/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241127.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, November 27, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 238
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Corcoran Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Evans Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Fischer Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Hunt Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: McBryde Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
A&H SECURITY: Khan Seeks to Conditionally Certify FLSA Collective
ABF FREIGHT: Gomez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
AMCOR PLC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Berry Global
APEX CAPITAL GROUP: McKellar Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
AUTHENTIC BRANDS: Advertises False Price Discounts, Guerriero Says
BITWISE: Judge Approves $20-Mil. Employee Class Action Settlement
CANADA DRY: Faces Class Action Over Ginger Ale Labeling
CAPITAL ONE: Mullin Seeks Process Managers' Unpaid Overtime
CARNIVAL CORP: Faces Class Suit for Predatory Gambling Practices
COMPUTERSHARE INC: Sauls Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif.
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Narrows Claims in Castillo Suit
CSL PLASMA: Moore Sues Over Failure to Pay Timely Wages
CYCLO THERAPEUTICS: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Rafael Holdings
DESERT FIXED: Munson Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
DILIGENT DELIVERY: Martinez Files Suit in N.D. California
DISCOUNT MOTORS: Court Certifies Embry Class Action
ELEVATE LABS: Discloses Personal/Video Info to Braze, Kroskey Says
EMSL ANALYTICAL: Suddarth and Lares Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.
FRESHPET INC: Gibbons Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Pa.
FROEDTERT THEDACARE: Goston Seeks Registered Nurses' Unpaid OT
GIANNA'S DILEGGE: Hernandez Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
HEALTH CARE: Rutherford Negligence Suit Removed to D. Montana
HOT TOPIC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Garrett Suit Says
HP INC: Faces Hall Suit Over Unfair Instant Ink Program
HUSCH BLACKWELL: Martinellli FDCPA Suit Removed to E.D. Wis.
INSIGHT SELECT: M&A Probes Proposed Acquisition of Assets by KKR
LRW TRAFFIC: Hays Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
MARS ACQUISITION: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With ScanTech AI
MDL 2873: Brown Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Substances
MDL 2873: Dunivan Sues Over AFFF’s & TOG's Undisclosed Hazards
MDL 2873: Jaramillo Seeks Damages Over AFFF- & TOG-Caused Injuries
MDL 2873: Killion Suit Seeks Damages Over AFFF & TOG Hazards
MDL 2873: Maness Seeks Damages for Toxic Substances-Caused Injuries
MDL 2873: Moren Sues Over Unsafe Aqueous Film-Forming Foams
MDL 2873: Rutledge Sues Over Harmful AFFF and TOG Products
MEJURI (US) INC: Davis Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
NATIONAL POTATO: Govea Suit Alleges Frozen Potato Price-Fixing
NCAA: Ray Bid to Seal Exhibits Tossed w/o Prejudice
ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Faces Hubacek Securities Suit in Delaware
OPTICSPLANET INC: Class Cert Filing Due August 8, 2025
PACS GROUP: Faces Expanded Securities Class Action Lawsuit
PATCH INC: Jackson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime and Retaliation
PILLAR CONSTRUCTION: Underpays Construction Workers, Graciano Says
QUANTERIX CORP: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims
ROBLOX CORP: Refutes Underage Gambling Allegations in Class Action
ROCKET MORTGAGE: Mattson Loses Class Certification Bid
SDLA COURIER: Fails to Provide Advance Layoff Notice, Perez Says
SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Wolf Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
SET FORTH: Girven Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Consumers' Info
SKYWEST AIRLINES: Campbell Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Calif.
SMARTSHEET INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
SO GONG DONG: Hurtado Seeks Kitchen Workers' Unpaid Wages
STAPLES INC: Weiser Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
STONEBRIDGE HOSPITALITY: Vanegas Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.
SUBARU CORP: Faces Class Action Over Defective Side Mirrors
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Bid to Seal Document OK'd in FWK Suit
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Court Allows Sealing of Docs in PBC Suit
TASKUS INC: Fact Discovery in Lozada Due Feb. 10, 2025
TIKTOK INC: Middleton Files Suit in W.D. Missouri
TOYOTA MOTOR: Door Locking Actuators "Defective," Mixon Says
UNIVERSAL ENTERTAINMENT: Ebright Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
VISA INC: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Laws' Violations
WELLS FARGO: Mombrun Balks at Unauthorized Fund Transfers
XEROX HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
*********
3M COMPANY: Corcoran Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Corcoran, 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; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:24-cv-05433-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 30, 2024), is brought for damages
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, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
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 Decedent's exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of
Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further
seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from
the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
liver cancer as a result of exposure to 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:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Evans Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Earl Evans, 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-05444-RMG
(D.S.C., Sept. 30, 2024), is brought for personal injury resulting
from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and
firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with
knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS,
which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated
with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and 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: Fischer Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------
Terence Fischer, 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; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:24-cv-05430-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 30, 2024), is brought for damages
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, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
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 Decedent's exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of
Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further
seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from
the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
kidney cancer as a result of exposure to 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:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Hunt Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Hunt, 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; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:24-cv-05431-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 30, 2024), is brought for damages
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, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
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 Decedent's exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of
Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further
seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from
the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
hypothyroidism as a result of exposure to 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:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: McBryde Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------
Ronald McBryde and Carol McBryde, his wife, and other similarly
situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE
NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;) DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case
No. 2:24-cv-06565-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 18, 2024), is brought for
damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Ronald McBryde regularly used, and was thereby
directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires
during his working career and was diagnosed with liver cancer
and/or other medical related conditions as a result of exposure to
the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave, Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-224-9400
Facsimile: 732-224-9494
A&H SECURITY: Khan Seeks to Conditionally Certify FLSA Collective
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MURAD KHAN, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. A&H SECURITY
SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03491-VSB (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff
will move the Court, before the Honorable Vernon S. Broderick, at a
date and time to be determined by the Court, for an order
(1) conditionally certifying this action as a collective action
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C.
section216(b), on behalf of all fire and security guards
employed by A&H Security Services, LLC, who worked more than
40
hours in any work week from May 6, 2021 through and
including
the end of the opt-in period (the "Employees");
(2) authorizing an "opt-in" notice of this action to be sent to
the
Employees by mail;
(3) approving Plaintiff's proposed form of notice;
(4) compelling Defendant to produce relevant information
identifying the Employees; and
(5) tolling the statute of limitations on the claims of
potential
opt-in plaintiffs from the date of this motion through the
date
that the notice is sent to the Employees.
A&H offers a comprehensive range of security solutions, from armed
and unarmed guards to fire safety services and cutting-edge
technology integration.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 14, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JOX4iF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Orin Kurtz, Esq.
GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
150 East 52nd Street, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 905-0509
Facsimile: (212) 905-0508
E-mail: okurtz@gardylaw.com
- and -
Daniel H. Kovel, Esq.
KOVEL LAW PLLC
14 East 96th Street, Suite 3
New York, NY 10128
Telephone: (646) 397-1729
ABF FREIGHT: Gomez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled ALEJANDRO GOMEZ, an individual, on his own behalf
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ABF
FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC., an Arkansas corporation; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV25591, was removed from
the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on November
14, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-09842 to the proceeding.
The case arises from Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code.
Headquartered in Fort Smith, AR, ABF Freight System, Inc. operates
as a less-than-truckload (LTL) carrier. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Emily Burkhardt Vicente, Esq.
Michael A. Pearlson, Esq.
Karen Evans, Esq.
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627
Telephone: (213) 532-2000
Facsimile: (213) 532-2020
E-mail: ebvicente@HuntonAK.com
mpearlson@HuntonAK.com
kevans@HuntonAK.com
AMCOR PLC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Berry Global
-------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating:
-- AMCOR plc (NYSE: AMCR), relating to the proposed merger with
Berry Global Group, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Berry
shareholders will receive a fixed exchange ratio of 7.25 Amcor
shares for each Berry share held upon closing, resulting in Amcor
and Berry shareholders owning approximately 63% and 37% of the
combined company, respectively.
Click here for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/berry-global-group-inc-bery/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Piedmont Lithium Inc. (NASDAQ: PLL), relating to the proposed
merger with Sayona Mining Limited. Under the terms of the
agreement, the transaction will result in an approximate 50% / 50%
equity holding of shareholders of Piedmont and Sayona.
Click here for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/piedmont-lithium-inc-pll/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- AeroVironment, Inc. (NASDAQ: AVAV), relating to the proposed
merger with BlueHalo LLC. Under the terms of the agreement,
AeroVironment shareholders will own approximately 60.5% of the
combined company.
Click here for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/aerovironment-inc-avav/. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Berry Global Group, Inc. (NYSE: BERY), relating to the
proposed merger with AMCOR plc. Under the terms of the agreement,
Berry shareholders will receive a fixed exchange ratio of 7.25
Amcor shares for each Berry share held upon closing, resulting in
Amcor and Berry shareholders owning approximately 63% and 37% of
the combined company, respectively.
Click here for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/berry-global-group-inc-bery/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
3. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341
Attorney Advertising. (C) 2024 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law
firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates
PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
APEX CAPITAL GROUP: McKellar Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against APEX CAPITAL GROUP.
The case is styled as Richard McKellar, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. APEX CAPITAL GROUP, Case No.
2:24-cv-10543 (D.N.J., Nov. 15, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
APEX Capital Group -- https://www.investwithapex.com/ -- offers
expert real estate investment solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ross Howard Schmierer, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
3000 Atrium Way, Suite 200
MOUNT LAUREL, NJ 08054
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Email: ross@kazlg.com
AUTHENTIC BRANDS: Advertises False Price Discounts, Guerriero Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH GUERRIERO and TONY SIKAVI, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP,
LLC and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-08778
(S.D.N.Y., November 18, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of New York Consumer Protection from
Deceptive Acts and Practices Act, New York False Advertising Act,
California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising
Law, and California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' practice of advertising false
price discounts for merchandise sold throughout Authentic Brands
Group's Brooks Brothers Factory outlet stores. According to the
complaint, the Defendants lure consumers with advertised discounts
that promise huge savings and high value. But the promised savings
are false, and the product's value reflected in its price is
incorrect when the retailer advertises discounts off of some
higher, made-up, and artificially inflated "original" price that no
one ever pays. The Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, restitution,
and declaratory and injunctive relief from the Defendants arising
from their false reference and discount pricing.
Authentic Brands Group, LLC is a brand management company
headquartered in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Email: gary@lcllp.com
- and -
Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
Scott G. Braden, Esq.
James B. Drimmer, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1234 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (619) 762-1910
Facsimile: (858) 313-1850
Email: todd@lcllp.com
scott@lcllp.com
jim@lcllp.com
BITWISE: Judge Approves $20-Mil. Employee Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Anthony Lopez, writing for ABC 30 News, reports that a judge
has approved the settlement of a $20 million class action lawsuit
brought by former Bitwise employees.
Lawyers representing the nearly 900 Bitwise employees who were laid
off reached the settlement agreement with the company's investors,
insurance companies, and debtors in July, just two weeks after
co-founders Irma Olguin Junior and Jake Soberal pleaded guilty to
the company's $115 million fraud scheme.
Federal prosecutors say Olguin and Soberal worked together to
defraud investors and lenders.
The scheme continued until May 2023, when Bitwise ran out of money
and the company collapsed. Olguin and Soberal are scheduled to be
sentenced on Dec. 17.
Under the terms of the settlement, $6 million will be set aside to
compensate employees for their actual losses.
The remaining funds will be used to reimburse lawyers for their
expenses as well as the cost of the administration the claims.
Any money that remains will be distributed to employees based on
their prior wages. [GN]
CANADA DRY: Faces Class Action Over Ginger Ale Labeling
-------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Wellbank, writing for Green Matters, reports that if you've
purchased ginger ale from two of the more popular ginger ale
makers, you will want to learn why they're being targeted in a
class-action lawsuit.
The ginger ale lawsuit was filed in California federal court by a
plaintiff who is looking for financial compensation over what she
claims was false advertising.
Learn more about the lawsuit below, including whether or not your
favorite ginger ale company was included and how you can get in on
the action if you want to join the case.
Canada Dry ginger ale is involved in a lawsuit over mislabeled
products.
On Nov. 6, 2024, the Top Class Actions website revealed that a
dissatisfied customer had filed a class action lawsuit against the
makers of Schweppes and Canada Dry. Court documents show that
Lillian Elliot was upset with the company after discovering that
their ginger ale products weren't made using natural flavors but
instead contained artificial ingredients.
The lawsuit was filed against the parent company, Keurig Dr Pepper,
Inc., in California federal court.
According to paperwork seen by the website, Elliot claimed that the
labels on the products failed to disclose that they have artificial
flavors and instead stated that the product is made with "natural
ginger flavor" or "naturally flavored."
"These labels are both intentionally misleading and unlawful under
federal and state law because they omit the material fact that the
products contain artificial flavoring," Elliot claimed in part of
the court filing.
The plaintiff made the discovery after a lab test uncovered malic
acid, which is one of the ingredients listed on the product's
packaging. However, since malic acid (dl-malic acid) doesn't occur
naturally in the wild, Elliot claims that the product is
mislabeled.
"Defendant adds synthetic dl-malic acid to the products because
without the addition of this synthetic chemical the products would
not taste like 'ginger ale,'" Elliot stated in the paperwork.
Elliot believes that she and other customers paid a higher price
because they believed they were purchasing all-natural beverages,
but instead, they were misled by the company. As such, she is
seeking financial compensation under the allegation that Keurig Dr
Pepper, Inc. violated several laws, including the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Here's what to do if you purchased the ginger ale involved in the
lawsuit:
User @thelawyerangela shared the news on TikTok, telling her
followers they could likely get involved in the class action
lawsuit once it reaches the settlement stage.
She told her ginger ale-loving followers to pay close attention to
this one and to check back in with her because she'll update them
on how they can get their share of any financial settlement once
the case is processed.
In the meantime, those hoping to purchase a naturally flavored
ginger ale drink may want to double check the ingredient list if
they're shopping products for Schweppes and Canada Dry, lest they
feel as though they've been duped the same way Elliot and her peers
feel. [GN]
CAPITAL ONE: Mullin Seeks Process Managers' Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eileen Mullin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Capital One Services, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 3:24-cv-00816-MHL (E.D. Va., November 15, 2024) asserts a claim
for unpaid overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Virginia Overtime Wage Act for Capital One's failure to pay
overtime premiums to individuals it employs as non-managerial
process managers or senior process managers.
According to the complaint, Capital One engages in a scheme which
results in so-called "white collar misclassification" whereby it
gives its employees a job title that makes their position sound
more important than it is, and which suggests that they pass one of
the white collar "exemptions" to overtime laws. Capital One's
non-managerial process managers are uniformly misclassified as
"exempt" from overtime laws pursuant to Capital One's policies and
pay plan, says the suit.
The Plaintiff was employed by Capital One from 2014 to 2024, and
for the three years prior to this lawsuit was employed as a Process
Manager.
Capital One Services, LLC provides financial services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
Harris D. Butler, III, Esq.
Zev Antell, Esq.
Samantha R. Galina, Esq.
BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Ste. 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 648-4848
Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
E-mail: craig@butlercurwood.com
harris@butlercurwood.com
zev@butlercurwood.com
samantha@butlercurwood.com
CARNIVAL CORP: Faces Class Suit for Predatory Gambling Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carter Capner Law is opening a class action against Carnival
Corporation due to alleged predatory gambling practices.
The law firm has reports of passengers who have racked up debts of
up to $25,000.
Cruise ship casinos can face different laws and regulations than
casinos on land.
Earlier this year, Shane Dixon, a father of three, tragically
jumped off Pacific Adventure after racking up immense gambling debt
onboard. Carter Capner Law has now found other Australians who
allege cruise ships incentivise racking up gambling debt while at
sea, and is pursuing a class-action lawsuit against Carnival
Corporation.
Peter Carter, a former national president of the Australian Lawyers
Alliance, runs Carter Capner Law. Carter shared in a press release
that other cruisers have come forward with similar stories, sharing
how they felt that their cruise line exploited them for gambling
debts.
One passenger said he had less than $2000 in his bank account while
sailing, but P&O let him rack up a debt of nearly $6000. He claims
he had no idea that this was a loan and hadn't been keeping track
of his losses. He maintains he thought the cruise line was debiting
his bank account.
When he arrived back in Sydney he was forced to stay on board for
three hours, to be interrogated about his gambling debt.
Eventually, he was released after threatening to jump overboard and
swim to shore.
Another case shared by Carter involves a cruiser who was offered a
cruise free with Carnival Cruise Lines and was given a credit limit
of $5000 per day. Carnival Cruise Line allegedly already knew the
passenger's issues with debt and gambling, and he still had unpaid
debts from previous cruises.
On this free cruise, he built a further $13,000 of debt, which
totalled $25,000 when considering previous debts. He was made to
sign an acknowledgment of the debt before being allowed to
disembark.
Carter believes that despite reactionary modifications after
Dixon's tragic death, more change needs to be made by cruise
lines.
"Not only were these actions arguably unconscionable, but the
practice of preventing passengers and their families from leaving
the ship and interrogating them at the Australian port of
disembarkation -- even for short periods -- about how and when the
casino debt will be paid, is against the law."
Lawyers explain the problems with cruise ship casinos
In an interview with ABC Radio, Carter explains that he believes
cruise lines think they are free from any laws when sailing in
international waters, but he doesn't believe this to be the case.
"Well, the point is that the cruise lines think that once they're
in international waters, everything goes, we have a different
opinion and we think that there are still some regulations that
need to be followed.
"Even the law of the United Kingdom or the law of Bermuda, wherever
the ship is registered, will apply, and those laws are very
favourable in terms of consumer protection."
Due to a lack of regulation, cruise ships can allow those who are
heavily intoxicated to continue gambling, or pursue other dangerous
practices that they may not be able to do in other jurisdictions,
such as Australia.
"Well, there are no regulations as such. The question is whether
they should be permitted to allow gambling when people are heavily
intoxicated, whether they should be given no questions asked loans
just charged to their room account without any investigation. Is
there the capacity to repay or any investigation as to whether
they're problem gambler?
"So those things we believe apply under the consumer protection
laws of other countries. And the law that applies on the ship in
international waters is the law of the state where the vessel is
registered."
Carter also mentions cases he's come across where he believes
incentives such as free drinks or free future cruises are used to
lure passengers into racking up debts.
"Well, they go to the casino desk and they've asked, oh, would you
like a loan? And they say, oh, how much? $5,000 a day, $2,000 a
day, depending. We have people who've contacted us, who've racked
up a debt of $13,000 without keeping track of it because the casino
on the ship doesn't do it for them and they're distracted by the
free drinks, the promises of the next cruise is free. So we think
that's all very poor conduct, and wouldn't be tolerated in
Australia.
"And our objective is to get compensation for those passengers
who've been financially harmed as a result. And remember, it's not
just the passenger, it's their family as well. So it's serious
conduct and they should be brought to account."
The firm says the current action is focused against Carnival
Corporation and its brands.
"Well, the main protagonist, according to the numbers who've
already expressed their interest to us is Carnival and their
brands, P&O and other Carnival cruises. Royal Caribbean featured to
some extent. They're the only two that are featuring at the moment
and they're the ones that operate out of Australia over the last
six years."
Law professor at Sydney Law School Tim Stephens explained to The
Guardian how P&O cruise ship casinos can operate essentially free
from regulation.
Even though all P&O cruise ships sail under a British flag, a
provision in UK law means none of this power extends to
international waters. The UK Gambling Act states that the Gambling
Commissions doesn't have remit over a vessel's gambling operations
if they are taking place in international waters.
While cruise lines such as P&O do have strict policies for gambling
onboard, enforcing these regulations can present other
complications.
Alex Russell, an associate professor in the experimental gambling
research lab at Central Queensland University told The Guardian of
the difficulties in enforcing gambling restrictions at the best of
times, let alone at sea.
"We know that [intervention] usually doesn't happen and it's not
necessarily a failing of the staff.
"It's really hard to tell when someone is getting out of control.
You don't know how much someone has in their bank account, so it's
very hard for staff to step in."
Carol Bennett, the chief executive of the Alliance for Gambling
Reform also commented that the isolating nature of cruise ships
should raise questions about regulations and enforcement.
"Questions need to be answered about these arrangements. Who's
taking responsibility and what does that look like? Who's
safeguarding the people who go on these cruises?"
What happened to Shane Dixon?
Shane Dixon, a father of three jumped overboard off his cruise
allegedly after losing more than $9000 over two nights of cruising
on the Pacific Adventure.
This incident raised questions of how why gambling practices and
regulations differ from land to sea, and the potentially harmful
nature of practices such as offering free drinks and free cruises
to incentivise binge gambling.
Another cruiser who was onboard the same ship spoke of what he
perceived as damaging tactics to incentivise gambling on the
cruise.
Under the name James, the cruiser commented: "We all got given free
cruises to use in the next six months from the casino director and
I myself racked up almost $2000 gambling which was charged to my
credit card, something I would never normally do in a million
years."
Australia has a National Gambling Helpline that can be reached on
1800 858 858. [GN]
COMPUTERSHARE INC: Sauls Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ERIN ASHLEY SAULS, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMPUTERSHARE, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 24CV019576, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on
November 14, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:24-at-01440 to the proceeding.
The case arises from Defendants' alleged breaches of the California
Labor Code. The violations stem from, among other things,
Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages and meal and
rest break premium wages.
Headquartered in Canton, MA, Computershare, Inc. provides financial
services. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael J. Nader, Esq.
George J. Theofanis, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 840-3150
Facsimile: (916) 840-3159
E-mail: Michael.Nader@ogletree.com
george.theofanis@ogletree.com
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Narrows Claims in Castillo Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESUS CASTILLO, MARK
KNOWLES, ALEX RODRIGUEZ, NICHOLAS JAMES THROLSON, R.S., KIMBERLY
SCOTT, ROBIN WARBEY, DANIEL SMITH, MATT GROVES, VERN DEOCHOA,
TYRONE WASHINGTON, individually, and on behalf of those similarly
situated, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a Washington
corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-01548-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge John Chun entered an order granting in part and denying in
part Costco's motion to dismiss:
-- The Court denies the motion as to the Wiretap Act, the
Washington
Consumer Protection Act (WCPA), the Washington Uniform Health
Care
Information Act (WUHCIA), the California Invasion of Privacy
Act
(CIPA), the California Confidentiality of Medical Information
Act
(CMIA), the Florida Security of Communications Act (FSCA), and
unjust enrichment claims.
-- The Court grants the motion as to the Washington Privacy Act
(WPA), invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, and
conversion claims, and dismisses these claims without
prejudice.
The Court grants Plaintiffs leave until Dec. 6, 2024 to file a
second amended complaint; such leave is limited to the claims
dismissed here.
Under Washington's choice-of-law rules, California and Florida have
the most significant relationships to their respective Plaintiffs'
claims. Thus, Plaintiffs' CIPA, CMIA, and FSCA claims cannot be
dismissed on choice-of-law grounds.
The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' WPA claim because it was the
infotainment system—not Ford—that intercepted and recorded the
communications.
In dismissing the WPA claim, the court held that the actress had
not shown that her information was private and that "the
information was not 'intercepted' or 'recorded' as required by the
[WPA] because Plaintiff sent the information directly to the
Defendants, not to someone else.'
Costco is an American multinational corporation which operates a
chain of membership-only big-box warehouse club retail stores.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 14, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zeLUVl at no extra
charge.[CC]
CSL PLASMA: Moore Sues Over Failure to Pay Timely Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
LaShanika Moore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CSL PLASMA INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-01104 (W.D.N.Y., November 15, 2024) is an action on behalf
of the Plaintiff and all other similar manual workers in New York
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 to remedy violations
of the New York Labor Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has compensated Plaintiff
and all other manual workers on a bi-weekly basis. Despite being
manual workers, the Defendant has failed to properly pay Plaintiff
and other manual workers their wages within seven calendar days
after the end of the week in which these wages were earned. In this
regard, the Defendant has failed to provide timely wages to
Plaintiff and all other similarly situated manual workers in New
York, says the suit.
Plaintiff Moore was employed by CSL Plasma as a DST Technician from
on June 2024 until October 24, 2024.
CSL Plasma is a private plasma collection company that has donation
centers throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
CYCLO THERAPEUTICS: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Rafael Holdings
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating:
-- Cyclo Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: CYTH), relating to its
proposed merger with Rafael Holdings, Inc. Under the terms of the
agreement, Cyclo common stock will automatically be converted into
the right to receive shares of Rafael common stock.
Click link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/cyclo-therapeutics-inc/. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Village Bank and Trust Financial Corp. (NASDAQ: VBFC),
relating to the proposed merger with TowneBank. Under the terms of
the agreement, shareholders of Village will receive $80.25 per
share in cash for each share of Village outstanding common stock.
ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for December 19, 2024.
Click link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/village-bank-and-trust-financial-corp-vbfc/.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Crossfirst Bankshares, Inc. (Nasdaq: CFB), relating to its
proposed merger with First Busey Corporation. Under the terms of
the agreement, Crossfirst common stock will automatically be
converted into the right to receive 0.6675 shares of Busey common
stock.
ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for December 20, 2024.
Click link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/crossfirst-bankshares-inc/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Markforged Holding Corporation (NYSE: MKFG), relating to its
proposed merger with Nano Dimension Ltd. Under the terms of the
agreement, Markforged stockholders will be entitled to receive
$5.00 in cash per share of Markforged they own.
ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for December 5, 2024.
Click link for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/markforged-holding-corporation/. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341
Attorney Advertising. (C) 2024 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law
firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates
PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
DESERT FIXED: Munson Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Desert Fixed LLC. The
case is styled as Mark Munson, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Desert Fixed LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-03129-JFM
(D. Ariz., Nov. 15, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Desert Fixed -- https://www.desertfixed.com/ -- is a Real Estate
Investment company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan A. Giribaldo, Esq.
PARDELL KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO PLLC
7500 Rialto Blvd., Ste. 1-250
Austin, TX 78735
Phone: (737) 310-3211
Email: bgiribaldo@pkglegal.com
DILIGENT DELIVERY: Martinez Files Suit in N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diligent Delivery
Systems Corp. The case is styled as Janet Martinez, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Diligent Delivery
Systems Corp., Case No. 5:24-cv-08031 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 15, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Diligent -- https://www.diligentusa.com/ -- offers nationwide
shipping, transport, and logistics delivery services for courier,
hot shot, white glove, & distribution networks.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th Street, Suite 1725, Suite 1725
Oakland, CA 94607
Phone: (510) 891-9800
Email: sec@colevannote.com
DISCOUNT MOTORS: Court Certifies Embry Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHYANN EMBRY, et. al.,
Individually and on Behalf of All others Similarly Situated, v.
DISCOUNT MOTORS, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-00078-HBB (W.D.
Ky.), the Hon. Judge H. Brent Brennenstuhl entered an order that
the Plaintiffs' motion is granted, and the instant is certified as
a class action.
The Court further entered an order that the Plaintiffs claims shall
be decided on behalf of themselves and the following class of
similarly situated individuals:
"All individuals who purchased a vehicle from Discount Motors,
LLC
located in Owensboro, Kentucky from Jan. 1, 2019 to April 13,
2023
with a certificate of title which disclosed odometer mileage
that
was lower than the odometer mileage on that vehicle's
certificate
of title when Discount Motors acquired it.
The following are expressly excluded from the Class: (1) any
Judge
presiding over this action and members of their immediate
family;
(2) Discount Motors' subsidiaries, parents, successors,
predecessors, and any entity in which Discount Motors has a
controlling interest; (3) All current and former employees,
officers, and members of Discount Motors LLC, its subsidiaries,
parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which it
has
a controlling interest; (4) persons whose claims in this matter
have been finally adjudicated on the merits or otherwise
released;
(5) Plaintiffs' counsel and counsel for the Defendants; and (6)
the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such
excluded persons.
Discount Motors is an independent automotive retailer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 14, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Da7eGI at no extra
charge.[CC]
ELEVATE LABS: Discloses Personal/Video Info to Braze, Kroskey Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN KROSKEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELEVATE LABS, LLC and MINDSNACKS,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-08113 (N.D. Cal., November 18,
2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
Video Privacy Protection Act, California Civil Code, and the
California Information Privacy Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants disclosed to an
unrelated third party, Braze, Inc., the personally identifiable
information (PII), including a record of every video the user views
on their Balance: Meditation & Sleep App, without consent. The
Defendants further enabled Braze to intercept App users'
communications with the Defendants when users answer health and
wellness questions presented to them during the Defendants'
onboarding survey in the App. As a result of the Defendants'
unlawful practices, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered
damages, says the suit.
MindSnacks, Inc. is a software development company with its
principal place of business in San Francisco, California.
Elevate Labs, LLC is an affiliate of MindSnacks, Inc., with its
principal place of business in San Francisco, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
Ines Diaz Villafana, Esq.
Joshua B. Glatt, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ndeckant@bursor.com
idiaz@bursor.com
jglatt@bursor.com
EMSL ANALYTICAL: Suddarth and Lares Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KEVIN SUDDARTH and KEVIN LARES, individually, and
on behalf of other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. EMSL
ANALYTICAL, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 24CV090292, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of Alameda, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on November 14, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:24-cv-07973-PHK to the proceeding.
The case arises from Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code.
Headquartered in North Cinnaminson, NJ, EMSL Analytical, Inc.
provides indoor environmental quality and industrial hygiene
testing services. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Taylor C. Morosco, Esq.
BLANK ROME LLP
2029 Century Park East | 6th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (424) 239-3400
Facsimile: (424) 239-3434
E-mail: taylor.morosco@blankrome.com
- and -
Michael A. Iannucci, Esq.
BLANK ROME LLP
One Logan Square
130 North 18th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 569-5500
Facsimile: (215) 569-5555
E-mail: michael.iannucci@blankrome.com
FRESHPET INC: Gibbons Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ASHLEY GIBBONS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. FRESHPET INC., Case No. 241002614, was
removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania on November 18, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-06163 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's violations of the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff and similarly
situated workers for all hours worked including overtime wages.
Freshpet Inc. is a pet food company, with its principal place of
business in New Jersey. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Matthew J. Hank, Esq.
Tanner McCarron, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Three Parkway
1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1400
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (267) 402-3000
Facsimile: (267) 402-3131
Email: mhank@littler.com
tmccarron@littler.com
FROEDTERT THEDACARE: Goston Seeks Registered Nurses' Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN GOSTON, individually and for others similarly situated v.
FROEDTERT THEDACARE HEALTH, INC., Case No. 24-CV-1482 (E.D. Wis.,
November 15, 2024) is a class and collective action brought by the
Plaintiff to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the
Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin law.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff Goston and the other straight
time workers regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek. But
Goston and the other straight time workers are not paid required
overtime wages when they worked in excess of 40 hours a workweek.
Instead, Froedtert misclassifies them as independent contractors,
says the suit.
The Plaintiff worked for Froedtert as a registered nurse in and
around Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Froedtert Thedacare Health, Inc. is a not-for-profit health care
system that serves Wisconsin, including the Milwaukee and
Appleton/Fox Cities areas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
Connor J. Clegg, Esq.
HAWKS QUINDEL, SC
5150 North Port Washington Road, Suite 243
Milwaukee, WI 53217
Telephone: (414) 271-8650
Facsimile: (414) 207-6079
E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
cclegg@hq-law.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: 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
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
GIANNA'S DILEGGE: Hernandez Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff, v. GIANNA'S DILEGGE & DEMEGLIO, LLC (DBA
GIANNA'S), CARMINE DEMEGLIO and ANTHONY DILEGGE, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-08699 (S.D.N.Y., November 15, 2024)
arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Wage Theft Prevention
Act, and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and those
other similarly situated individuals, for claims relating to unpaid
minimum wages, overtime wages, unpaid spread-of-hours wages, and
failure to maintain records pursuant to the federal and state laws
as well as those related provisions in Title 12 of the New York
Codes, Rules, and Regulations.
Plaintiff Hernandez was employed by the Defendants from
approximately April 2023 until September 2024 as a dishwasher and a
busboy.
Gianna's Dilegge & Demeglio, LLC, dba GIANNA'S, is a New York-based
restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
HEALTH CARE: Rutherford Negligence Suit Removed to D. Montana
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOHNNY C. RUTHERFORD, JR. and MARY RUTHERFORD, and
JOHNNY RUTHERFORD ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs
v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, A Mutual Legal Reserve Company,
doing business in Montana as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana,
and MONTANA UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, Defendants, Case No.
ADV-25-2023-0000789-NE, was removed from the First Judicial
District Court, Lewis and Clark County, State of Montana, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Montana.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Montana assigned Case No.
6:24-cv-00081-JTJ to the proceeding.
The case asserts purported class claims against Defendants for
Declaratory Judgment, an injunction, common law bad faith,
negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and for violations of
Montana’s Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act/Unfair Trade
Practices Act and the Consumer Protection Act.
Health Care Service Corporation is health insurance company
headquartered in Chicago, IL. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Daniel J. Auerbach, Esq.
Christy S. McCann, Esq.
BROWNING, KALECZYC, BERRY & HOVEN, P.C.
201 West Railroad Street, Suite 300
Missoula, MT 59802
Telephone: (406) 728-1694
Facsimile: (406) 728-5475
E-mail: daniel@bkbh.com
christy@bkbh.com
- and -
Martin J. Bishop
REED SMITH LLP
10 South Wacker Drive, 40th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606-7507
Telephone: (312) 207-1000
Facsimile: (312) 207-6400
E-mail: mbishop@reedsmith.com
HOT TOPIC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Garrett Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA GARRETT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HOT TOPIC, INC. d/b/a HOT TOPIC and
BOXLUNCH, TORRID, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-09884 (C.D.
Cal., November 15, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants
for their failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive
information of their customers and loyalty account members,
including Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable
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. The PII compromised in the data breach included
Plaintiff's and Class Members' full names, email addresses,
addresses, phone numbers, and dates of birth, says the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf all those
similarly situated to address Defendants' inadequate safeguarding
of Class Members' PII that it collected and maintained, and for
failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff 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.
Through this complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms
on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals whose
PII was accessed during the data breach.
Hot Topic operates a chain of retail stores under multiple brand
names, including Hot Topic and BoxLunch.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 332-4200
E-mail: cardoso@kolawyers.com
HP INC: Faces Hall Suit Over Unfair Instant Ink Program
-------------------------------------------------------
DONALD HALL, individually and on behalf of the general public and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HP, INC., and DOES
1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:24-cv-02507 (C.D. Cal.,
November 15, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for
breach of contract, fraud by omission and misrepresentation, and
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.
After purchasing an HP printer, Plaintiff Hall, an attorney,
enrolled in HP's "Instant Ink" program whereby HP would monitor
Hall's ink usage, mail him replacement ink cartridges based on his
usage and debit his bank account for the cartridges provided. When
attorney Hall reduced his caseload, he cancelled the Instant Ink
program and upon cancellation, HP disabled Hall's printer with the
following message appearing on the printer's screen: "The indicated
cartridges [black, blue, red and yellow] cannot be used until the
printer is enrolled in HP instant ink."
Plaintiff Hall contacted HP and was informed that HP would
reactivate his printer but only if he agreed to re-enroll in the
Instant Ink program for 30 days, after which time he could cancel.
Left with no choice, Plaintiff Hall agreed. After agreeing to
re-enroll in the Instant Ink program, he learned that HP had also
disabled the ink cartridges he had paid for while his Instant Ink
program was in effect.
Plaintiff Hall seeks restitution and damages because (l) HP did not
have the legal right to turn Hall's printer off for any reason, let
alone to force Hall to re-enroll in a program he was entitled to
cancel at any time and (2) because HP did not have the legal right
to disable the ink cartridges which Hall had previously paid for in
full.
HP, Inc. is an information technology company that offers a wide
range of products, technologies, software, solutions and
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J. Trotter, Esq.
KELLY TROTTER & FRANZEN
111 W. Ocean Blvd., 14th Fl.
P.O. Box 22636
Long Beach, CA 90801-5636
Telephone: (562) 432-5855
E-mail: mjtrotter@kellytrotter.com
HUSCH BLACKWELL: Martinellli FDCPA Suit Removed to E.D. Wis.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KAREN MARTINELLI, individually and as Trustee of
The Martinelli Trust, dated June 23, 1994, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP,
Defendant, Case No. 2024CV008114, was removed from the Circuit
Court for Milwaukee County, Wisconsin to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on November 14, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-01474 to the proceeding.
The case arises from Defendant's alleged unlawful credit and
collection practices that violated Plaintiff's rights under the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
Husch Blackwell LLP is a national law firm headquartered in Kansas
City, MO. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mary Elizabeth O'Neill, Esq.
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
301 S. College Street, Suite 3500
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone: (704) 350-6310
E-mail: Elizabeth.ONeill@wbd-us.com
INSIGHT SELECT: M&A Probes Proposed Acquisition of Assets by KKR
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating:
-- Insight Select Income Fund (NYSE: INSI), relating to the
proposed acquisition of the assets of INSI by KKR Income
Opportunities Fund ("KIO"). Under the terms of the agreement,
shareholders of INSI will receive shares of KIO and will have the
option to elect to receive up to 5% of the consideration in cash.
Click link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/insight-select-income-fund-insi/. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Liberty Broadband Corporation (NASDAQ: LBRDA, LBRDK, LBRDP),
relating to the proposed merger with Charter Communications, Inc.
Under the terms of the agreement, Liberty Broadband common
stockholders will receive 0.236 of a share of Charter common stock
per share of Liberty Broadband common stock they own.
Click link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/liberty-broadband-corporation-lbrda-lbrdk-lbrdp/
. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Retail Opportunity Investments Corp. (NASDAQ: ROIC), relating
to its proposed merger with Blackstone. Under the terms of the
agreement, Blackstone Real Estate Partners X will acquire all
outstanding common shares of ROIC for $17.50 per share in an
all-cash transaction.
Click link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/retail-opportunity-investments-roic/.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- AlloVir, Inc. (NASDAQ: ALVR), relating to its proposed merger
with Kalaris Therapeutics. Under the terms of the agreement,
AlloVir will acquire 100% of the outstanding equity interest of
Kalaris. Upon completion of the Merger, pre-Merger AlloVir
stockholders are expected to own approximately 25.05% of the
combined company and pre-Merger Kalaris stockholders are expected
to own approximately 74.95% of the combined company.
Click link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/allovir-inc-alvr/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341
Attorney Advertising. (C) 2024 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law
firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates
PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
LRW TRAFFIC: Hays Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------
EBONY HAYS; DONTAY BURRELL JR.; DAVID ROBINSON; SHAWN R. MORSLEY;
and CHRISTOPHER MEADOR JR., on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LRW TRAFFIC SYSTEMS LLC and
STELLA MAY CONTRACTING, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-03306-JKB (D. Md., November 15, 2024) seeks Plaintiffs'
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, pre-
and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs from the
Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland
Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection
Law.
The suit arises after LRW has required Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated workers to begin work at the LRW Yard located in
Baltimore, Maryland but has refused to start paying them until
after LRW has transported them to public-roadway underground
utility construction sites throughout the state. Similarly, LRW
refuses to pay the workers for their time spent traveling back to
the Yard. As a result, LRW has failed to pay Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated workers for all hours they worked for LRW,
including for overtime, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs are construction traffic control workers, popularly
known as "flaggers," who perform or performed work on construction
projects throughout the State of Maryland as employees of LRW.
LRW Traffic Systems LLC provides construction
traffic-management-control personnel, such as flaggers, and
equipment for general contractors throughout Maryland.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark Hanna, Esq.
Arlus J. Stephens, Esq.
Jennifer Vail, Esq.
Samantha Sloane, Esq.
MURPHY ANDERSON PLLC
1401 K Street NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 223-2620
E-mail: mhanna@murphypllc.com
astephens@murphypllc.com
jvail@murphypllc.com
ssloane@murphypllc.com
- and -
Lucy Zhou, Esq.
Sam Williamson, Esq.
PUBLIC JUSTICE CENTER
201 North Charles Street, Suite 1200
Baltimore, MD 21201
Telephone: (410) 625-9409
E-mail: zhoul@publicjustice.org
williamsons@publicjustice.org
MARS ACQUISITION: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With ScanTech AI
-------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating:
-- Mars Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: MARX), relating to the
proposed merger with ScanTech AI Systems Inc. Under the terms of
the agreement, Mars' public shareholders will own approximately 42%
of the combined company.
ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for December 5, 2024.
Click link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/merger-of-mars-acquisition-corp-marx/.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Markforged Holding Corporation (NYSE: MKFG), relating to its
proposed merger with Nano Dimension Ltd. Under the terms of the
agreement, Markforged stockholders will be entitled to receive
$5.00 in cash per share of Markforged they own.
ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for December 5, 2024.
Click link for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/markforged-holding-corporation/. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- BurTech Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: BRKH), relating to the
proposed merger with Blaize, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement,
shares of BurTech Acquisition will be exchanged for shares of
Blaize.
ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for December 10, 2024.
Click link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/burtech-acquisition-corp-brkh/. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Adams Resources & Energy, Inc. (NYSE AMERICAN: AE), relating
to the proposed merger with an affiliate of Tres Energy LLC. Under
the terms of the agreement, Adams stockholders will receive $38.00
per share in cash for each share of Adams common stock they own.
Click link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/adams-resources-energy-inc-ae/. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341
Attorney Advertising. (C) 2024 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law
firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates
PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
MDL 2873: Brown Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Substances
------------------------------------------------------
Paul Brown, Jr., Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY ET AL., Defendants, Case
No. 2:24-cv-06442-RMG (D.S.C., November 14, 2024) is a class action
seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear
(TOG) containing fluorochemical products.
The Defendants failed to warn users and consumers of their
fluorochemical products' persistence, bio-accumulation, and toxic
properties, as well as the fluorochemical products' propensity to
contaminate water supplies, which was known or knowable to the
Defendants. 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 Per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances.
Accordingly, Plaintiff Brown asserts several claims for, among
other things, (i) negligence, (ii) pass and continuing trespass and
battery, (iii) products liability inadequate warning/failure to
warn, (iv) products liability – design defect – consumer
expectations, (v) strict liability (statutory), (vi) strict
liability (restatement), (vii) fraudulent concealment, (viii)
breach of express and implied warranties, (ix) gross negligence,
(x) negligence per se, and (xi) fraudulent transfer.
The Brown case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, IN RE:
AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Headquartered in St. Paul, MN, 3M Company is a multinational
conglomerate that operates in several markets including
electronics, telecommunications, industrial, consumer and office,
health care, and safety. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas Wilson, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 560
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: (314) 932-3232
Facsimile: (314) 932-3233
E-mail: nicholas@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
John J. Driscoll, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
1311 Avenida Ponce de Leon, Suite 501
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (314) 932-3232
Facsmile: (314) 932-3233
E-mail: john@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
Heidi J. Johnson, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
211 N. Broadway, Ste 4050
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 932-3232
Facsimile: (314) 932-3233
E-mail: heidi@thedriscollfirm.com
MDL 2873: Dunivan Sues Over AFFF’s & TOG's Undisclosed Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Dunivan, Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY ET AL., Defendants, Case
No. 2:24-cv-06447-RMG (D.S.C., November 14, 2024) is a class action
seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear
(TOG) containing fluorochemical products.
The Defendants failed to warn users and consumers of their
fluorochemical products' persistence, bio-accumulation, and toxic
properties, as well as the fluorochemical products' propensity to
contaminate water supplies, which was known or knowable to the
Defendants. 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 Per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances.
Accordingly, Plaintiff Dunivan asserts several claims for, among
other things, (i) negligence, (ii) pass and continuing trespass and
battery, (iii) products liability inadequate warning/failure to
warn, (iv) products liability - design defect - consumer
expectations, (v) strict liability (statutory), (vi) strict
liability (restatement), (vii) fraudulent concealment, (viii)
breach of express and implied warranties, (ix) gross negligence,
(x) negligence per se, and (xi) fraudulent transfer.
The Dunivan case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, IN RE:
AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Headquartered in St. Paul, MN, the 3M Company is multinational
conglomerate that operates in several markets including
electronics, telecommunications, industrial, consumer and office,
health care, and safety. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas Wilson, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 560
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: (314) 932-3232
Facsimile: (314) 932-3233
E-mail: nicholas@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
John J. Driscoll, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
1311 Avenida Ponce de Leon, Suite 501
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (314) 932-3232
Facsmile: (314) 932-3233
E-mail: john@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
Heidi J. Johnson, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
211 N. Broadway, Ste 4050
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 932-3232
Facsimile: (314) 932-3233
E-mail: heidi@thedriscollfirm.com
MDL 2873: Jaramillo Seeks Damages Over AFFF- & TOG-Caused Injuries
------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Jaramillo, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY ET AL., Defendants, Case
No. 2:24-cv-06446-RMG (D.S.C., November 14, 2024) is a class action
seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear
(TOG) containing fluorochemical products.
The Defendants failed to warn users and consumers of their
fluorochemical products' persistence, bio-accumulation, and toxic
properties, as well as the fluorochemical products' propensity to
contaminate water supplies, which was known or knowable to the
Defendants. 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 Per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances.
Accordingly, Plaintiff Jaramillo asserts several claims for, among
other things, (i) negligence, (ii) pass and continuing trespass and
battery, (iii) products liability inadequate warning/failure to
warn, (iv) products liability – design defect – consumer
expectations, (v) strict liability (statutory), (vi) strict
liability (restatement), (vii) fraudulent concealment, (viii)
breach of express and implied warranties, (ix) gross negligence,
(x) negligence per se, and (xi) fraudulent transfer.
The Jaramillo case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, IN RE:
AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Headquartered in St. Paul, MN, the 3M Company is a multinational
company that operates in several markets including electronics,
telecommunications, industrial, consumer and office, health care,
and safety. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas Wilson, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 560
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: (314) 932-3232
Facsimile: (314) 932-3233
E-mail: nicholas@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
John J. Driscoll, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
1311 Avenida Ponce de Leon, Suite 501
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (314) 932-3232
Facsmile: (314) 932-3233
E-mail: john@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
Heidi J. Johnson, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
211 N. Broadway, Ste 4050
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 932-3232
Facsimile: (314) 932-3233
E-mail: heidi@thedriscollfirm.com
MDL 2873: Killion Suit Seeks Damages Over AFFF & TOG Hazards
------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Killion, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY ET AL., Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-06445-RMG (D.S.C., November 14, 2024), is a class action
seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear
(TOG) containing fluorochemical products.
The Defendants failed to warn users and consumers of their
fluorochemical products' persistence, bio-accumulation, and toxic
properties, as well as the fluorochemical products' propensity to
contaminate water supplies, which was known or knowable to the
Defendants. 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 Per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts several claims for, among other
things, (i) negligence, (ii) pass and continuing trespass and
battery, (iii) products liability inadequate warning/failure to
warn, (iv) products liability – design defect – consumer
expectations, (v) strict liability (statutory), (vi) strict
liability (restatement), (vii) fraudulent concealment, (viii)
breach of express and implied warranties, (ix) gross negligence,
(x) negligence per se, and (xi) fraudulent transfer.
The Killion case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, IN RE:
AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Headquartered in St. Paul, MN, the 3M Company is multinational
conglomerate that operates in several markets including
electronics, telecommunications, industrial, consumer and office,
health care, and safety. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas Wilson, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 560
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: (314) 932-3232
Facsimile: (314) 932-3233
E-mail: nicholas@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
John J. Driscoll, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
1311 Avenida Ponce de Leon, Suite 501
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (314) 932-3232
Facsmile: (314) 932-3233
E-mail: john@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
Heidi J. Johnson, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
211 N. Broadway, Ste 4050
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 932-3232
Facsimile: (314) 932-3233
E-mail: heidi@thedriscollfirm.com
MDL 2873: Maness Seeks Damages for Toxic Substances-Caused Injuries
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas "Tommy" Maness, Jr., Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY ET AL.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-06444-RMG (D.S.C., November 14, 2024),
is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting
from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter
turnout gear (TOG) containing fluorochemical products.
The Defendants failed to warn users and consumers of their
fluorochemical products' persistence, bio-accumulation, and toxic
properties, as well as the fluorochemical products' propensity to
contaminate water supplies, which was known or knowable to the
Defendants. 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 Per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances.
Accordingly, Plaintiff Maness asserts several claims for, among
other things, (i) negligence, (ii) pass and continuing trespass and
battery, (iii) products liability inadequate warning/failure to
warn, (iv) products liability – design defect – consumer
expectations, (v) strict liability (statutory), (vi) strict
liability (restatement), (vii) fraudulent concealment, (viii)
breach of express and implied warranties, (ix) gross negligence,
(x) negligence per se, and (xi) fraudulent transfer.
The Maness case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, IN RE:
AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Headquartered in St. Paul, MN, the 3M Company is multinational
conglomerate that operates in several markets including
electronics, telecommunications, industrial, consumer and office,
health care, and safety. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas Wilson, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 560
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: (314) 932-3232
Facsimile: (314) 932-3233
E-mail: nicholas@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
John J. Driscoll, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
1311 Avenida Ponce de Leon, Suite 501
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (314) 932-3232
Facsmile: (314) 932-3233
E-mail: john@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
Heidi J. Johnson, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
211 N. Broadway, Ste 4050
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 932-3232
Facsimile: (314) 932-3233
E-mail: heidi@thedriscollfirm.com
MDL 2873: Moren Sues Over Unsafe Aqueous Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Moren, Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY ET AL., Defendants, Case
No. 2:24-cv-06441-RMG (D.S.C., November 14, 2024), is a class
action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter
turnout gear (TOG) containing fluorochemical products.
The Defendants failed to warn users and consumers of their
fluorochemical products' persistence, bio-accumulation, and toxic
properties, as well as the fluorochemical products' propensity to
contaminate water supplies, which was known or knowable to the
Defendants. 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 Per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances.
Accordingly, Plaintiff Moren asserts several claims for, among
other things, (i) negligence, (ii) pass and continuing trespass and
battery, (iii) products liability inadequate warning/failure to
warn, (iv) products liability – design defect – consumer
expectations, (v) strict liability (statutory), (vi) strict
liability (restatement), (vii) fraudulent concealment, (viii)
breach of express and implied warranties, (ix) gross negligence,
(x) negligence per se, and (xi) fraudulent transfer.
The Moren case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, IN RE:
AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Headquartered in St. Paul, MN, the 3M Company is multinational
conglomerate that operates in several markets including
electronics, telecommunications, industrial, consumer and office,
health care, and safety. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas Wilson, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 560
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: (314) 932-3232
Facsimile: (314) 932-3233
E-mail: nicholas@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
John J. Driscoll, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
1311 Avenida Ponce de Leon, Suite 501
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (314) 932-3232
Facsmile: (314) 932-3233
E-mail: john@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
Heidi J. Johnson, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
211 N. Broadway, Ste 4050
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 932-3232
Facsimile: (314) 932-3233
E-mail: heidi@thedriscollfirm.com
MDL 2873: Rutledge Sues Over Harmful AFFF and TOG Products
----------------------------------------------------------
Ricky Rutledge, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY ET AL., Defendants, Case
No. 2:24-cv-06443-RMG (D.S.C., November 14, 2024), is a class
action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter
turnout gear (TOG) containing fluorochemical products.
The Defendants failed to warn users and consumers of their
fluorochemical products' persistence, bio-accumulation, and toxic
properties, as well as the fluorochemical products' propensity to
contaminate water supplies, which was known or knowable to the
Defendants. 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 Per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances.
Accordingly, Plaintiff Rutledge asserts several claims for, among
other things, (i) negligence, (ii) pass and continuing trespass and
battery, (iii) products liability inadequate warning/failure to
warn, (iv) products liability – design defect – consumer
expectations, (v) strict liability (statutory), (vi) strict
liability (restatement), (vii) fraudulent concealment, (viii)
breach of express and implied warranties, (ix) gross negligence,
(x) negligence per se, and (xi) fraudulent transfer.
The Rutledge case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, IN RE:
AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Headquartered in St. Paul, MN, the 3M Company is a multinational
conglomerate that operates in several markets including
electronics, telecommunications, industrial, consumer and office,
health care, and safety. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas Wilson, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 560
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: (314) 932-3232
Facsimile: (314) 932-3233
E-mail: nicholas@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
John J. Driscoll, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
1311 Avenida Ponce de Leon, Suite 501
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (314) 932-3232
Facsmile: (314) 932-3233
E-mail: john@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
Heidi J. Johnson, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
211 N. Broadway, Ste 4050
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 932-3232
Facsimile: (314) 932-3233
E-mail: heidi@thedriscollfirm.com
MEJURI (US) INC: Davis Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
---------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE DAVIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Mejuri (US), Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-11779 (N.D. Ill., November 15, 2024) is a civil rights
action against Mejuri for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, https://www.mejuri.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 Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of
earrings on Mejuri.com. Despite her 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.
Unless Defendant remedies the numerous access barriers on its
website, the Plaintiff and Class members will continue to be unable
to independently navigate, browse, use, and complete a purchase on
the website.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Mejuri'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.
Mejuri (US), Inc. operates the website that manufactures and
markets jewelry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul Camarena, Esq.
1016 W. Jackson, No. 32
Chicago, IL 60607
Telephone: (630) 534-2527
E-mail: northandsedgwicklaw@gmail.com
NATIONAL POTATO: Govea Suit Alleges Frozen Potato Price-Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER GOVEA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL POTATO PROMOTION BOARD d/b/a/
POTATOES USA; CIRCANA, LLC; LAMB WESTON HOLDINGS, INC.; LAMB WESTON
INC.; LAMB WESTON BSW, LLC; LAMB WESTON/MIDWEST, INC.; LAMB WESTON
SALES, INC.; MCCAIN FOODS LIMITED; MCCAIN FOODS USA, INC.; J.R.
SIMPLOT CO.; CAVENDISH FARMS LTD. and CAVENDISH FARMS, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-11816 (N.D. Ill., November 17, 2024)
is an indirect purchaser Plaintiff antitrust class action against
NPPB, a major trade association, and the four largest processors of
potatoes for entering into an unlawful conspiracy to raise,
stabilize, fix and/or otherwise manipulate the prices in the market
for the frozen potatoes in the United States.
According to the complaint, the way that the Defendants have been
able to artificially raise prices in the relevant market is by
using conduits to price-fixing, such as potato price data
aggregation services and collective action through trade
associations like NPPB. Armed with the same access to each other's
data on pricing and other sensitive information, as well as with a
direct line of communication to each other, the potato cartel moves
prices skyward in lockstep -- harming all purchasers of potatoes in
the process.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek actual and treble damages,
declaratory and injunctive relief -- specifically, injunctive
relief ending the potato cartel's conduct, disgorgement of profits
into a constructive trust under the doctrine of unjust enrichment,
reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees, pre- and post-judgment
interest and any other relief this Court deems just and proper.
National Potato Promotion Board, doing business as Potatoes USA,
markets potatoes. The Company offers table-stock, seed, frozen, and
dehydrated potato products. Potatoes USA serves the customers in
the State of Colorado.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (929) 709-1493
E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
byagman@leedsbrownlaw.com
NCAA: Ray Bid to Seal Exhibits Tossed w/o Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANNON RAY, KHALA TAYLOR,
PETER ROBINSON, KATHERINE SEBBANE, and RUDY BARAJAS, Individually
and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated, v. NATIONAL
COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated association,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00425-WBS-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William
Shubb entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs'
request to seal exhibits 32-48 to the Declaration of Michael
Lieberman in Support of Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
and appointment of Fairmark Partners, LLP, as co-Lead Class
Counsel, including an expert report by Professor Orley Ashenfelter
as well as a notice of errata correcting one table and one
paragraph in that report.
The Plaintiffs' requests fail to specify why the court should seal
any documents outside of their mere designation as "CONFIDENTIAL"
or "ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" for purposes of discovery.
The Plaintiffs provide no further guidance as to what sensitive
information these documents contain that would merit an order
sealing the documents from public view. As such, plaintiffs'
request amounts to no more than a waste of the court's time. The
court will consider a future request only if it amply explains why
specific filings must be redacted or sealed.
National Collegiateis a nonprofit organization that regulates
student athletics.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 14, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iLpUzl at no extra
charge.[CC]
ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Faces Hubacek Securities Suit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
ON Semiconductor Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended September 27, 2024, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 18, 2024 that on
December 13, 2023, a putative class action captioned "Hubacek v. ON
Semiconductor Corp., et al.," Case No. 1:23-cv-01429 (D. Del.), was
filed by an alleged stockholder of the company in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware against the company and certain
of its officers. An amended complaint was filed on May 31, 2024
which again asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The plaintiff seeks a ruling that this case may proceed as a class
action, and seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs. The company
file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 30, 2024. On
September 6, 2024, plaintiff filed their second amended complaint
and the company filed a motion to dismiss this second amended
complaint on October 10, 2024. Additional written briefing on the
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint is expected to be
completed by December 20, 2024.
The complaint alleges that the defendants made misleading
statements regarding the company's silicon carbide (SiC) business.
The plaintiff seeks a ruling that this case may proceed as a class
action, and seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs.
ON Semiconductor Corporation provide intelligent power and sensing
solutions with a primary focus towards automotive and industrial
markets.
OPTICSPLANET INC: Class Cert Filing Due August 8, 2025
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Constantine Poulopoulos v.
OpticsPlanet, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-02511-JLS-KS (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Josephine Staton entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- The Scheduling Conference has been vacated, and the Court sets
the
following schedule.
-- Counsel's attention is directed to the Court's Civil Trial
Order
filed concurrently with this Minute Order.
-- The Court has adjusted the parties’ proposed schedule to
conform
to the Court's presumptive schedule. The Court has also
advanced
certain deadlines because the nature of this case does not
require
the two-year schedule proposed by the parties.
-- Except for the motion for class certification, counsel shall
notice all hearings for the first available motions date at the
time of the filing of the motion, and the deadlines for
opposition
and reply briefs shall be in accordance with Local Rule 7-9 and
7-
10.
Where the Court's trial calendar permits, the Court will set the
trial for a date agreed upon by the parties.
Last Day to File a Motion to Add Jan. 3, 2025
Parties or Amend Pleadings:
Last Day to File a Motion for Class Aug. 8, 2025
Certification:
Last Day to File an Opposition to Motion Sept. 26,
2025
for Class Certification:
Fact Discovery Cutoff: Oct. 3, 2025
Last Day to File Motions (Excluding Daubert Oct. 17, 2025
Motions and all other Motions in Limine):
Last Day to Serve Initial Expert Reports: Oct. 17, 2025
Last Day to Serve Rebuttal Expert Reports: Nov. 14, 2025
Last Day to File a Reply to Motion for Nov. 14, 2025
Class Certification:
Last Day to Conduct Settlement Proceedings: Dec. 5, 2025
Last Day to File Daubert Motions: Dec. 19, 2025
Last Day to Motions in Limine: Feb. 6, 2026
Final Pretrial Conference (10:30 a.m.): March 6,
2026
OpticsPlanet is a privately held online retailer of shooting,
hunting, military, law enforcement, eyewear, and laboratory
equipment.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 14, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=F4DLko at no extra
charge.[CC]
PACS GROUP: Faces Expanded Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP ("Labaton") announces that, on November
21, 2024, it filed a securities class action lawsuit (the
"Complaint") on behalf of its client New Orleans Employees'
Retirement System ("New Orleans") against PACS Group, Inc. ("PACS"
or the "Company") (NYSE: PACS) and related parties (collectively,
"Defendants"). The action, which is captioned New Orleans
Employees' Retirement System v. PACS Group, Inc., No. 24-cv-08882
(S.D.N.Y) asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired PACS securities between April 11, 2024, and
November 5, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The action also
asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") on behalf of all
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired PACS
common stock pursuant, or traceable, or both, to materials issued
in connection with the Company's secondary public offering
completed on or about September 6, 2024 (the "SPO").
The Complaint expands upon a related action against PACS captioned
Manchin v. PACS Group, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-08636 (S.D.N.Y) (the
"Manchin Complaint") by adding the claims in connection with the
SPO outlined above. The Complaint also expands upon the Manchin
Complaint by adding three additional defendants who participated in
the SPO. These additional defendants are Michelle Lewis (PACS'
Chief Accounting Officer), Evelyn Dislaver (a director on PACS'
board), and UBS Securities LLC (an SPO underwriter).
Pursuant to the notice published on November 13, 2024, in
connection with the filing of the Manchin Complaint, as required by
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, investors
wishing to serve as Lead Plaintiff in these related actions pending
against PACS are required to file a motion for appointment as Lead
Plaintiff by no later than January 13, 2025.
PACS is one of the largest operators of skilled nursing facilities
and post-acute care facilities in the United States. Headquartered
in Farmington, Utah, PACS serves over 27,000 patients daily across
its national portfolio of approximately 280 facilities in 16
states.
The Complaint alleges that the documents filed by Defendants in
connection with the SPO (the "SPO Materials") were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing their preparation.
Additionally, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the SPO
Materials and Class Period statements made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: (a) that PACS inflated its
Medicare revenues by misclassifying lower-acuity patients as
high-acuity patients that required skilled care in violation of a
Covid-era waiver, thereby securing higher reimbursement rates; (b)
that after the expiration of the COVID-era waiver, PACS inflated
its revenues by fraudulently billing for unnecessary treatments and
for services never provided to patients; (c) that PACS' historical
revenues, competitive advantages, and growing market share were the
result of systemic, improper, unethical, and/or illegal practices,
and, thus, unsustainable; (d) that PACS' risk disclosures were
materially false and misleading because they characterized adverse
facts that had already materialized as mere possibilities; and (e)
as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
false and/or misleading or lacked a reasonable basis.
The truth began to emerge on November 4, 2024, when Hindenburg
Research published a report detailing several allegations against
the Company, including evidence of PACS' misuse of COVID waivers to
inflate Medicare reimbursements as well as other unsustainable
revenue practices which misrepresented the Company's financial
health. On this news, PACS' share price dropped $11.93 per share,
or 27.8 percent, to close at $31.01 per share on November 4, 2024.
Then on November 6, 2024, the Company announced that it would delay
the release of its third-quarter 2024 financial results. PACS
stated that the postponement was due to the Company's Audit
Committee investigating recent third-party allegations concerning
its reimbursement and referral practices. PACS also disclosed that
it had received civil investigative demands from the federal
government regarding these practices, which it stated may or may
not have been related to the recent third-party report. On this
news, PACS' share price dropped $11.45 per share, or 38.8 percent,
to close at $18.09 per share on November 6, 2024.
If you purchased or acquired PACS securities during the Class
Period or purchased PACS securities pursuant and/or traceable to
the SPO Materials, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able
to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff motion papers
must be filed no later than January 13, 2025. The Lead Plaintiff is
a court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class.
You do not need to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff to share in
any Class recovery in this action. If you are a Class member and
there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery
as an absent Class member. You may retain counsel of your choice to
represent you in this action.
If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have any
questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Francis P.
McConville, Esq., of Labaton at (212) 907-0650 or via email at
fmcconville@labaton.com. You can view a copy of the Complaint
online here.
New Orleans is represented by Labaton Keller Sucharow, which
represents many of the largest pension funds in the United States
and internationally with combined assets under management of more
than $4 trillion. Labaton Keller Sucharow's litigation reputation
is built on its more than 60 years of securities litigation
experience, more than 90 full-time attorneys, and in-house team of
investigators, financial analysts, and forensic accountants.
Labaton Keller Sucharow has been recognized for its excellence by
the courts and peers, and it is consistently ranked in leading
industry publications. Offices are located in New York, Delaware,
London, and Washington, D.C. More information about Labaton Keller
Sucharow is available at labaton.com.
Contacts
Francis P. McConville, Esq.
Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP
(212) 907-0650
fmcconville@labaton.com [GN]
PATCH INC: Jackson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime and Retaliation
------------------------------------------------------------
HASSAN JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PATCH, INC. and ROSE FALKNER, Defendants,
Case No. 2:24-cv-02900 (W.D. Tenn., November 18, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages and
retaliation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a house manager.
Patch, Inc. is a transitional housing provider with its principal
office in Memphis, Tennessee. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq.
Joshua Autry, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
jbryant@jsyc.com
jleatherwood@jsyc.com
jautry@jsyc.com
PILLAR CONSTRUCTION: Underpays Construction Workers, Graciano Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SAUL GRACIANO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. PILLAR CONSTRUCTION INC. and CRYSTAL DRYWALL, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02045 (E.D. Va., November 15, 2024) is
a class action against the Defendants for unpaid overtime and
worker misclassification under Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Virginia Misclassification Law.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to pay him and
similarly situated their legally mandated wages in violation of the
FLSA, and misclassified their employees as independent contractors
in violation of the state law.
Plaintiff Graciano was employed as a construction worker in
Virginia. In 2023 and 2024, he was employed by Defendants Pillar
and Crystal on construction projects in Alexandria and Falls
Church, Virginia.
Pillar Construction Inc. is a full-service specialty contractor
with its principal place of business in Alexandria, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Nadas, Esq.
Matthew K. Handley, Esq.
HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
1201 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 200K
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 899-2991
E-mail: rnadas@hfajustice.com
- and -
Matthew B. Kaplan, Esq.
THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM
1100 N. Glebe Rd. Suite 1010
Arlington, VA 22201
Telephone: (703) 665-9529
E-mail: mbkaplan@thekaplanlawfirm.com
QUANTERIX CORP: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Quanterix Corporation (NASDAQ: QTRX) resulting from
allegations that Quanterix may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
So What: If you purchased Quanterix securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=31441 call Phillip Kim,
Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for
information on the class action.
What is this about: On November 12, 2024, after market hours,
Quanterix filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC
announcing its "non-reliance on previously issued financial
statements." Quanterix disclosed its "previously issued audited
consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2023 and 2022
and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31,
2023, and its unaudited consolidated financial statements for the
quarterly and year-to-date (as applicable) periods ended March 31,
2022, June 30, 2022, September 30, 2022, March 31, 2023, June 30,
2023, September 30, 2023, March 31, 2024, and June 30, 2024
(collectively, the "Non-Reliance Periods"), should no longer be
relied upon." In addition, Quanterix stated "management identified
an error related to the capitalization of labor and overhead costs
applied to prior periods going back to at least 2021, which
impacted the valuation of inventory. This error relates to a design
deficiency in the Company's internal control over financial
reporting related to the accounting for inventory valuation. The
cumulative effect of this error, when taken together with unrelated
immaterial errors identified by the Company in prior periods,
resulted in the need for material adjustments to previously issued
financial statements."
On this news, Quanterix's stock price fell $2.77 per share, or
18.3%, to close at $12.40 per share on November 13, 2024.
Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS
Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class
action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4
each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438
million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was
named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's
attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
ROBLOX CORP: Refutes Underage Gambling Allegations in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Gibbs, writing for Next.io, reports that Roblox has issued a
detailed response to a class-action lawsuit accusing the online
gaming platform of facilitating gambling by underage users through
unauthorised third-party websites.
The lawsuit, brought by parents on behalf of their children,
alleges that these websites exploit Roblox's virtual currency,
Robux, to enable gambling-like activities that violate consumer
protection and child safety laws.
Roblox firmly denies the allegations, characterising the claims as
legally and factually baseless. In its court filings, the company
maintains that the disputed activities occurred outside its
platform in violation of its robust terms of service.
Roblox asserts that it actively works to combat unauthorised uses
of its platform, including actions against the named third-party
sites -- RBXFlip, Bloxflip, and RBLXWild.
At the core of the lawsuit are allegations that third-party
websites use Robux to simulate gambling mechanics, enticing minors
to participate.
These platforms allegedly allow users to wager Robux on games of
chance, with the potential to win or lose virtual currency or
items. Plaintiffs claim that Roblox profits indirectly by selling
Robux, knowing the currency might be used on such sites.
Roblox counters these claims by emphasising its lack of affiliation
with the third-party websites. The company states that users must
leave the Roblox platform to access these sites and that such
activities breach its terms of service.
Specifically, Roblox prohibits users from exchanging Robux outside
its ecosystem and requires users to agree to these restrictions
upon creating an account.
The company also highlighted its measures to disrupt the
unauthorised activities. Since 2019, Roblox has employed
technological safeguards and issued cease-and-desist letters to
operators of third-party gambling sites.
Most recently, this month Roblox sent a legal demand to the
operators of Bloxflip, ordering them to cease their use of Roblox
branding and stop accessing Roblox's platform entirely.
Roblox's affirmative defences
Roblox's legal defence includes invoking Section 230 of the
Communications Decency Act, which shields online platforms from
liability for third-party content. The company argues that it
cannot be held responsible for actions taken by users or third
parties on external platforms.
Roblox further claims that the plaintiffs lack clean hands,
asserting that the minors voluntarily participated in the alleged
misconduct. The company asserts these are beyond its control.
Moreover, Roblox underscores its clear delineation between Robux
and real-world currency. The company's terms of use specify that
Robux is a virtual currency without monetary value and cannot be
legally converted outside its platform.
By adhering to these terms, Roblox asserts that it has acted within
the law.
Despite its defences, Roblox acknowledges the challenges of
policing a platform with millions of daily users, many of whom are
minors.
According to its recent data, Roblox boasts 79.5 million daily
active users, nearly half of whom are under 18. These demographics,
coupled with the platform's popularity among young players, create
unique vulnerabilities.
In its filings, Roblox detailed its proactive measures to detect
and mitigate policy violations, including tools to identify and
suspend accounts engaged in unauthorised transactions. However, the
company admits that third-party sites continually attempt to evade
detection by exploiting loopholes.
The plaintiffs in the case argue that Roblox has a moral and legal
obligation to protect its young user base from harmful external
influences. They allege that the company's current measures are
insufficient and seek damages and the introduction of stronger
enforcement policies.
Legal experts note that the case could have broader implications
for online platforms managing virtual economies. If Roblox is found
liable, it could set a precedent for increased regulatory scrutiny
of platforms that cater to minors.
Roblox responds to criticism
Roblox is introducing additional measures to enhance safety for its
youngest and most at-risk users. The latest updates include remote
parental controls, content-specific labels, and restrictions on
direct messaging.
After unveiling a set of parental controls in October, Roblox is
now enabling parents to manage their children's accounts remotely
through their own devices and accounts. These controls allow
parents to set daily screen time limits and review their children's
friends list.
To use these features, parents must link their Roblox accounts to
their child's account. Additionally, new content labels will
categorise games based on their features, such as violence or crude
language, rather than just age recommendations.
Children under nine will automatically have access only to games
with minimal or mild levels of such content. However, parents can
customise which labels their child can view and interact with.
Roblox is also implementing age-based restrictions on communication
features. Players under 13 will be limited to in-game chats and
will not have access to direct messaging outside of games.
A new default setting will further restrict younger users from
public broadcast messages within games. Moreover, Roblox is
changing its default settings to block players under 13 from
accessing games that lack content ratings.
Unrated games, which often lack details about their content, such
as levels of violence or sensitive material, will not be searchable
or playable by children under 13. To address this, developers must
complete a content questionnaire for each game they want to make
available to younger players.
This process will provide Roblox with the information needed to
assign appropriate ratings. Developers have until 3 December to
submit this information, or their games will be marked as unrated
and inaccessible to preteens. [GN]
ROCKET MORTGAGE: Mattson Loses Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIK MATTSON, v. ROCKET
MORTGAGE, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-00989-AB (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge
Amy Baggio entered an order adopting Judge You's Findings and
Recommendation.
Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion to Deny Class Certification is
granted.
The Court has considered Plaintiff's objections and concludes that
there is no basis to modify the F&R. The Court has also reviewed
the pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no error in
the Magistrate Judge's F&R.
On Sept. 16, 2024, Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued her
Findings and Recommendation ("F&R"), recommending that this Court
grant the Defendant's Motion to Deny Class Certification.
The Plaintiff objected and Defendant Rocket Mortgage, LLC
responded.
Rocket Mortgage is an American mortgage lender.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 14, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q83nAf at no extra
charge.[CC]
SDLA COURIER: Fails to Provide Advance Layoff Notice, Perez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
URIEL GRANADOS PEREZ, IRIS ORTEGA, and HECTOR VALENZUELA, on behalf
of themselves and a putative class of similarly situated former
employees, Plaintiffs v. SDLA COURIER SERVICE, INC., AMAZON.COM
SERVICES LLC, AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., and AMAZON.COM, INC., as
Joint Employers, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-09910 (C.D. Cal.,
November 15, 2024) is a class action complaint brought under the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, the California
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, the California
Labor Code, and the Nevada Revised Statutes, by the Plaintiffs on
their own behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated persons
against SDLA and Amazon, their joint employers.
On or about August 5, 2024, SDLA informed its drivers and
dispatchers that the company would cease operations that same day.
Approximately 500 drivers and dispatchers across Southern
California and in Nevada are impacted by this mass layoff,
including employees who lived and worked in this judicial district
at relevant times.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to provide 60
days' advance written notice of the mass layoff to the affected
employees and to any other parties as required by the WARN Act and
the Cal-WARN Act.
The Defendants also failed to timely pay affected employees their
final wages in full upon termination as required by California
Labor Code and Nevada Revised Statutes, exposing Defendants to
waiting time penalties under the state laws, says the suit.
SDLA Courier Service, Inc. provides delivery services for Amazon, a
multinational company, across the Southern California region and in
Nevada.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ira L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Julie Gutman Dickinson, Esq.
Hector De Haro, Esq.
Samantha M. Keng, Esq.
BUSH GOTTLIEB, A LAW CORPORATION
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 950
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 973-3200
Facsimile: (818) 973-3201
E-mail: buddyg@bushgottlieb.com
jgd@bushgottlieb.com
hdeharo@bushgottlieb.com
skeng@bushgottlieb.com
SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Wolf Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SelectQuote Insurance
Services. The case is styled as Matthew Wolf, individually and on
behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v.
SelectQuote Insurance Services, Case No. 4:24-cv-00557-SHR (D.
Ariz., Nov. 15, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Selectquote Insurance Services -- https://www.selectquote.com/ --
provides insurance agent and broker services. The Company offers
auto and home, life, and medical insurance.[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
SET FORTH: Girven Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Consumers' Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
KIM GIRVEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SET FORTH, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-11840 (N.D. Ill., November 18, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, unjust enrichment, and
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers stored within its
computer systems following a data breach discovered on May 21,
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.
Set Forth, Inc. is a company that provides online account
administration services to consumers enrolled in debt relief
programs, located in Schaumburg, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Grayson Wells, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
gwells@stranchlaw.com
SKYWEST AIRLINES: Campbell Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ALLISON CAMPBELL, an individual, on behalf of
herself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24CU007331C, was removed from the
Superior Court for the State of California for the County of San
Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California on November 14, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:24-cv-02141-TWR-SBC to the proceeding.
The case arises from Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code. In the complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims
for unfair competition, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to
pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to
provide rest periods, failure to provide accurate wage statements,
failure to reimburse employees for required expenses, failure to
provide timely wages, and failure to provide sick pay.
Skywest Airlines, Inc. is a regional airline headquartered in Utah.
[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Amanda C. Sommerfeld, Esq.
JONES DAY
555 South Flower Street, Fiftieth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2452
Telephone: +1 (213) 489-3939
Facsimile: +1 (213) 243-2539
E-mail: asommerfeld@jonesday.com
- and -
Patricia T. Stambelos, Esq.
STAMBELOS LAW OFFICE
543 Country Club Drive, Suite B209
Simi Valley, CA 93065
Telephone: +1 (805) 578-3474
Facsimile: +1 (805) 994-0199
E-mail: patricia@patriciastambelos.com
SMARTSHEET INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Wohl & Fruchter LLP announces that on November 14, 2024, it filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned Bushansky v. Smartsheet,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-08648-ALC, on behalf of a class
("Class") of individuals and entities holding the common stock of
Smartsheet, Inc. (NYSE: SMAR) ("Smartsheet") as of the close of
business on October 25, 2024 ("Class Period"), asserting claims
under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, in connection with the proposed sale of Smartsheet to
affiliates of Blackstone, Inc., Vista Equity Partners Management,
LLC, and Platinum Falcon B 2018 RSC Limited, a subsidiary of the
Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, in exchange for a payment of $56.50
per share in cash to Smartsheet stockholders.
Smartsheet investors are hereby notified that not later than 60
days after the date of this notice, any member of the purported
Class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the
purported Class in this class action lawsuit.
If you wish to learn more about this class action lawsuit, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to these matters, please complete and
submit the form on the following webpage:
https://wohlfruchter.com/cases/smartsheet/
Alternatively, please contact us by phone at 866-833-6245, or via
email at alerts@wohlfruchter.com.
About Wohl & Fruchter
Wohl & Fruchter LLP, with offices in New York City and Monsey, has
for over a decade been representing investors in litigation arising
from fraud and other corporate misconduct, and recovered hundreds
of millions of dollars in damages for investors. Please visit our
website, www.wohlfruchter.com, to learn more about our Firm, or
contact one of our partners.
Contact:
Wohl & Fruchter LLP
Joshua E. Fruchter
Toll Free (866) 833-6245
alerts@wohlfruchter.com
www.wohlfruchter.com [GN]
SO GONG DONG: Hurtado Seeks Kitchen Workers' Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
MARILLY HURTADO, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SO GONG DONG TOFU SINCE 1962 d/b/a TOFU
HOUSE 1962 KOREAN BBQ RESTAURANT and CHONG IL WOO, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-03189 (D. Colo., November 16, 2024)
seeks actual and liquidated damages, penalties, pre-and
post-judgment interest, and attorney fees and costs regulating from
Defendants' willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Colorado Minimum Wage Act, and the Colorado Wage Claim Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the federal law
because FLSA requires employers to pay their employees one and
one-half times each employee's regular rate of pay for each hour
worked beyond 40 each workweek. They also violated the CWCA which
requires employers to pay their employees all earned, vested and
determinable wages upon the termination of the employment
relationship and imposes penalties on employers who do not tender
wages due upon receipt of a written demand for such wages.
Additionally, the Defendants unlawfully terminated Plaintiff in
response to learning that Plaintiff was pregnant. Upon a right to
sue letter by the Colorado Civil Rights Division, Plaintiff will
amend the complaint to add discrimination causes of action under
Colorado law, says the suit.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from May 2023 until August
25, 2024 as a prep cook.
So Gong Dong Tofu is a Korean restaurant based in Aurora,
Colorado.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
250 Broadway, Suite 600
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 323-6980
E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com
STAPLES INC: Weiser Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled TERI WEISER, an individual‚ on behalf of herself
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated Plaintiff, v.
STAPLES THE OFFICE SUPERSTORE‚ LLC‚ a limited liability
company; STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL LLC‚ a limited liability
company; STAPLES‚ INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 to 50‚
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV26868, was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on November
14, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-09848 to the proceeding.
The case arises out of Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code. The complaint contains several causes of action against
Defendants including unfair competition and failure to pay proper
minimum and overtime wages.
Headquartered in Massachusetts, Staples, Inc. operates as an office
supply retail company. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Tritia M. Murata, Esq.
David P. Zins, Esq.
Nancy R. Thomas, Esq.
Natalie E. Fox, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, 24th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566
Telephone: (213) 633-6800
Facsimile: (213) 633-6899
E-mail: TritiaMurata@dwt.com
DavidZins@dwt.com
NancyThomas@dwt.com
STONEBRIDGE HOSPITALITY: Vanegas Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANA BATRES VANEGAS, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STONEBRIDGE
HOSPITALITY ASSOCIATES, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC-24-618403, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and
for the County of San Francisco to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on November 14, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:24-cv-08005 to the proceeding.
The case arises from Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code. The violations stem from, among other things, Defendants'
failure to pay minimum wages and their unfair business practices.
EMSL Analytical, Inc. provides indoor environmental quality and
industrial hygiene testing services. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Shareef S. Farag, Esq.
Matthew J. Goodman, Esq.
Matthew P. Eaton, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 820-8800
Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
E-mail: sfarag@bakerlaw.com
mgoodman@bakerlaw.com
meaton@bakerlaw.com
SUBARU CORP: Faces Class Action Over Defective Side Mirrors
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sepehr Daghighian, writing for the Lemon Firm, reports that Subaru
is facing a class action lawsuit alleging that the side mirrors on
certain Crosstrek and Ascent models are defective. Filed recently,
the lawsuit claims that Subaru failed to address known issues with
the mirrors in these vehicles, leading to sudden loosening or
detachment. According to the complaint, these mirror malfunctions
not only compromise visibility but also pose safety hazards for
drivers and passengers.
Models Affected by the Alleged Mirror Defect
The class action covers the following Subaru models:
2019 - 2023 Subaru Crosstrek
2019 - 2023 Subaru Ascent
Owners of these models report that the side mirrors can detach or
become unstable with minimal stress, including during regular use
or exposure to typical driving conditions. This issue, according to
plaintiffs, results in limited rear visibility and increases the
risk of accidents. Some drivers have noted that, despite multiple
repairs or replacements, the issue persists, causing ongoing safety
concerns and additional repair expenses.
Claims Made in the Lawsuit
The lawsuit alleges that Subaru was aware of the potential for
these side mirrors to malfunction but did not disclose the defect
to buyers. The plaintiffs claim this lack of transparency violated
consumer protection laws, as it prevented consumers from making
informed purchasing decisions. In addition, the lawsuit argues that
Subaru's repair efforts have been insufficient, leaving drivers
with recurring mirror issues and no long-term solution.
The plaintiffs are seeking compensation for repair costs, potential
safety risks, and the diminished value of affected Subaru vehicles.
They also demand that Subaru develop a lasting fix to ensure mirror
stability for current and future Crosstrek and Ascent owners.
What Subaru Owners Need to Know Next
Owners of affected Crosstrek and Ascent models should stay informed
about the progress of this lawsuit. Those who have experienced
similar issues may consider joining the class action or choose
their own way of dealing with the alleged defect, which could lead
to compensation for repair expenses and other damages if
successful.
How Subaru Owners Can Take Back Control
While this class action lawsuit has been initiated, thousands of
Subaru owners are likely affected by the same alleged mirror
defect, with many expressing dissatisfaction over Subaru's
inadequate solutions. These types of issues often lead to escalated
legal action, highlighting the importance of protecting consumer
rights.
If you struggle with vehicle troubles and feel cornered against big
vehicle brands, remember it is always better to have experts with
you. With extensive experience and successful cases at hand, The
Lemon Firm is your best bet. With dedicated team members always at
your disposal, the package becomes too good to be true. So, if your
car is giving you a headache, don't hesitate to reach out![GN]
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Bid to Seal Document OK'd in FWK Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FWK Holdings LLC, et al.,
v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd., et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-11057 (D. Mass., Filed June 25, 2021), the Hon. Judge Myong
J. Joun entered an order granting motion to seal document.
-- In light of Premera's status report, the Clerk is directed to
terminate the original motion to certify class, and the first
amended motion to certify class.
-- The second amended motion to certify class and supporting
pleadings will control.
-- The court will take no action regarding Exhibit barring
clarification by counsel, via further status report. Counsel
will
receive instructions for submitting the pleadings to be filed
under seal forthwith.
The nature of suit states antitrust litigation.
Takeda is a global, research and development-driven pharmaceutical
company.[CC]
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Court Allows Sealing of Docs in PBC Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Premera Blue Cross v.
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited. et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-12918 (D,. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Myong J. Joun entered an
order granting motion to seal document.
-- In light of Premera's status report, the Clerk is directed to
terminate the original motion to certify class, and the first
amended motion to certify class.
-- The second amended motion to certify class and supporting
pleadings will control.
-- The court will take no action regarding Exhibit barring
clarification by counsel, via further status report. Counsel
will
receive instructions for submitting the pleadings to be filed
under seal forthwith.
The nature of suit states antitrust litigation.
Takeda is a global, research and development-driven pharmaceutical
company.[CC]
TASKUS INC: Fact Discovery in Lozada Due Feb. 10, 2025
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUMBERTO LOZADA and
OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. TASKUS, INC.,
BRYCE MADDOCK, JASPAR WEIR, BALAJI SEKAR, AMIT DIXIT, MUKESH MEHTA,
SUSIR KUMAR, JACQUELINE D. RESES, and BCP FC AGGREGATOR L.P., Case
No. 1:22-cv-01479-JPC-GS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gary Stein
entered an Amended Civil Case Management Plan order:
-- All fact discovery shall be completed no Feb. 10, 2025
later than:
-- Initial requests for production of March 1, 2024
documents shall be served by:
-- Initial interrogatories shall be served by: July 12, 2024
-- Depositions shall be completed by: Feb. 10, 2025
-- All discovery must be completed by: May 16, 2025
TaskUs is an outsourcing company that handles content moderation,
customer experience, artificial intelligence, operations and risk &
response services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 13, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0LTMkP at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph A. Fonti, Esq.
Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
Evan A. Kubota, Esq.
Benjamin F. Burry, Esq.
Thayne Stoddard, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
300 Park Avenue, Suite 1301
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 789-1340
Facsimile: (212) 205-3960
E-mail: jfonti@bfalaw.com
nkulesa@bfalaw.com
ekubota@bfalaw.com
tstoddard@bfalaw.com
bburry@bfalaw.com
- and -
John A. Kehoe, Esq.
Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq.
KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C.
2001 Market Street, Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (212) 792-6676
E-mail: jkehoe@kehoelawfirm.com
myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jonathan K. Youngwood, Esq.
Meredith D. Karp, Esq.
Amy L. Dawson, Esq.
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
425 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 455-2000
E-mail: jyoungwood@stblaw.com
mkarp@stblaw.com
amy.dawson@stblaw.com
TIKTOK INC: Middleton Files Suit in W.D. Missouri
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TIKTOK INC., et al.
The case is styled as Christina Middleton, as guardian and next of
kin on behalf of A.B., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TIKTOK INC., TIKTOK U.S. DATA SECURITY INC.,
BYTEDANCE LTD., BYTEDANCE INC., TIKTOK PTE. LTD., TIKTOK LTD., Case
No. 4:24-cv-00742-FJG (W.D. Mo., Nov. 15, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
TikTok -- https://www.tiktok.com/ -- is the leading destination for
short-form mobile video.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL
4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Phone: (816) 701-1100
Fax: (816) 531-2372
Email: tcartmell@wcllp.com
TOYOTA MOTOR: Door Locking Actuators "Defective," Mixon Says
------------------------------------------------------------
JEM MIXON, TERRENCE LOGAN, RONALD SMITH, MELISSA SINDONI, WHITNEY
SEXTON, CLINTON MAYBERRY, CARL FOSTER, AND KEITH WOODALL,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION; TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A.,
INC.; TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC.; TOYOTA MOTOR ENGINEERING &
MANUFACTURING NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
4:24-cv-01018-ALM (E.D. Tex., November 15, 2024) seeks damages
against Toyota for breach of the manufacturers' warranties and for
unfair or deceptive acts or practices pertaining to the design,
manufacture, and sale of the following Toyota vehicles with
defective door locking actuators.
This action arises from Toyota's failure, despite their
longstanding knowledge of a material defect in the Class Vehicles,
to disclose to Plaintiffs and other consumers that the Class
Vehicles are predisposed to a door lock actuator defect. As a
result of the door actuator defect and the considerable monetary
costs associated with attempting to repair such defect, the
Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered injury in fact, incurred
damages and have otherwise been harmed by Toyota's conduct, says
the suit.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring this action to redress Toyota's
violations of the consumer protection statutes, and also seek
recovery for Toyota's breaches of express warranty, implied
warranty, its duty of good faith and fair dealing, and its
fraudulent omissions and concealment of the door actuator defect.
Toyota Motor Corporation designs, manufactures and sells passenger
cars, buses, minivans, trucks, specialty cars, recreational and
sport-utility vehicles.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
Austin P. Smith, Esq.
Jack M. Kelley, Esq.
STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC
12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045
Dallas, TX 75230
Telephone: (972) 387-4040
Facsimile: (972) 387-4041
E-mail: bruce@stecklerlaw.com
austin@stecklerlaw.com
jkelley@stecklerlaw.com
- and -
David C. Wright, Esq.
Todd A. Walburg, Esq.
MCCUNE LAW GROUP
3281 E. Guasti, Road, Suite 100
Ontario, CA 91761
Telephone: (909) 557-1250
Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
E-mail: dcw@mccunewright.com
taw@mccunewright.com
sbb@mccunewright.com
UNIVERSAL ENTERTAINMENT: Ebright Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
CASSANDRA M. EBRIGHT and KENDA R. BLANTON, individually and on
behalf of all individuals similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
UNIVERSAL ENTERTAINMENT LLC dba THE KING OF CLUBS, RICHARD WOLF,
and ANGELA WOLF, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04165-MHW-CMV (S.D.
Ohio, November 15, 2024) seeks to recover compensation, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other equitable relief from
the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, and the
Ohio Constitution.
According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the FLSA and
the Ohio Wage Laws because they: (1) misclassified Named Plaintiffs
and the Putative plaintiffs who are bartenders as "independent
contractors," resulting in Defendants' failure to pay for all hours
worked at the statutory federal and state minimum wage; (2)
required Named Plaintiffs and the Putative Plaintiffs to share tips
with management and back-of-house employees who have no or only de
minimis interaction with customers; and (3) falsely classified
Named Plaintiffs and the Putative Plaintiffs as "managers" when
they were, 1n reality, working foreman under C.F.R. Section
541.115.
Plaintiff Ebright began her employment with Defendants as a
bartender in approximately October 2022 and continues to be
employed as of the filing of this complaint. In addition to
bartending, Defendant required Plaintiff Ebright to help with
coordinating with bands or performers who perform at Defendants'
venue.
Plaintiff Blanton began her employment with Defendants as kitchen
staff in approximately March 2021. In approximately November 2021,
Plaintiff Blanton switched roles to become a bartender and 1s still
currently employed with Defendants as a bartender as of the filing
of this complaint.
Universal Entertainment LLC is an Ohio-based entertainment
establishment operator.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP
4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 221-4221
Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
VISA INC: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Laws' Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a securities class action
lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Visa Inc. ("Visa" or
the "Company") (NYSE: V) securities between November 16, 2023 and
September 23, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for the Company’s investors under the
federal securities laws.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was not
in compliance with federal antitrust laws and did not have
effective internal programs and policies to assess and control
compliance with federal antitrust laws; and (2) the Company was in
violation of federal antitrust law, and therefore likely to be
subject to lawsuits and penalties by federal agencies. The
Complaint further alleges that on September 24, 2024, the U.S.
Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Visa in federal court
for monopolizing the debit card payment processing market. On this
news, the price of the Company stock fell more than 5%.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Visa should
contact the Firm prior to the January 21, 2025 lead plaintiff
motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class
action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M.
Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or
via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.
Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]
WELLS FARGO: Mombrun Balks at Unauthorized Fund Transfers
---------------------------------------------------------
ORISSA MOMBRUN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, and
DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-08026 (N.D. Cal., November
15, 2024) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant
for alleged unlawful conduct in violation of the Electronic Funds
Transfer Act.
The Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, brings this complaint for damages, injunctive relief, and
any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the
illegal actions of Defendant routinely holding consumers liable for
unauthorized electronic fund transfers made out of their deposit
accounts held with Defendant, thereby violating the EFTA.
The Defendant has not reversed the transfer and has not refunded
Plaintiff for the funds fraudulently transferred out of her
account. The Plaintiff did not authorize this transfer of funds out
of her account via Apple Cash, and did not give anyone permission
to transfer funds from her account, the suit asserts.
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association operates as a national bank
with its headquarters in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Matthew R. Snyder, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21031 Ventura Blvd, Suite 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
msnyder@toddflaw.com
XEROX HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for Southern
District of New York on behalf of those who acquired Xerox Holdings
Corporation ("Xerox" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:XRX) securities
during the period of January 25, 2024 to October 28, 2024,
inclusive ("the Class Period"). Investors have until January 21,
2025, to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in
the lawsuit.
In October 2023, Xerox introduced an organizational overhaul, which
it dubbed the "Reinvention". Then, on January 3, 2024, the Company
announced the next stage of its "operating model evolution" which
included shifting to a "business unit operating model,"
consolidating groups under a "Global Business Services
organization," and a layoff of 15% of the Company's workforce.
On April 23, 2024, the effects of the Company's Reinvention began
to emerge, when the Company revealed that for second quarter 2024,
quarterly revenue was down 12.4% year-over-year and equipment sales
declined 25.8 year-over-year. The Company admitted, in part,
"geographic simplification" had driven the year-over-year decline.
The Company also partially disclosed that the Reinvention plan had
been "initially disruptive to sales operations" but assured
investors it was "seeing the benefits of the new business unit-led
operating model in equipment order momentum." On this news, Xerox
shares declined by $1.66 per share, or approximately 10.1%, from
$16.42 per share on April 22, 2024, to close at $14.76 on April 23,
2024.
On October 29, 2024, Xerox released its third quarter 2024
financial results, missing consensus estimates and lowering
guidance and attributing the performance to "the delayed global
launch of two new products and lower-than-expected improvements in
sales force productivity" and "to a lesser extent, delays in the
implementation of certain cost reduction initiatives to 2025." On
this news, Xerox shares declined by $1.79 per share, or
approximately 17.4%, from $10.28 per share on October 28, 2024, to
close at $8.49 on October 29, 2024.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made numerous materially false and 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: (1) that, after a large workforce
reduction, the Company's salesforce was reorganized with new
territory assignments and account coverage; (2) that, as a result,
the Company's salesforce productivity was disrupted; (3) that, as a
result, the Company had a lower rate of sell-through of older
products; (4) that the difficulties in flushing out old product
would delay the launch of key products; (5) that, as a result,
Xerox was likely to experience lower sales and revenue; and (6)
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.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Xerox securities, have
information, or would like to learn more about this investigation,
please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP by email at
investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this CONTACT FORM, to
discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters
without any cost to you.
Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Kirby McInerney LLP
Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
(212) 699-1180
https://www.kmllp.com
investigations@kmllp.com [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***