
idelisi@scott-scott.com
pmcgahan@scott-scott.com
msrodoski@scott-scott.com
zkranc@scott-scott.com
kgarvey@scott-scott.com
- and -
Christopher A. Turtzo, Esq.
MORRIS, SULLIVAN & LEMKUL, LLP
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 400
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Telephone: (702) 405-8100
Facsimile: (702) 405-8101
E-mail: turtzo@morrissullivanlaw.com
- and -
Brent W. Johnson, Esq.
Benjamin Brown, Esq.
Robert W. Cobbs, Esq.
Nina Jaffe-Geffner, Esq.
Michael Eisenkraft, Esq.
Christopher Bateman, Esq.
Aaron Marks, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL
PLLC
1100 New York Avenue NW, 5th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
E-mail: bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com
bbrown@cohenmilstein.com
rcobbs@cohenmilstein.com
njaffegeffner@cohenmilstein.com
meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com
cbateman@cohenmilstein.com
amarks@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Jennifer Sprengel, Esq.
Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
Kaitlin Naughton, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER
& SPRENGEL LLP
135 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3210
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 782.4880
E-mail: jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com
dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
knaughton@caffertyclobes.com
- and -
Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
Bobby Pouya, Esq.
PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (818) 788-8300
E-mail: dwarshaw@pwfirm.com
bpouya@pwfirm.com
- and -
Vincent J. Ward, Esq.
THE WARD LAW FIRM
Albuquerque, NM 87194
Telephone: (505) 944-9454
E-mail: vincent@wardlawnm.com
- and -
Christopher A. Dodd, Esq.
DODD LAW OFFICE, LLC
500 Marquette Avenue NW, Suite 1330
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Telephone: (505) 475-2932
E-mail: chris@doddnm.com
- and -
Warren T. Burns, Esq.
Korey Nelson, Esq.
Daniel H. Charest, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75202
Telephone: (469) 904-4550
E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com
dcharest@burnscharest.com
knelson@burnscharest.com
- and -
Brian D. Clark, Esq.
Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
Arielle S. Wagner, Esq.
Stephen J. Teti, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
E-mail: bdclark@locklaw.com
rapeterson@locklaw.com
aswagner@locklaw.com
sjteti@locklaw.com
- and -
Matthew W. Ruan, Esq.
Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
Robert J. Wozniak, Esq.
Kimberly A. Justice, Esq.
Jonathan M. Jager, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN
LLC
100 Tri-State International, Suite 128
Lincolnshire, IL 60069
Telephone: (224) 632-4500
E-mail: mruan@fklmlaw.com
dmillen@fklmlaw.com
mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com
kjustice@fklmlaw.com
jjagher@fklmlaw.com
- and -
Stuart G. Gross, Esq.
Travis H. Smith, Esq.
GROSS KLEIN PC
The Embarcadero
Pier 9, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 671-4628
E-mail: sgross@grosskleinlaw.com
tsmith@grosskleinlaw.com
POPLIN TECHNOLOGIES: Bradford Sues Over Invasion of Privacy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Radley Bradford, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. POPLIN TECHNOLOGIES, INC. f/k/a SUDSHARE CA LLC, Case
No. 4:24-cv-04389 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 8, 2024), is brought for
damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendant, in negligently and willfully contacting Plaintiff on
Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and related regulations, thereby
invading Plaintiff's privacy.
In Defendant's overzealous attempt to advertise its services and
schedule laundry pick up with Plaintiff and other similar
consumers, Defendant knowingly and willfully transmitted (and
continues to transmit) unsolicited telemarketing text messages
without the prior express written consent of the call recipients.
As such, Defendant has patently violated (and continue to violate)
the National Do-Not-Call
Through its methods, Defendant has also invaded the personal
privacy of Plaintiff and members of the Classes. The Defendant's
unsolicited telemarketing text messages also disturbed the solitude
of Plaintiff and members of the Classes. The Defendant
intentionally and repeatedly violated the TCPA, and will continue
to do so in violation of Plaintiff's and the Class members rights
absent judicial relief and legal redress, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff registered his Cell Phone number with the National Do
Not Call Registry since March 31, 2019.
The Defendant is an American company which allows people to hire
independent contractors to wash, dry, fold, and deliver laundry,
and operates through a mobile app platform named Poplin.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Mona Amini, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Fax: (800) 520-5523
PROJECT NEPTUNE: Faces Garritty Suit Over Refusal of Refund Request
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN "CHIP" GARRITTY, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROJECT NEPTUNE, LLC; d/b/a CRUISEBUILDER,
d/b/a VACATIONBUILDER, d/b/a LATTER DAY TRAVEL, d/b/a JUNGLE REEF;
WES COBOS, INDIVIDUALLY; Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00829-HCN (D.
Utah, November 5, 2024) surrounds Project Neptune, LLC's and its
owners' individual liability regarding the failed "Glenn Beck
Cruise Thru History."
According to the complaint, touted as an opportunity to reinforce
the passengers' faith, culture, and values, the cruise never
sailed, was canceled, and left over 2,000 would-be passengers with
millions of dollars in losses. Indeed, the Plaintiff and individual
Class members paid tens of thousands of dollars for their tickets,
but none of them received a cash refund. As part of the original
Terms & Conditions, Project Neptune had the responsibility "to
refund the amount received for the reservation" if a trip was
canceled prior to departure. However, on June 5, 2020, Project
Neptune altered the cash refund provisions on its own. As a result,
Project Neptune typically refused refund requests, claiming all the
third-party vendors had been paid and never refunded Project
Neptune, thus making it impossible to refund the ticket purchasers,
says the suit.
Headquartered in South Jordan, Utah, Project Neptune, LLC, d/b/a
CruiseBuilder, d/b/a VacationBuilder, d/b/a Latter Day Travel,
d/b/a Jungle Reef , is engaged in international cruise-based
travel. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kara H. North, Esq.
MOXIE LAW GROUP
2100 W. Pleasant Grove Blvd, Ste 450B
Pleasant Grove, UT 84062
Telephone: (801) 599-0691
Facsimile: (801) 401-7368
E-mail: kara@moxielawgroup.com
RAHAL BIOSCIENCES: Diatlova Sues Over Armra Colostrum's False Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OLGA DIATLOVA, Plaintiff v. RAHAL BIOSCIENCES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 210307221 (Fla. Cir., 11th Judicial, Miami-Dade Cty.,
November 5, 2024) is a class action arising from unfair, deceptive,
untrue, and misleading advertising statements Rahal made about the
health benefits of its Armra Colostrum products and the source of
the bovine colostrum used to make its products.
According to the complaint, Rahal employed phrases like "research
backed" and cited to clinical studies to create the impression that
its health claims are backed by science and its products have
undergone the necessary rigor and testing to substantiate the
claimed health benefits. Allegedly, the studies that Rahal relied
on for its claimed health benefits did not amount to competent
scientific evidence. However, Rahal continued to push the narrative
that its products bestowed several health benefits on consumers
that are unsupported by science. As a result of its deceptive
conduct, Rahal has been unjustly enriched at the expense of its
customers, says the suit.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful
conduct and asserts claims for unjust enrichment and for violations
of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Headquartered in Bonita Springs, FL, Rahal Biosciences, Inc. is a
Delaware corporation that produces and sells throughout the United
States the following three product lines containing bovine
colostrum: 1) Armra Colostrum Immune Revival, 2) Armra Colostrum
Performance Revival, and 3) Armra Colostrum Health Revival. [BN]
The Plaintiffs is represented by:
Alec H. Schultz, Esq.
Carly A. Kligler, Esq.
HILGERS GRABEN PLLC
1221 Brickell Avenue, Suite 900
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 630-8304
E-mail: aschultz@hilgersgraben.com
ckligler@hilgersgraben.com
RBC CAPITAL: Faces Uzel Suit Over Unfair Cash Sweeps Programs
-------------------------------------------------------------
KAREN UZEL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-08226 (S.D.N.Y., October 29, 2024) is a class action on
behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated investors
who were participants in Defendant RBC Capital Markets' Insured
Deposits Program between June 30, 2020 and the present.
This case involves investment programs that are generally referred
to as "cash sweeps" programs in the financial services industry.
Unless a brokerage or retirement account client opts out, RBC
causes un-invested cash balances in clients' brokerage accounts to
be "swept" -- or automatically transferred -- into either money
market funds, or bank deposits pursuant to the IDP at third party
and/or RBC-affiliated banks. The banks pay interest to the clients
on the funds held in the IDP deposit accounts, which are FDIC
insured up to $250,000.
By enrolling them in the IDP, the Defendant caused Plaintiff and
the Class to be paid interest in their brokerage accounts
maintained at RBC at rates of between 0.01% and 1.15%, for cash
held in sums under $1 million at relevant times, even though much
higher interest rates of as high as over 5% were readily available
to the customers via money market funds, exchange traded funds
invested in U.S. Treasury securities, or otherwise, alleges the
suit.
RBC Capital Markets operates as an investment bank.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian P. Murray, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Avenue, Suite 358
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com
- and -
Christopher J. Gray, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. GRAY, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 838-3221
Facsimile: (212) 937-3139
E-mail: chris@investorlawyers.net
- and -
Joshua B. Kons, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JOSHUA B. KONS, LLC
100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 920-5181
Facsimile: (860) 920-5174
E-mail: joshuakons@konslaw.com
RRCA ACCOUNTS: Chestnut Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
JACK CHESTNUT & PAMELA CHESTNUT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RRCA ACCOUNTS MANAGEMENT,
INC., an Illinois Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-50448
(N.D. Ill., November 5, 2024) arises from a data security incident
and ransomware attack that resulted in unauthorized access to
certain personal and/or protected health information maintained by
Defendant.
The data breach occurred and was discovered in June 2024. However,
Plaintiffs and Class Members were not notified until four months
later in October 2024. The Plaintiffs bring this class action
against Defendant for its failure to properly safeguard its
clients' private information and to provide timely and adequate
notice to Plaintiffs and other Class Members that their information
had been subject to the unauthorized access by an unknown third
party and precisely what specific type of information was
accessed.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring causes of action for: (i) negligence
and negligence per se; (ii) implied breach of contract; (iii)
breach of fiduciary duty; (iv) intrusion upon seclusion/invasion of
privacy; (v) unjust enrichment; (vi) declaratory judgment and
injunctive relief; and (vii) violations of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
RRCA Accounts Management, Inc. is a full-service collection agency
serving businesses along the Lincoln Highway between DeKalb,
Illinois, and Clinton, Iowa. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
T. J. Jesky, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF T. J. JESKY
205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 810
Chicago, IL 60601-5902
Telephone: (312) 894-0130, Ext. 3
E-mail: tj@jeskylaw.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Grayson Wells, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
SM ENERGY: George Appeals Attorney's Fees Ruling in Chieftain Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Chieftain Royalty Company, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SM Energy
Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:11-cv-00177-D, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, DANNY GEORGE
has appealed a court order granting class counsel's renewed motion
for approval of attorneys' fees from common fund.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma, is brought against SM Energy Company
for alleged improper deduction of post-production costs from
royalty payments due on production from wells located throughout
Oklahoma, and asserted claims for breach of contract, tortious
breach of contract, breach of fiduciary or quasi-fiduciary duty,
fraud (actual and constructive), deceit, conversion and
conspiracy.
On Aug. 17, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for approval
of attorneys' fees from common fund, which Chief Judge Timothy D.
DeGiusti granted on Sept. 27, 2024. Class counsel was awarded an
attorney fee of $17,333,333 to be paid from the settlement fund in
accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. The
distribution of attorney fees among class counsel is a matter
within their sole discretion.
The appellate case is captioned Chieftain Royalty Company v. SM
Energy Company, Case No. 24-6227, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on October 29, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee CHIEFTAIN ROYALTY COMPANY, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Bradley E. Beckworth, Esq.
Jeffrey J. Angelovich, Esq.
Lisa P. Baldwin, Esq.
Michael B. Angelovich, Sr., Esq.
Nathan B. Hall, Esq.
Trey N. Duck, III, Esq.
NIX PATTERSON LLP
8701 Bee Cave Road, Building 1, Suite 500
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (512) 328−5333
Facsimile: (512) 328−5335
Email: bbeckworth@nixlaw.com
jangelovich@nixlaw.com
lbaldwin@nixlaw.com
mangelovich@nixlaw.com
nhall@nixlaw.com
tduck@nixlaw.com
- and -
David N. Smith, Esq.
NIX, PATTERSON & ROACH LLP
5215 N. O'Connor Blvd., Suite 1900
Irving, TX 75039
Telephone: (972) 861−1188
Facsimile: (972) 444−0716
Email: dneilsmith@mac.com
- and -
Emily N. Kitch, Esq.
Patranell Britten Lewis, Esq.
Robert N. Barnes, Esq.
BARNES & LEWIS LLP
208 NW 60th St.
Oklahoma City, OK 73118
Telephone: (405) 843−0363
Facsimile: (405) 832−1007
Email: ekitch@barneslewis.com
plewis@barneslewis.com
rbarnes@barneslewis.com
- and -
Susan R. Whatley, Esq.
NIX PATTERSON LLP
P.O. Box 178
Linden, TX 75563
Telephone: (903) 215−8310
Email: swhatley@nixlaw.com
Defendants-Appellees SM ENERGY COMPANY, et al. are represented by:
J. Kevin Hayes, Esq.
HALL ESTILL, HARDWICK, GABLE, GOLDEN & NELSON, P.C.
320 S. Boston Ave., Suite 400
Tulsa, OK 74103
Telephone: (918) 594−0400
Facsimile: (918) 594−0505
Email: khayes@hallestill.com
- and -
Pamela S. Anderson, Esq.
HALL, ESTILL, HARDWICK, GABLE, GOLDEN & NELSON, P.C.
521 East 2nd St., Suite 1200
Tulsa, OK 74120
Telephone: (918) 594−0448
Facsimile: (918) 594−0505
Email: panderson@hallestill.com
- and -
Jay P. Walters, Esq.
GABLEGOTWALS
BOK Park Plaza
499 W. Sheridan, Suite 2200
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 235−5500
Facsimile: (405) 235−2875
Email: jwalters@gablelaw.com
- and -
Mark D. Christiansen, Esq.
EDINGER LEONARD & BLAKLEY PLLC
6301 N. Western Ave., Suite 250
Oklahoma City, OK 73118
Telephone: (405) 796−8680
Facsimile: (405) 605−8381
Email: Mark@MDChristiansen.com
- and -
Charles T. Battle, Esq.
BATTLE LAW FIRM PLLC
1415 NW 43rd St.
Oklahoma City, OK 73118
Telephone: (405) 420−0082
Facsimile: (405) 416−5492
Email: charles@battlelawfirmok.com
- and -
Charles B. Nutley, Esq.
C. BENJAMIN NUTLEY ATTORNEY AT LAW
1055 E. Colorado Blvd., 5th Fl.
Pasadena, CA 91106
Telephone: (626) 204−4060
Facsimile: (626) 204−4061
Email: nutley@zenlaw.com
- and -
Eric A. Isaacson, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ERIC ALAN ISAACSON
6580 Avenida Mirola
LaJolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858) 263−9581
Email: ericalanisaacson@icloud.com
- and -
John W. Davis, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN W. DAVIS
3030 N. Rocky Point Dr. W, Suite 150
Tampa, FL 33607
Telephone: (813) 533−1972
Email: john@johnwdavis.com
Objector-Appellant DANNY GEORGE is represented by:
John J. Pentz, Esq.
18 Damon Street
Wayland, MA 01778
Telephone: (978) 985−4668
Email: jjpentz3@gmail.com
- and -
Stephen C. Griffis, Esq.
THE GRIFFIS LAW FIRM PLLC
3035 NW 63rd St., Suite 229
Oklahoma City, OK 73116
Telephone: (405) 840−2664
Facsimile: (405) 842−0787
Email: scgriffis@gmail.com
SPECIALTYCARE INC: Barta Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
Hayley Barta and Lindsay Lojewski, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SPECIALTYCARE, INC., Case No.
3:24-cv-01335 (M.D. Tenn., Nov. 8, 2024), is brought for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code for
failure to pay overtime for hours exceeding eight per day and/or 40
per workweek and Wage Order No. 4, for meal and rest break
violations for failure to provide accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated SNs were paid a salary
and treated as exempt under state and federal laws from overtime
pay. The Defendant suffered and permitted Plaintiffs and the
similarly situated SNs to work more than 40 hours per week, and
over 8 hours per day without overtime pay. The Defendant has been
aware, or should have been aware, that Plaintiffs and the other
similarly situated SNs performed non-exempt work that required
payment of overtime compensation. The Defendant knew that
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated worked unpaid overtime
hours because Defendant requires SNs to log the hours they work,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs worked for SpecialtyCare.
SpecialtyCare is one of the country's largest providers of clinical
services to hospital operating rooms.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bryce Ashby, Esq.
DONATI LAW, PLLC
1545 Union Avenue
Memphis, TN 38104
Phone: (901) 278-1004
Facsimile: (901) 278-3111
Email: Bryce@donatilaw.com
- and -
Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
H. Clara Coleman, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4700 IDS Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
Email: srey@nka.com
ccoleman@nka.com
SRG GLOBAL: 3M's and Atotech's Bids to Dismiss Peeler Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled MICHELLE PEELER, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SRG GLOBAL COATINGS, LLC,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00023-SNLJ (E.D. Mo.), Senior
District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri, Southeastern Division, denies
two separately-filed motions to dismiss.
The Plaintiff initially filed this putative class action against
Defendant SRG Global Coatings, LLC ("SRG") in February 2023. The
Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in April 2024 that
added several Defendants, including Defendants 3M Company and
Atotech USA, LLC. This matter is before the Court on 3M's and
Atotech's separately-filed motions to dismiss.
For the purposes of the pending motion to dismiss, Judge Limbaugh
says the facts alleged in the complaint are accepted as true. The
Plaintiffs' complaint alleges injuries and damages resulting from
the "migration of hazardous carcinogenic chemicals" and "metals"
from Defendant SRG's manufacturing facilities in Portageville,
Missouri, including hexavalent chromium, chromium, arsenic, PFAS,
and nickel, as well as other hazardous chemicals and metals.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant SRG failed to
adequately prevent migration of the contaminated groundwater plume
from the SRG site into the aquifer under Portageville, Missouri,
that caused dangerous pollutants to enter the drinking water of
Portageville residents.
Defendant SRG's wastewater allegedly contained hexavalent chromium,
as well as perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA"), two chemicals from a larger family
known collectively as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
SRG allegedly used PFOS- and PFOA-containing products it purchased
from Defendant Atotech USA, LLC ("Atotech") to suppress hazardous
fumes in its manufacturing processes. The complaint alleges that
PFOS, PFOA, and hexavalent chromium seeped into the groundwater and
eventually entered public and private water sources.
Plaintiff Peeler seeks to recover for an alleged personal injury;
the other Plaintiffs seek property and medical-monitoring damages
on behalf of two different putative classes.
The Plaintiffs allege the electroplating facilities in Portageville
have manufactured automotive products since 1969. SRG purchased the
facilities in 2008. According to the complaint, before SRG
purchased the facilities, SRG discovered "hazardous chemical and
metal contamination" of groundwater and soil at the facilities. SRG
entered an agreement with the State of Missouri to remediate that
contamination. From 2008 on, SRG allegedly began using products
containing PFOS and PFOA to suppress hazardous hexavalent chromium
fumes in its manufacturing processes.
The Plaintiffs allege that, since 2008, SRG has known that
hexavalent chromium, a contained PFOS, PFOA, and hexavalent
chromium within that system. They allege SRG still uses "PFAS
containing materials" in its operations, despite state regulators'
contrary instructions, and that SRG has taken no steps to remediate
its alleged releases.
According to the Plaintiffs, SRG "withheld" information about the
"nature and extent" of alleged "hazardous contamination." They
allege that SRG bought the "PFAS-containing chemicals" it used from
Defendant Atotech, which began manufacturing PFAS-containing
electroplating products in 2006. Former defendant DuPont is alleged
to have supplied PFAS to Atotech, and 3M is alleged to have
manufactured "raw" PFAS and "supplied PFAS to DuPont."
"DuPont" refers collectively to several Defendants, namely E.I. du
Pont de Nemours and Company, The Chemours Company, The Chemours
Company FC, LLC, Corteva, Inc., and DuPont de Nemours, Inc. DuPont
was previously a Defendant in this case but has been dismissed for
lack of personal jurisdiction.
The Plaintiffs do not specify which PFAS 3M supplied. DuPont
allegedly manufactured PFOA until 2013. 3M also allegedly
manufactured PFOA and was the only known manufacturer of PFOS and
PFHxS in the United States. However, Defendant 3M contends in its
motion to dismiss that, in 2000, 3M announced a voluntary phase-out
of the manufacture of PFOS and PFOA. In 2000, 3M stopped
manufacturing PFOS in the United States; 3M phased out production
and sale of raw PFOS and PFOA by 2002. After 2002, "PFOS" and
"PFOA" nevertheless could still be imported from abroad.
The Plaintiffs allege that Atotech, DuPont, and 3M knew of the
dangers of PFOS and PFOA and that SRG has continued to use
PFAS-containing products despite warnings from state regulators and
that SRG knew that its disposal practices--funneling wastewater
into a leaky drainage system--would cause an unreasonable risk of
harm to the Plaintiffs and others in Portageville. In late 2022,
water samples revealed the presence of PFOS and PFOA in public and
private water wells near the SRG facilities.
In April 2024, the Plaintiffs filed the operative complaint against
SRG, Atotech, DuPont, and 3M. One plaintiff, Michelle Peeler,
asserts she has ulcerative colitis, which she attributes to
exposure to chemicals originating at SRG's facilities, including
PFOS, PFOA, and hexavalent chromium. The remaining Plaintiffs are
landowners, who allege no present physical injury and instead seek,
for themselves and on behalf of two different putative classes,
property and medical-monitoring damages based on alleged PFOS and
PFOA contamination.
The Court granted DuPont's motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction. Defendants 3M and Atotech separately move to dismiss
the claims against them--Count III for Strict Liability Design
Defect, and Count IV for Negligence--under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1).
Defendants 3M and Atotech make four arguments in favor of dismissal
-- causation, design-defect claim and foreseeability, negligence
and duty, and medical-monitoring damages.
Defendants 3M and Atotech contend that both Counts against them
should be dismissed based on lack of causation. They argue that the
Plaintiffs have not pleaded that they were the but-for cause of any
injury.
Although thin, Judge Limbaugh says the Plaintiffs have pleaded what
Defendants 3M and Atotech deny--that those Defendants manufactured
and sold the chemicals SRG used that ultimately leeched into the
Plaintiffs' water source. Judge Limbaugh finds the Plaintiffs have
adequately pleaded actual cause, and 3M and Atotech's motions to
dismiss are denied on this point.
Defendant 3M and Atotech contend that the Plaintiffs cannot state a
claim against them because SRG's improper disposal of their PFAS
products was not a foreseeable or reasonably anticipated use. For
purposes of the motion to dismiss, Judge Limbaugh finds the
Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded that it is conceivably
foreseeable that an allegedly "unreasonably dangerous
chemical"--one that is highly mobile through air, soil, and water,
persistent in the environment, and not easily biodegradable--would
escape SRG's manufacturing plant and contaminate the environment,
causing injury. Judge Limbaugh points out that the Plaintiffs have
adequately alleged foreseeability.
3M and Atotech contend that because they had no right or obligation
to control the activities in question, that they did not owe the
Plaintiffs a duty. Judge Limbaugh finds the Plaintiffs' pleaded
facts, taken as true, establish that 3M and Atotech owed a duty to
the Plaintiffs.
Defendants 3M and Atotech argue that the Plaintiffs lack Article
III standing to bring claims for medical monitoring. In this case,
the Plaintiffs allege they have actually been exposed to harmful
chemicals, and they seek to mitigate their harm by monitoring their
health.
Judge Limbaugh opines that this is not unlike cases in which a data
breach allowed a third party to access and distribute personal
identifying information; at least one court held that purported
time and effort monitoring credit/financial] accounts as the result
of such a data breach can qualify as an injury to support the
Plaintiffs' claims, citing Baldwin v. Nat'l W. Life Ins. Co., No.
2:21-CV-04066-WJE, 2021 WL 4206736, at *3 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 15,
2021).
The Court holds that the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged
standing under Article III. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant
3M's motion to dismiss and Defendant Atotech's motion to dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Oct. 30,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/35nsd2dk from
PacerMonitor.com.
TARGET CORP: Court Tosses Amended Complaint in Panelli Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as ALEXANDER PANELLI, individually, and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TARGET CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No.: 24-cv-01218-H-DEB (S.D. Calif.), Judge Marilyn
L. Huff of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California granted the motion filed by Target to
dismiss plaintiff's first amended complaint. The complaint is
dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend.
On August 16, 2024, Defendant Target Corporation filed a motion to
dismiss Plaintiff Alexander Panelli's first amended complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim and to strike certain class action allegations.
Defendant Target sells various bed sheets, which are advertised by
Target as having a "thread count" of 600 or more. Plaintiff alleges
that "thread count" is a specific term used in the textile
industry, and the globally accepted measurement test for thread
count is the ASTM D 3775 method. Plaintiff further alleges that a
bedsheet with high thread count is more desirable and worth an
extra cost because "high thread counts have come to mean high
quality sheets, whether they be 'softer' or 'supple' or 'durable.'"
Plaintiff alleges that he purchased "a '100% cotton' queen sheet
set of 'Threshold Signature' sheets with a thread count of 800"
from Defendant. Plaintiff further alleges that the bed sheets he
purchased are substantially similar to all other 100% cotton sheets
with an advertised thread count of 600 of higher sold by Defendant
during the alleged class period.
Plaintiff alleges that independent testing using the ASTM D 3775
thread counting method was performed on the bed sheets he
purchased, and the testing showed that the bedsheet set he
purchased actually had a thread count of 288 rather than the stated
thread count of 800. Second, Plaintiff alleges: "it is physically
impossible for cotton threads to be fine enough to allow for 600 or
more threads in a single square inch of 100% cotton fabric." In
light of this, Plaintiff contends that any marketing or advertising
of 100% cotton bedsheets representing a thread count of 600 or
higher is false and misleading.
On April 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against
Defendant Target in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco. On May 8, 2024, Target removed the action to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1441 and 1446 on the basis of
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1332(d).
On May 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed a first amended class action
complaint against Target, alleging claims for:
(1) violations of California's Unfair Competition Law,
California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200 et seq.; and
(2) violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
California Civil Code Sec. 1750 et seq.
On July 15, 2024, the Northern California district court
transferred the action to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California.
By the present motion, Defendant Target moves pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss all of the claims in
Plaintiff's FAC with prejudice for failure to state a claim. In
addition, Target moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(f) to strike certain class action allegations from the FAC.
In the FAC, Plaintiff alleges claims against Defendant for
violations of California's UCL and CLRA. Defendant argues that
these claims should be dismissed because Plaintiff has failed to
adequately allege that a reasonable consumer would be deceived by
the labeling at issue.
Plaintiff's UCL and CLRA claims are based on his contention that
Defendant's advertising and labeling of its 100% cotton bedsheets
as having a "thread count" of 600 or higher is false and
misleading.
Judge Huff says the Plaintiff's theory of consumer deception here
is implausible and based on an unreasonable interpretation of the
representations at issue. According to Plaintiff's own allegations
in the FAC, Plaintiff's proposed interpretation of the phrase '800
thread count' (and any representation of a thread count of higher
than 600) in the context of 100% cotton bedsheets is physically
impossible to achieve. As such, no reasonable consumer would
interpret Defendant's advertising and labeling in the manner
proposed by Plaintiff. No reasonable consumer would interpret
Defendant's 100% cotton bedsheet advertising and labeling 'as
promising something that is impossible to find.' As such, no
reasonable consumer would be deceived by the labeling and
advertising at issue in the manner proposed by Plaintiff. Thus,
Plaintiff's UCL and CLRA claims fail as a matter of law.
In sum, Defendant's representations regarding the thread count of
its bed sheets are not misleading to a reasonable consumer in the
manner proposed by Plaintiff as a matter of law, the Court finds.
As a result, Plaintiff has failed to adequately state a claim under
either the UCL or CLRA, and, therefore, the Court dismisses
Plaintiff's UCL and CLRA claims.
Having dismissed Plaintiff's UCL and CLRA claims, the Court must
now consider whether Plaintiff should be granted leave to amend
those claims.
The Court's dismissal of Plaintiff's UCL and CLRA claims is based
on Plaintiff's allegation that it is physically impossible for 100%
cotton fabric to have a thread count of 600 or more. Because it is
impossible for Plaintiff to state a viable UCL or CLRA claim
without contradicting that allegation, leave to amend should be
denied in this case, the Court holds.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JohRSt
TRULIEVE INC: Sued Over Unlawful Tracking Technology
----------------------------------------------------
John Doe, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
TRULIEVE INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00391-AW-MJF (N.D. Fla., Sept. 36,
2024), is brought against the Defendants as a result of the
unlawful use of extensive tracking technology which distributed the
Plaintiff's personally identifiable information ("PII") and
sensitive protected
health information ("PHI") without prior consent.
As one of the United States' largest purveyor of marijuana
products, Trulieve knows, or should know, the importance of
protecting its customers' privacy. Trulieve admits on its own
website that customers' privacy "is important."
However, on Trulieve's website (Trulieve.com) and mobile
application, where medical marijuana patients seek to find relief
for painful (and sometimes terminal) illnesses, Trulieve permits an
astounding number of third-party companies2 to deploy tracking or
cookie technology that monitor visitors' every move. Thus, in
addition to being a major seller of marijuana products, Trulieve is
also a major seller of customer information. While Trulieve is very
much a marijuana company, it is very much also a data processor.
The data and knowledge that Trulieve has--whether certain
individuals are cannabis users – is highly valuable to other
cannabis companies and ancillary cannabis businesses. This is
especially true with respect to the provision of medical services
through the sale of marijuana in states where marijuana is only
legal for medicinal purposes.
In the course of doing business to provide these medical services,
Trulieve collects personally identifiable information ("PII") and
sensitive protected health information ("PHI") through the Trulieve
website and mobile application. The PII and PHI that Trulieve
collects includes but is not limited to: internet protocol address
(which can reveal users' location), information about medical
marijuana purchases and activity on the Trulieve website and mobile
application, and physical location using geolocation data. And
while Trulieve states that it collects this information in its
Privacy Policy, it does not disclose that it is selling medical
information--including the fact that users are browsing and buying
marijuana for medical purposes--to advertisers like Google, Oracle,
and Microsoft.
When using the Trulieve website and/or mobile application,
Plaintiff did not consent to the use of extensive tracking
technology that would transmit PII and PHI to dozens of
corporations scattered throughout the digital world. Against this
backdrop, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, brings this Action, seeking actual damages, statutory
damages, treble damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, costs
of suit, pre- and post- judgment interest and reasonable costs and
attorneys' fees under state law and the doctrine of unjust
enrichment, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has visited the Trulieve website, Trulieve.com, to
purchase medicinal marijuana for personal medical use on numerous
occasions.
Trulieve is the largest medical marijuana dispensary conglomerate
in the State of Florida and markets and sells marijuana to
consumers across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arturo Pena Miranda, Esq.
Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq.
Jennifer Czeisler, Esq.
STERLINGTON, PLLC
One World Trade Center, 85th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: 929-709-1493
Email: arturo.pena@sterlingtonlaw.com
blake.yagman@sterlingtonlaw.com
jen.czeisler@sterlingtonlaw.com
- and -
Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1010
Washington, D.C. 20006
Phone: 202-973-0900
Email: kaizpuru@tzlegal.com
UBISOFT ENTERTAINMENT: Cassell Sues Over Game's Limited License
---------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW CASSELL and ALAN LIU, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. UBISOFT ENTERTAINMENT S.A. and
UBISOFT, INC., Case No. 2:24-at-01402 (E.D. Cal., Nov. 4, 2024)
alleges that the Defendants misled consumers by telling them they
were buying "The Crew" game, when in fact, all they were renting
was a limited license to access a game that the Defendants choose
to maintain at their own noblesse oblige.
According to the complaint, the consumers thought they were
obtaining the full bundle of sticks we know as property ownership;
not the brittle bundle Defendants actually conveyed. Accordingly,
the deception was compounded by the fact that many gamers, like
Plaintiffs, bought physical disks storing the Game data, which
reasonably made them believe that they could input that disk into
their computer or game console and play the game whenever they
wanted.
The Defendants also reinforced this belief by including language on
the Product packing stating that the online portion of the Game
could be retired, thereby representing to consumers that an offline
portion of the Game existed that would be unaffected. Second,
through the totality of the Product's packaging, the Defendants
falsely represented that The Crew itself was encoded onto physical
disks consumers could buy or the digital files consumers could pay
to download, the suit says.
However, in reality, The Crew itself resided on a remote server,
and the physical disks and downloaded files consumers paid for were
more akin to a key they could use to open the gates of this remote
server, which Defendants could one day decide to fail to maintain.
This decision resulted in the Defendants' complete destruction of
the Game which totally barred consumers' access to the product they
paid money form, added the suit.
The Plaintiffs bring their claims against Defendants individually
and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated for (1)
violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code
section 1750, et seq.; (2) violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200, et seq.);
(3) violation of California's False Advertising Law; (4) Fraud; (5)
Fraudulent Inducement; (6) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; (7) Breach
of Express Warranty; (8) Breach of Implied Warranty.
Ubisoft Entertainment SA is a French video game publisher.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq.
Ines Diaz Villafana, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com
sbogdanovich@bursor.com
idiaz@bursor.com
UPMC: Plaintiffs in Harrington, et al. Suit Can Amend Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as CHERELL HARRINGTON and DESERAE COOK,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. UPMC and ALLEGHENY COUNTY, Defendants, Civil Action
No. 20-497 (W.D. Pa.), Judge W. Scott Hardy of the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania will grant
plaintiffs' motion for leave to file second amended class action
complaint to include Gloria Lewis as a named plaintiff and proposed
class representative.
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. 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.
The Amended Complaint alleges several claims against UPMC and
ACCYF, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, for violations of
Plaintiffs' rights under the 1st, 4th, and 14th Amendments to the
United States Constitution, a claim against AC-CYF for violations
of Plaintiffs' rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution, and
Pennsylvania common law claims against UPMC for breaches of
physician-patient confidentiality.
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.
Defendants each filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint.
The motions were granted in part and denied in part.
On September 12, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for
Leave to File Second Amended Class Action Complaint to Include
Gloria Lewis as a Named Plaintiff and Proposed Class
Representative. Plaintiffs aver that Ms. Lewis meets the definition
of both proposed classes in that she was subjected to a urine test
while admitted to a UPMC facility for the purpose of giving birth,
her newborn tested negative for controlled substances, her urine
drug test results were disclosed to AC-CYF, and AC-CYF investigated
her based solely on UPMC's report that her urine drug test was
positive for marijuana.
UPMC opposes Plaintiffs' Motion, contending that adding Ms. Lewis
is unnecessary and would prejudicially delay these proceedings.
Plaintiffs contend that they have good cause to file their proposed
Second Amended Class Action Complaint to add Ms. Lewis as a named
plaintiff and class representative. The Court agrees. Plaintiffs
would be prejudiced if not permitted to add a representative of
putative class members who gave birth at UPMC facilities after
Allegheny County and UPMC became aware of the DOH's guidance, and
after they collaborated on the MOU pertaining to testing,
reporting, and investigating new mothers with positive urine drug
tests.
According to the Court, Defendants are not prejudiced by the
proposed amendment because fact discovery has not yet been
completed, relevant witnesses are being offered for depositions
within the discovery period, Plaintiffs do not seek to take
depositions of any additional witnesses or seek any additional
discovery based solely on the addition of Ms. Lewis as a named
plaintiff, and Plaintiffs have not yet filed their motion for class
certification. Nor do Defendants contend that the proposed
amendment would be futile.
The record before the Court simply does not support a finding that
Plaintiffs' Motion is based upon undue delay, bad faith, or
dilatory motive, nor have Defendants demonstrated any resulting
prejudice if such amendment were allowed, particularly when
discovery is ongoing and a deadline for filing a motion for class
certification has not yet been established.
The Court will grant the Motion and permit Plaintiffs to file their
proposed Second Amended Class Action Complaint.
A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p4wg9e
VETERANS GUARDIAN: Filing for Ford Class Cert. Due Feb. 15, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FORD v. VETERANS GUARDIAN
VA CLAIM CONSULTING, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00756 (M.D.N.C., Filed
Sept. 1, 2023), the Hon. Judge Catherine C. Eagles entered an order
-- The deadline to file any motion for class certification is
February 15, 2025.
-- The matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge to review the
various scheduling orders and revise them as needed, after
consultation with counsel.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Personal Property Damage.[CC]
VIA RENEWABLES: Class Cert Bid Filing in Clark Due Dec. 16
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Clark v. Via Renewables,
Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00568 (N.D. Cal., Filed Jan. 30, 2024), the
Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order granting
stipulation to enlarge time regarding scheduling order deadlines:
-- Plaintiff's class certification Dec. 16, 2024
motion due on:
-- Defendant's class certification Jan. 15, 2025
opposition due on:
-- Plaintiff's Class Certification Reply Jan. 30, 2025
due on:
-- Hearing on Class Certification Motion March 6, 2025
is set for:
The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.
Via Renewables operates as an independent retail energy services
company in the United States.[CC]
VIPRI CORP: General Pretrial Managent Order Entered in Cuesta
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCO ANTONIO CUESTA, v.
VIPRI CORPORATION d/b/a CACIO E VINO and GIUSTO PRIOLA, Case No.
1:24-cv-07101-RA-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses
entered an order regarding general pretrial management as follows:
1. Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must
be
initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery
set
by the Court.
2. Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting
discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need
for
such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil
Rule
37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices.
3. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion
conferences
are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe
that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the
need
for a motion or narrow the issues.
4. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court
proceeding
(including a telephonic court conference) or to extend a
deadline must be made in writing and in compliance with
section
2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone
requests
for adjournments or extensions will not be entertained.
5. Counsel for the plaintiff must serve a copy of this Order on
any
defendant previously served with the summons and complaint,
must
serve this Order along with the summons and complaint on all
defendants served hereafter, and must file proof of such
service
with the Court.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lYjbn2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
VISA INC: Broadway Grill Sues Over Anti-Competitive Conduct
-----------------------------------------------------------
BROADWAY GRILL, LLC on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VISA INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08422
(S.D.N.Y., November 5, 2024), arises under Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act, and California law. Plaintiff seeks to stop Visa's
exclusionary and anti-competitive scheme and remedy the harm Visa
has caused.
The Plaintiff alleges that Visa imposes a web of exclusionary
agreements on merchants and banks in which it penalizes those who
route transactions to a different debit network or alternative
payment system. Moreover, Visa's anti-competitive conduct ensures
that Visa continues to dominate the debit network market in the
United States without having to meaningfully compete on the price
of fees, driving up costs for all businesses. In addition, Visa
prevents innovators and rivals from meaningfully competing with
Visa, forcing merchants to remain in overpriced contracts, says the
suit.
Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Visa, Inc. is a multinational
payment card services corporation that facilitates electronic funds
transfers throughout the world. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Karin B. Swope, Esq.
Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
Vara Lyons, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
999 N. Northlake Way, Suite 215
Seattle, WA 98103
Telephone: (206) 802.1272
Facsimile: (650) 697.0577
E-mail: tloeser@cpmlegal.com
kswope@cpmlegal.com
vlyons@cpmlegal.com
- and -
Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
Brian Danitz, Esq.
Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
Gia Jung, Esq.
840 Malcolm Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
- and -
40 Worth Street, Suite 602
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (212) 381-6373
Facsimile: (917) 398-7753
E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
bdanitz@cpmlegal.com
azapala@cpmlegal.com
gjung@cpmlegal.com
VIVENDI TICKETING: Fortune Sues Over Misleading Event Ticket Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SOLOMON FORTUNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VIVENDI TICKETING US, LLC D/B/A SEE TICKETS
USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08415 (S.D.N.Y., November 5,
2024), accuses the Defendant of violating the New York Arts and
Cultural Affairs Law.
The Plaintiff alleges that whenever a consumer visits Defendant's
website and selects an event, they are not shown the total cost
up-front. Instead, consumers are presented an item price, flanked
by bundled, ballooning, and misleading fees. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff seeks relief in this action individually, and on behalf
of all other ticket purchasers for Defendant's events in the state
of New York for actual and/or statutory damages, reasonable
attorneys' costs and fees, and injunctive relief under New York
Arts and Cultural Affairs Law.
Headquartered in Los Angeles, CA, See Tickets USA, LLC is a
Delaware limited liability company that sells event tickets
throughout the United States, including in the state of New York.
It owns and operates the website https://www.SeeTickets.us/. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
- and -
Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: sbogdanovich@bursor.com
YNY COSMOPOLITAN: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fernandez Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DEVIN FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. YNY Cosmopolitan Midtown, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-07551 (E.D.N.Y., October 29, 2024) is a civil
rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website,
www.yukienatori-newyork.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
Plaintiff Fernandez has made an attempt to visit and use the
website. He wanted to spend his leisure time in a vibrant area of
NYC and was looking for entertainment and relaxation venues. On
September 23, 2024, he decided to schedule a massage session. After
searching for a massage salon in NYC, he came across the
Defendant's website. While reviewing the services offered by the
company, he became interested in the Bamboo massage and attempted
to make a purchase, but was hindered by accessibility barriers he
encountered. Some of the issues encountered were required
interactive elements that did not have roles, making them
inaccessible using the Tab key. The Plaintiff did not understand
which required elements needed to be selected to proceed. Another
major issue was the "Cart button," which could not be focused using
the keyboard. These access barriers have caused the website to be
inaccessible to, and not independently usable by blind and
visuallyimpaired persons, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in YNY
Cosmopolitan Midtown's policies, practices, and procedures so that
its 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.
YNY Cosmopolitan Midtown, LLC operates the website that offers spa
services including massage therapy, facials, body treatments, hair
removal, manicure and pedicure.[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
*********
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 ***