/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241206.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, December 6, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 245
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Collins et al. AFFF Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
3M COMPANY: Denhardt AFFF Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
3M COMPANY: Diaz Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
3M COMPANY: Hatfield Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
3M COMPANY: Jones Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
3M COMPANY: LeSarge Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Sanders Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
4E BRANDS: Court Certifies Class for Count 4 Claims
7-ELEVEN INC: $34K Awarded to Plaintiff in Attorneys' Fees & Costs
AAA COOPER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Constantine Claims
ABC CORP: Faces De Lucio Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
ABM INDUSTRY GROUPS: Williams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
AETREX INC: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California
ALL ELITE WRESTLING: Foote Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
ALLURE DAY: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Agostini Says
ALPHA ANALYTICAL: Gist-Reed Suit Removed to E.D. California
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Martinez Wins Class Cert Bid
AMERICAN FAMILY: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to April 25, 2025
AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOOD: Sojka Files Suit in D. New Jersey
AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOOD: Valencourt Balks at Unsecured Personal Info
APPLE INC: Court Narrows Claims in Hughes Suit
ARAMARK UNIFORM: Class Cert Bid Filing Due March 7, 2025
ASTORIA BOOKSHOP: Agostini Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
AUROBINDO PHARMA: Class Cert Ruling Entered in Connecticut Suit
BIG HOFFAS: Balint Alleges FLSA Tip Violations
BL CUSTOM: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Solis Suit Says
BRYAN HEALTH: Bussard and Gibson Sue Over Privacy Rights Violations
BURROW INC: Faces Sumlin Suit Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
CAMPBELL SOUP: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Tobacco Surcharges
CANADA: Settles Phoenix Pay System Class-Action Lawsuit
CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set January 21
CENTURYLINK INC: Bultemeyer Bid to Amend Judgment OK'd
CHESNUT HEALTH: Faces Suit Over Unlawful Private Info Disclosure
CLARE V. LLC: Picon Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
COLE HAAN: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
D.M. SMUCKER: Fernandez Sues Over Website's Barriers to the Blind
F.A. BARTLETT: Removes Bowen Class Suit to C.D. Calif.
FINANCE AUTHORITY: Unlawfully Collects Student Loans, Webber Claims
FULL SAIL: Office Gurus Must Produce Documents by Dec. 12
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Fails to Protect Private Info, Morrison Says
INITO INC: Faces Data Privacy Class Action Lawsuit
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Sued Over Rigging Wheel of Fortune Machines
J & J TIRES: De La Cuesta Alleges Wage & Hour Law Breaches
KITCHEN KINGS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Davis Suit Says
KROGER CO: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over No-Poach Agreements
LIFETIME VALUE: Class Suit Remanded to Superior Court
MACY'S INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
MCBRIDE SISTERS: Miller Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
MEMPHIS, TN: Court Overturned Rulings in Rape Kit Backlog Suit
NOBLE HOUSE: Lawal Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
PAYCHEX NORTH: Smith Seeks Payroll Specialists' Unpaid Overtime
PINK & RED: Gaspa Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
PINNACLE PROPANE: Settles 2022 Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit
POSEIDA THERAPEUTICS: M&A Investigates Merger With Roche Holdings
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Opry Says
RENTOKIL INITIAL: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
SCANLAN THEODORE: Picon Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
SET FORTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Cheek Alleges
SPORTS UNLIMITED: Fernandez Sues Over Website's Access Barriers
THOMAS JEFFERSON: Filling for Class Cert Bid Due May 28, 2025
TRADITIONAL MEDICINALS: DelaCruz Sues Over Website Access Barriers
TRNK NEW YORK: Hernandez Sues Over Blind Users' Access to Website
UNITED NETWORK: Randall Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal
W6LS INC: Faces Wood Suit Over Issuance of Usurious Loans
WARNER BROS: Faces Class Action Over Misleading NBA Rights
WARNER BROS: Faces Securities Class Suit Over Misleading Statements
WELLS FARGO: Christner Sues Over Unlawful Deposit Sweep Program
YARDI SYSTEMS: Manipulates Market Rental Pricing, Shewmaker Says
ZETA GLOBAL: Davoodi Sues Over Artificially Inflated Stock Price
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 6,324 Pending Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argonaut Defends Asbestos Related Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Has $274MM Total Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Emerson Electric Defends Product Liability Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Has $357MM A&E Exposure Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Has $74MM Asbestos Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Reports $17.8MM Liabilities
*********
3M COMPANY: Collins et al. AFFF Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PHILLIP COLLINS ET AL., Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY ET
AL., Case No. 2024-CP 08-02858, was removed from the Circuit Court
for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Berkeley County, South Carolina, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on
November 22, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the District of South Carolina assigned Case
No. 2:24-cv-06813-RMG to the proceeding.
The case arises from the injuries that were allegedly caused by
Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF), and/or firefighter
turnout gear. Plaintiffs assert claims against all Defendants,
including 3M, for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability (statutory), strict liability
(restatement), fraudulent concealment, breach of express and
implied warranties, and wantonness.
Headquartered in St. Paul, MN, 3M Company conducts operations in
several markets, including electronics, telecommunications,
industrial, consumer and office, health care, and safety. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Brian C. Duffy, Esq.
DUFFY & YOUNG, LLC
96 Broad Street
Charleston, SC 29401
Telephone: (843) 720-2044
Facsimile: (843) 720-2047
E-mail: bduffy@duffyandyoung.com
- and -
Daniel L. Ring, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
71 S. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 701-8520
E-mail: dring@mayerbrown.com
3M COMPANY: Denhardt AFFF Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ROBERT DENHARDT JR. ET AL., Plaintiffs v. 3M
COMPANY ET AL., Case No. 2024CP2605283, was removed from the
Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Horry County,
South Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina on November 22, 2024.
The Clerk of
Court for the District of South Carolina assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-06811-RMG to the proceeding.
The case arises from the injuries that were allegedly caused by
Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF), and/or firefighter
turnout gear. The Plaintiffs assert claims against all Defendants,
including 3M, for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability (statutory), strict liability
(restatement), fraudulent concealment, breach of express and
implied warranties, and wantonness.
Headquartered in St. Paul, MN, 3M Company conducts operations in
several markets, including electronics, telecommunications,
industrial, consumer and office, health care, and safety. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Brian C. Duffy, Esq.
DUFFY & YOUNG, LLC
96 Broad Street
Charleston, SC 29401
Telephone: (843) 720-2044
Facsimile: (843) 720-2047
E-mail: bduffy@duffyandyoung.com
- and -
Daniel L. Ring, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
71 S. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 701-8520
E-mail: dring@mayerbrown.com
3M COMPANY: Diaz Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Brian Manuel Diaz, et al., and others
similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC., ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT, AMEREX CORPORATION, ARCHROMA U.S. INC., ARKEMA, INC.,
BASF CORPORATION, BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION, CB GARMENT, INC., CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.,
CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB
FIRE, LTD, CLARIANT CORP., CORTEVA, INC., DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.,
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT
INC), DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY,
FIRE-DEX, LLC, FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC., GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY
LLC, HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC, INNOTEX CORP., JOHNSON
CONTROLS, INC., KIDDE PLC, NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, L.N.
CURTIS & SONS, LION GROUP, INC, MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC,
MILLIKEN & COMPANY, MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC, MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., PBI PERFORMANCE
PRODUCTS, INC., PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP, RICOCHET MANUFACTURING
CO., INC., SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC., SOUTHERN
MILLS, INC., STEDFAST USA, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, 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), VERIDIAN LIMITED, W. L. GORE &
ASSOCIATES INC., WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, Case No. 2024CP3204087
was removed from the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial
Circuit, Lexington County, South Carolina, to the United States
District Court for the District of South Carolina on Nov. 22, 2024,
and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-06810-RMG.
The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable
based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or
selling aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter
turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used in
firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Brian C. Duffy, Esq.
DUFFY & YOUNG, LLC
96 Broad Street
Charleston, SC 29401
Phone: (843) 720-2044
Fax: (843) 720-2047
Email: bduffy@duffyandyoung.com
- and -
Daniel L. Ring, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
71 S. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 701-8520
Email: dring@mayerbrown.com
3M COMPANY: Hatfield Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jason Michael Hatfield, et al., and others
similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC., ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT, AMEREX CORPORATION, ARCHROMA U.S. INC., ARKEMA, INC.,
BASF CORPORATION, BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION, CB GARMENT, INC., CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.,
CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB
FIRE, LTD, CLARIANT CORP., CORTEVA, INC., DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.,
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT
INC), DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY,
FIRE-DEX, LLC, FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC., GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY
LLC, HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC, INNOTEX CORP., JOHNSON
CONTROLS, INC., KIDDE PLC, NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, L.N.
CURTIS & SONS, LION GROUP, INC, MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC,
MILLIKEN & COMPANY, MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC, MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., PBI PERFORMANCE
PRODUCTS, INC., PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP, RICOCHET MANUFACTURING
CO., INC., SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC., SOUTHERN
MILLS, INC., STEDFAST USA, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, 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), VERIDIAN LIMITED, W. L. GORE &
ASSOCIATES INC., WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, Case No. 2024CP4603094
was removed from the Circuit Court for the Sixteenth Judicial
Circuit, York County, South Carolina, to the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina on Nov. 22, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-06808-RMG.
The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable
based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or
selling aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter
turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used in
firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Brian C. Duffy, Esq.
DUFFY & YOUNG, LLC
96 Broad Street
Charleston, SC 29401
Phone: (843) 720-2044
Fax: (843) 720-2047
Email: bduffy@duffyandyoung.com
- and -
Daniel L. Ring, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
71 S. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 701-8520
Email: dring@mayerbrown.com
3M COMPANY: Jones Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Tony Jones, et al., and others similarly
situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company), AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC., ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT,
AMEREX CORPORATION, ARCHROMA U.S. INC., ARKEMA, INC., BASF
CORPORATION, BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION, CB GARMENT, INC., CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.,
CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB
FIRE, LTD, CLARIANT CORP., CORTEVA, INC., DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.,
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT
INC), DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY,
FIRE-DEX, LLC, FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC., GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY
LLC, HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC, INNOTEX CORP., JOHNSON
CONTROLS, INC., KIDDE PLC, NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, L.N.
CURTIS & SONS, LION GROUP, INC, MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC,
MILLIKEN & COMPANY, MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC, MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., PBI PERFORMANCE
PRODUCTS, INC., PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP, RICOCHET MANUFACTURING
CO., INC., SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC., SOUTHERN
MILLS, INC., STEDFAST USA, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, 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), VERIDIAN LIMITED, W. L. GORE &
ASSOCIATES INC., WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, Case No. 2024CP4204036
was removed from the Circuit Court for the Seventh Judicial
Circuit, Spartanburg County, South Carolina, to the United States
District Court for the District of South Carolina on Nov. 22, 2024,
and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-06807-RMG.
The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable
based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or
selling aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter
turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used in
firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Brian C. Duffy, Esq.
DUFFY & YOUNG, LLC
96 Broad Street
Charleston, SC 29401
Phone: (843) 720-2044
Fax: (843) 720-2047
Email: bduffy@duffyandyoung.com
- and -
Daniel L. Ring, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
71 S. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 701-8520
Email: dring@mayerbrown.com
3M COMPANY: LeSarge Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard LeSarge, on behalf of himself v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota) Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE
PLUS INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY
PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP,
INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO.,
INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE
PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.;
STEDFAST USA, INC.; 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.);
W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; Case No. 2:24-cv-05842-RMG (D.S.C.,
Oct. 11, 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 and or TOG with
knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS,
which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated
with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF 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 several Fire Departments and or Military bases
during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff
further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising
from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF during his military
career and was diagnosed with Kidney Cancer as a direct result of
exposure to Defendants' 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:
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Phone: 843-546-2408
Facsimile: 843-546-9604
Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
rlee@belllegalgroup.com
gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com
3M COMPANY: Sanders Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Ronny Sanders, et al., and others similarly
situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2024-904137.00 was
removed from the Circuit Court for the Circuit Court for the Tenth
Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on Nov. 26,
2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01646-ACA.
The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable
based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or
selling aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter
turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used in
firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
M. Christian King, Esq.
Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq.
W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq.
LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C.
The Clark Building
400 North 20th Street
Birmingham, AL 35203-3200
Phone: (205) 581-0700
Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com
hprater@lightfootlaw.com
lradney@lightfootlaw.com
4E BRANDS: Court Certifies Class for Count 4 Claims
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELODY CALLANTINE, on
behalf of herself, her minor children K.C. and L.C., and all others
similarly situated, v. 4E BRANDS NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No.
3:20-cv-00801-DRL-SJF (N.D. Ind.), Hon. Judge Damon R. Leichty
entered an order certifying the following class for count 4 claims
under the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act:
"all Indiana residents who, within two years of Aug. 11, 2020,
purchased any type of Blumen hand sanitizer placed into the
stream
of commerce by 4e Brands or its affiliates or related companies
that contained methanol as an active ingredient."
Ms. Callantine has satisfied all the requirements of Rules 23(a)
and 23(b)(3), the Court says.
The court also designates Ms. Callantine as the class
representative, appoints Ms. Callantine's counsel as class counsel,
and
grants Ms. Callantine's motion to seal.
The court directs the parties to confer concerning appropriate
notice to the class and a trial plan and to file the proposed
notice and trial plan (with any separate objections) by Dec. 20,
2024.
SO ORDERED.
Ms. Callantine alleges that 4e committed a deceptive act when it
sold her and others harmful, methanol-containing hand sanitizer it
represented as safe, effective, and containing ethyl alcohol.
4e is a Texas corporation that distributed hand sanitizer in
Indiana labeled and sold under the brand name Blumen.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VRUS4R at no extra
charge.[CC]
7-ELEVEN INC: $34K Awarded to Plaintiff in Attorneys' Fees & Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOAMS MCNELLEY AND KAREN
PARIS, v. 7-ELEVEN, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-10046-ADB (D. Mass.),
the Hon. Judge Allison Burroughs entered an order denying in part
and granting in part McNelley's motion:
-- The Plaintiff shall be awarded $34,459.71 in attorneys' fees
and
costs.
In light of the uncertainty as to whether a public accommodation
claim must first be brought before MCAD, and, more importantly,
given that Chapter 151B and Chapter 272, section 98 claims are
sufficiently interconnected, the Court is not persuaded that an
additional subtraction of attorneys' fees is warranted or feasible.
Beyond the deduction of $1,520.00, the Court leaves W. Jacobs’
request for legal fees prior to the state-court proceeding intact.
The Defendant seemingly does not challenge attorney W. Jacobs’
proposed rate ($400), see generally, and considering his education,
credentials, and relevant professional experience, the Court finds
no reason to dispute the reasonableness of his hourly rate. As to
Attorney A. Jacobs' hourly rate ($325), the Defendant similarly
does not contest the reasonableness of her rate or the fact that
she worked on the case outside of the courtroom and the Court will
therefore accept it on this basis, coupled with the Court's general
knowledge of billing rates.
The Plaintiffs' counsel initially filed a motion for attorneys'
fees and costs on April 13, 2024, which Defendant opposed on April
29, 2024. The Court denied the motion without prejudice on the
basis that the documents submitted by Plaintiffs' counsel included
fees and costs associated with representing both McNelley and
Paris, when only McNelley prevailed.
In response to the Court's order, the Plaintiffs' counsel
subsequently filed a renewed motion on July 7, 2024, and Defendant
submitted a supplemental opposition on July 22, 2024.
7-Eleven, Inc. is a Japanese-owned convenience store chain.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IBYq8Q at no extra
charge.[CC]
AAA COOPER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Constantine Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER CONSTANTINE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AAA COOPER TRANSPORTATION,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-02925-K (N.D. Tex., Nov. 21, 2024)
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Constantine was employed by the Defendant as a staff.
AAA Cooper Transportation is a freight trucking/transportation
company with numerous sites throughout Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave, 15 th Floor
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com
- and -
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) WORKERS
ABC CORP: Faces De Lucio Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
Alfredo Ortega de Lucio, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABC Corp. d/b/a Oishii Teriyaki &
Noodle, and Chino Doe and Annie Doe, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-07713 (E.D.N.Y., November 5, 2024) arises from the
Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.
The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages, failure to provide spread-of-hours compensation,
failure to pay on a weekly basis, and failure to provide wage
notices.
Plaintiff Ortega de Lucio was employed by the Defendants at Oishii
Teriyaki & Noodle, from approximately March 2018 through September
2024 where his job duties include food preparation, cleaning,
packing and unloading deliveries.
ABC Corp. owns and operates Oishii Teriyaki & Noodle, a restaurant
located in Queens, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Samuel, Esq.
THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
1441 Broadway Suite 6085
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 563-9884
E-mail: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com
ABM INDUSTRY GROUPS: Williams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ABM INDUSTRY GROUPS,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Curtis Williams, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated v. ABM INDUSTRY GROUPS,
LLC, ABM Industries, Inc., Does 1-20, Case No. 24CV023944 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 22, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
ABM -- https://www.abm.com/ -- is one of the world's largest
providers of facility services and solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stuart Harris Kluft, Esq.
KLUFT LAW, P.C.
35 N Lake Ave,, Ste, 710
Pasadena, CA 91101-4185
Phone: 626-432-5422
Email: skluft@kluftlawfirm.com
AETREX INC: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Silvia Garcia, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AETREX, INC., a New Jersey corporation
d/b/a WWW.AETREX.COM, Case No. 24STCV26796 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California in the County of Los
Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on Nov. 25, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-10205.
The complaint includes only one cause of action: a violation of
California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA).[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Dana M. Silva, Esq.
SAUL EWING LLP
1888 Century Park East, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 255-6100
Facsimile: (310) 255-6200
Email: dana.silva@saul.com
ALL ELITE WRESTLING: Foote Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kevin Foote, Brandon Tate, Brent Tate,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. All
Elite Wrestling, LLC, Ian Riccaboni, Tony Khan, Case No.
2:24-cv-05351 was removed from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida on Nov. 22, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01206-HES-MCR to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
All Elite Wrestling (AEW) -- https://www.allelitewrestling.com/ --
is an American professional wrestling promotion based in
Jacksonville, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin Baer, Esq.
INJURY LAW PARTNERS
1628 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1302
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 402-5900
- and -
Stephen P. New, Esq.
NEW TAYLOR AND ASSOCIATES
101 North Kanawha Street Suite 302
Beckley, WV 25801
Phone: (304) 362-7345
Fax: (304) 250-6012
The Defendant is represented by:
Bill Tyler White, Esq.
James D. McGuire, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS LLP
501 Riverside Ave., Suite 902
Jacksonville, FL 32202
Phone: (904) 638-2655
Fax: (904) 638-2656
Email: james.mcguire@jacksonlewis.com
- and -
Daniel Frederick Thornton, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1350
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: (267) 319-7802
Email: daniel.thornton@jacksonlewis.com
ALLURE DAY: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Agostini Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
LUNIQUE AGOSTINI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLURE DAY SPA & HAIR DESIGN,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08831 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2024)
alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://alluredayspa.com, is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff,
in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Allure Day Spa & Hair Design, INC. provides spa treatments,
massages, facials & hair salon services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
Gabriel A. Levy, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
Email: Gevyfirm@gmail.com
ALPHA ANALYTICAL: Gist-Reed Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Lauryn Gist-Reed, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ALPHA ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES,
INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 24CV003663 was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Sacramento, to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of California on
Nov. 25, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-03282-CSK.
The Defendant's removal of this action is based on the following:
Failure to Pay Minimum and Straight Time Wages; Failure to Pay
Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to
Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; Failure to Timely Pay Final
Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage
Statements; Failure to Indemnify Employees for Expenditures; Unfair
Business Practices; and Civil Penalties Under PAGA.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Cynthia G. Lawrence, Esq.
Kelly Buschman, Esq.
SIMS, LAWRENCE & BROGHAMMER
1478 Stone Point Drive, Suite 450
Roseville, CA 95661
Phone: (916) 797-8881
Facsimile: (916) 253-1544
Email: cynthia@sims-law.net
kelly@sims-law.net
SLB-eService@sims-law.net
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Martinez Wins Class Cert Bid
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Estefany Martinez v.
Amazon.com Services LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00502-BAH (D. Md.), the
Hon. Judge Brenda Hurson entered an order granting bid for class
certification:
-- The question of whether a de mismis exception exist for claims
Under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law and the
Maryland Wage and Hour Law is certified to the Supreme Court of
Maryland.
-- The Court reserves decision on the Defendant's summary judgment
motion until state court resolves the de mismis question of
law.
The Plaintiff, a former warehouse employee of Amazon, seeks
certification of this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of all
individuals who, between November 18, 2018 and March 31, 2020, were
employed by the Defendant as hourly non-exempt workers.
Specifically, the Plaintiff challenges Amazon's practice of
requiring mandatory security screenings at the end of each workday
while failing to compensate each employees for the time associated
with the screening.
Amazon.com Services provides e-commerce services. The Company
retails books, diamond jewelry, electronics, appliances, apparels,
and accessories.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Nov. 18, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xi1Fbr
at no extra charge.[CC]
AMERICAN FAMILY: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to April 25, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Craig Hacker, v. American
Family Mutual Insurance Company SI, Case No. 2:22-cv-01936-DLR (D.
Ariz.), Hon. Judge Douglas Rayes entered an order granting the
parties' joint motion to extend scheduling order as follows:
Event Current New
Deadline Deadline
Fact Discovery Cutoff: Jan. 10, 2025 April 11,
2025
Disclose all persons providing Jan. 24, 2025 April 25,
2025
expert testimony
Motion for Class Certification: Jan. 24, 2025 April 25,
2025
Motion for Class Certification Mar. 21, 2025 June 20,
2025
Response:
Disclose all persons providing Mar. 21, 2025 June 20, 2025
rebuttal expert testimony:
Motion for Class Certification Apr. 25, 2025 July 18,
2025
Reply:
Expert depositions: Apr. 25, 2025 July 18,
2025
American Family is an American private mutual company that focuses
on property, casualty, and auto insurance.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C5kYqY at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOOD: Sojka Files Suit in D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOOD
MORTGAGE ACCEPTANCE COMPANY LLC. The case is styled as William
Sojka, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOOD MORTGAGE ACCEPTANCE COMPANY LLC doing
business as: ANNIEMAC HOME MORTGAGE, Case No. 1:24-cv-10678-RMB-MJS
(D.N.J., Nov. 22, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
American Neighborhood Mortgage Acceptance Company, LLC doing
business as AnnieMac Home Mortgage -- https://annie-mac.com/ -- is
a nationwide mortgage loan provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, PC
135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
Montvale, NJ 07645
Phone: (201) 391-7000
Fax: (201) 307-1086
Email: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOOD: Valencourt Balks at Unsecured Personal Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL VALENCOURT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOOD MORTGAGE ACCEPTANCE
COMPANY, LLC D/B/A ANNIEMAC HOME MORTGAGE, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-10720 (D.N.J., November 25, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied
contract, and unjust enrichment.
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
network systems following a data breach between August 21, 2024,
and August 23, 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.
American Neighborhood Mortgage Acceptance Company, LLC, doing
business as AnnieMac Home Mortgage, is a mortgage loan service
provider based in Mount Laurel, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
APPLE INC: Court Narrows Claims in Hughes Suit
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN HUGHES, et al., v.
APPLE, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-07668-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Vince Chhabria entered an order granting in part and denying in
part Apple's motion to dismiss:
-- Unjust enrichment
Apple next seeks to dismiss the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment
claim. Because the remedy for unjust enrichment is restitution,
the plaintiffs must show that they lack an adequate remedy at
law.
Unlike in their request for injunctive relief, the plaintiffs
have neither pled in their complaint nor provided any
explanation
in their opposition why there is no adequate remedy at law for
the
amount they are seeking in restitution.
Because the plaintiffs have already had an opportunity to
amend
the complaint and chose not to meaningfully respond to
Apple’s
argument in their opposition brief, the unjust enrichment claim
is
dismissed without leave to amend.
-- Article III Standing for the At-Risk of Stalking Class
Apple raises in a footnote that the proposed
At-Risk-Of-Stalking
classes lack Article III standing. The At-Risk-of-Stalking
classes
are defined as all people residing in the U.S. who either own
iOS
devices or don't own iOS devices.
It's obvious that putative class members in those two
subclasses
would lack Article III standing because they haven't suffered
any
concrete and particularized harm and they have no more than a
speculative chance at being harmed in the future.
The Plaintiffs who own Apple devices allege that California law
applies because their claims are covered by Apple's Software
License Agreement ("SLA"), which has a California choice of law
provision. Under Nedlloyd, the plaintiffs must first show that the
choice of law provision applies to the claims, and then the Court
must analyze
whether California has a "substantial relationship" to the claim
and whether application of California law is contrary to a
"fundamental" public policy of another state.
Apple is an American multinational corporation and technology
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7id0P7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
ARAMARK UNIFORM: Class Cert Bid Filing Due March 7, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTOINETTE FERNANDEZ;
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ARAMARK UNIFORM & CAREER APPAREL, LLC, a limited liability company;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-07711-CAS-PD
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Christina Snyder entered an order
that:
1) The hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
be continued from Feb. 24, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. until June 2,
2025
at 10:00 a.m.
2) The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification be filed no
later than March 7, 2025.
3) The Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' motion be filed no
later than April 28, 2025; and
4) The Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion be filed no
later than May 12, 2025.
5) The Status Conference re: Settlement and Further Scheduling
Conference is continued from March 10, 2025, to June 16,
2025,
at 11:00 a.m.
Aramark specializes in providing uniforms and workwear for various
industries.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aKkKJ3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
ASTORIA BOOKSHOP: Agostini Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LUNIQUE AGOSTINI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE ASTORIA BOOKSHOP, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08837 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2024) alleges
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://astoriabookshop.com/, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
The Astoria Bookshop, LLC is an independent bookstore in Queens,
New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
Gabriel A. Levy, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
Email: Gevyfirm@gmail.com
AUROBINDO PHARMA: Class Cert Ruling Entered in Connecticut Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT,
et al., v. AUROBINDO PHARMA USA, INC., et al., Case No.
3:16-cv-02056-MPS (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Michael Shea denying
ECF Nos. 475 and 615 in the Heritage case, 16cv2056, and granting
ECF Nos. 203, 405, and 406 in the Teva case, 19cv710.
-- In the Heritage case, the operative complaint will remain ECF
No.
473.
-- In the Teva case, the States shall file and serve on the new
proposed defendants forthwith the proposed amended complaint.
Two
additional points.
-- First, the parties in the Teva case shall meet and confer
within
21 days of the filing of an appearance by counsel for Novartis
and
Sandoz AG about any proposed amendments to the scheduling order
the Court adopted in August. ECF No. 384.
-- Within 7 days of their meet and confer, they shall file a joint
proposed revised scheduling order or, if they cannot agree,
separate proposals in the same joint filing.
-- Second, the parties in the Heritage and Teva cases shall meet
and
confer within 21 days of this ruling and shall, within 7 days
thereafter, file a joint statement in each case indicating
whether
I should revisit my August 15, 2024 order designating the Teva
case as "Case Number 1" and the Heritage case as "Case Number
2,"
the Judge Shea says.
The Plaintiffs include THE STATE OF ALASKA; THE STATE OF ARIZONA;
THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; THE STATE OF
COLORADO; THE STATE OF DELAWARE; THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; THE
STATE OF FLORIDA; THE STATE OF HAWAII; THE STATE OF IDAHO; THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS; THE STATE OF INDIANA; THE STATE OF IOWA; THE
STATE OF KANSAS; THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY; THE STATE OF
LOUISIANA; THE STATE OF MAINE; THE STATE OF MARYLAND; THE
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS; THE STATE OF MICHIGAN; THE STATE OF
MINNESOTA; THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI; THE STATE OF MISSOURI; THE
STATE OF MONTANA; THE STATE OF NEBRASKA; THE STATE OF NEVADA; THE
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE; THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; THE STATE OF NEW
MEXICO; THE STATE OF NEW YORK; THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; THE
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA; THE STATE OF OHIO; THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA;
THE STATE OF OREGON; THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; THE
COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO; THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND; THE STATE
OF SOUTH CAROLINA; THE STATE OF TENNESSEE; THE STATE OF UTAH; THE
STATE OF VERMONT; THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON; THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA; THE STATE OF WISCONSIN; and
THE STATE OF WYOMING.
The Defendants include ACTAVIS HOLDCO US, INC.; ACTAVIS PHARMA,
INC.; APOTEX CORP.; ASCEND LABORATORIES, LLC; CITRON PHARMA, LLC;
DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, INC.; EMCURE PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD;
GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS INC., USA; HERITAGE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
LANNETT COMPANY, INC.; RAJIV MALIK; MAYNE PHARMA (USA), INC.;
SATISH MEHTA; MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA,
INC.; SANDOZ, INC.; SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC.; and ZYDUS
PHARMACEUTICALS (USA), INC.
Aurobindo manufactures generic pharmaceuticals and active
pharmaceutical ingredients.
A copy of the Court's ruling dated Nov. 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1bUUSA at no extra
charge.[CC]
BIG HOFFAS: Balint Alleges FLSA Tip Violations
----------------------------------------------
MELISSA BALINT, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. BIG HOFFAS SMOKEHOUSE BARBEQUE LLC, and ADAM B.
HOFFMAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02082-RLY-TAB (S.D. Ind.,
November 22, 2024) seeks to address Fair Labor Standards Act tip
violations committed by Defendants against her and her fellow
non-managerial, nonsupervisory employees who work or worked for
Defendants at their Westfield, Indiana restaurant and were required
to participate in Defendant's mandatory tip-pool.
In violation of the FLSA, the Defendants: 1) distributed tips from
the tip-pool to managers and supervisors; and 2) Defendants kept a
significant portion of the tips from the tip-pool as either
payments to Defendants or to pay Defendants' own business
expenses.
Big Hoffas Smokehouse Barbeque LLC owns and operates a restaurant
located in Westfield, Indiana. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert J. Hunt, Esq.
Robert F. Hunt, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. HUNT
1905 South New Market Street, Suite 168
Carmel, IN 46032
E-mail: rob@indianawagelaw.com
rfh@indianawagelaw.com
BL CUSTOM: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Solis Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO SOLIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BL CUSTOM, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-08180 (E.D.N.Y., November 25, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law, and
declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.blacklapel.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
BL Custom, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services,
doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
BRYAN HEALTH: Bussard and Gibson Sue Over Privacy Rights Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT BUSSARD and DANIEL GIBSON, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BRYAN HEALTH, Defendant,
Case No. 4:24-cv-03214-SMB-MDN (D. Neb., November 22, 2024) seek
damages associated with Defendant's violation of their privacy
rights under the Federal Wiretap Act, the Nebraska's Wiretap Act,
Nebraska Revised Statutes Sections, and common law claims for
invasion of privacy, breach of contract, negligence, and intrusion
upon seclusion.
The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action brought on behalf
of all persons, users, prospective patients, and current patients
who visited the Defendant's website https://www.bryanhealth.com,
utilized the website for its various intended purposes, and had
their private health conditions, identities, actual or potential
medical treatments, and the hospitals they visited or may visit
disclosed to Meta Platforms Inc. (Facebook) without their knowledge
or consent.
Bryan Health is a non-profit health system company with
headquarters at Lincoln, NE. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian E. Jorde, Esq.
DOMINALAW GROUP, PC LLO
2425 South 144th Street
Omaha, NE 68144
Telephone: (888) 387-4134
E-mail: bjorde@dominalaw.com
- and -
Mark S. Reich, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
33 Whitehall St., 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: mreich@zlk.com
BURROW INC: Faces Sumlin Suit Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
------------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS SUMLIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BURROW, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-09003 (S.D.N.Y., November 25, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, the New
York State Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights
Law, and declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.burrow.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, unclear labels for
interactive elements, lack of descriptive alt-text on graphics, the
lack of navigation links, the lack of adequate labeling of form
fields, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive
elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL
address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely
with a mouse, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Burrow, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services,
doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher Cohen, Esq.
ASHER COHEN PLLC
2377 56th Dr.
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Telephone: (718) 914-9694
Email: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com
CAMPBELL SOUP: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Tobacco Surcharges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lexology.com reports that according to the employees, tobacco
surcharges are permissible under ERISA only if they are part of a
wellness program meeting strict criteria. More specifically, the
wellness program must promote health and provide smokers with a
reasonable alternative standard to avoid the surcharge, such as
participating in a smoking cessation program. Employers must
communicate the terms of the wellness program to employees and make
them aware of their option to use the alternative standard under
the program.
The employees claim that Campbell Soup failed to offer an alternate
standard in its program as required by ERISA, and even if they did,
they failed to communicate it to the employees. Furthermore, the
employees allege that Campbell Soup failed to notify them that the
program would accommodate the recommendations of employees'
physicians.
Campbell Soup charges an extra $12.50 per week or $650 per year for
health insurance premiums for smokers, whether they use cigarettes,
cigars, e-cigarettes, or smokeless tobacco. The employer also
charges higher premiums for voluntary life and disability insurance
for tobacco users.
The employees explain in their suit that although Campbell Soup
offers a "Quit for Life" tobacco cessation program, it does not
meet the requirements for an alternative standard under ERISA. The
program applies only prospectively, in that smokers must complete
the program to eliminate the surcharges, and no mechanism for the
retroactive removal of the surcharges is provided. However, the
employees argue that ERISA requires participants to receive the
full "reward" if they complete the alternative standard, which
should include retroactive removal of surcharges via reimbursement
or refund.
Campbell Soup is not the only corporation facing a court challenge
to its tobacco surcharges. PepsiCo, Target, 7-Eleven, Walmart,
Compass Group USA, Bass Pro Group, and Tractor Supply face similar
suits in various federal district courts nationwide. [GN]
CANADA: Settles Phoenix Pay System Class-Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo Finance reports that after years of litigation and rigorous
negotiations, Sarailis Avocats announces an out-of-court settlement
with the Government of Canada to compensate non-unionized and
casual federal employees impacted by payroll issues caused by the
Phoenix pay system. This settlement, which is subject to approval
by the Quebec Superior Court, marks a significant step in
recognizing the rights of thousands of non-unionized and casual
employees who worked for the government between February 2016 and
March 2020.
The class action, initiated in 2017 by Ms. Ezmie Bouchard and
represented by Sarailis Avocats, sought compensation for moral
damages suffered by employees affected by the Phoenix payroll
system's failures. The malfunctions attributed to the Phoenix pay
system caused significant hardships for numerous federal employees,
disrupting their daily lives and personal finances.
"The Phoenix pay system caused major issues for thousands of
federal employees. The Government of Canada was a tough opponent in
this case," explains Me Christian Sarailis. "However, the
negotiations have resulted in a fair and equitable settlement for
class members to compensate for the moral damages they endured.
Without this class action and the sustained efforts since 2017,
non-unionized employees would have had little chance of receiving
compensation for their moral damages. This is, in our view, a
compelling example of justice achieved."
Details of the Settlement
The agreement provides for individual payments to class members,
calculated based on the number of eligible years they worked in one
of the affected categories, including casual employees, student
staff, term employees (less than three months), part-time employees
working less than one-third of regular hours, and employees
appointed by the Governor in Council.
Upcoming Approval Hearing
The settlement will be submitted for approval to the Quebec
Superior Court on February 18, 2024. A notice to class members has
been issued to inform them of the settlement terms, the approval
hearing, and the procedure to opt out of the class action, if
desired. Affected members are invited to visit
https://phoenixclassaction.ca to understand their rights and the
proposed compensation, as well as to review the notice to members.
About Sarailis Avocats
Renowned for its expertise in litigation, Sarailis Avocats has been
advocating for the rights and interests of its clients with
boldness and determination for over 15 years. The settlement in
this case is yet another example of the firm's commitment to
providing creative solutions to the legal challenges of its
clients. [GN]
CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set January 21
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP reminds investors that a class action was filed on
behalf of all purchasers of Celsius Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:CELH)
common stock between February 29, 2024 and September 4, 2024.
Celsius is a holding company that develops, processes, markets,
distributes, and sells energy drinks and liquid supplements in the
United States and internationally.
For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas,
Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003.
The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that
Celsius Holdings, Inc. (CELH) Misled Investors Regarding its
Business Prospects
According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
failed to disclose that: (a) Celsius materially oversold inventory
to Pepsi far in excess of demand, and faced a looming sales cliff
during which Pepsi would significantly reduce its purchases of
Celsius products; (b) as Pepsi drew down significant amounts of
inventory overstock, Celsius' sales would materially decline in
future periods, hurting the Company's financial performance and
outlook; (c) Celsius' sales rate to Pepsi was unsustainable and
created a misleading impression of Celsius' financial performance
and outlook; and (d) as a result, Celsius' business metrics and
financial prospects were not as strong as indicated in defendants'
class period statements. When the truth came out, the price of
Celsius' stock dropped, harming investors.
What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against Celsius Holdings, Inc. Shareholders who want to serve as
lead plaintiff for the class must submit their application to the
court by January 21, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be
eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can
remain an absent class member.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.
To be notified if a class action against Celsius Holdings, Inc.
settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage
in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact:
Aaron Dumas, Jr.
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]
CENTURYLINK INC: Bultemeyer Bid to Amend Judgment OK'd
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lydia Bultemeyer, v.
CenturyLink Incorporated, Case No. 2:14-cv-02530-SPL (D. Ariz.),
the Hon. Judge Steven Logan entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's motion to amend/correct Clerk's judgment pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a).
The Court further entered an order that the Clerk shall amend the
judgment to add the following language:
"This judgment applies to the 56,075 individuals to whom the
Rule(c)(2) notice was directed, who fall under the certified
class
definition, none of whom has requested exclusion, and whom the
Court finds to be members of the certified class in this
matter."
As such, the Court finds that the judgment may be amended in
accordance with Rule 23(c)(3) to specify that individuals who
received the class notice, did not request exclusion, and meet the
above-stated class definition qualify as class members.
In the class certification, the Court defined the class as:
Every individual in the United States about whom Defendant
CenturyLink obtained a consumer credit report using the personal
information the individual entered into CenturyLink’s
ecommerce
website from November 14, 2012, through November 14, 2014, and
who
did not sign an arbitration agreement or class action waiver
with
CenturyLink.
CenturyLink is a telecom company, offering high-speed internet,
fiber, voice, phone, and TV services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=06Bbcd at no extra
charge.[CC]
CHESNUT HEALTH: Faces Suit Over Unlawful Private Info Disclosure
----------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHESTNUT HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01475-JBM (C.D. Ill., November 22,
2024) arises from Defendant's alleged improper practice of
disclosing the confidential personally identifying information
and/or protected health information of Plaintiffs and the proposed
Class Members to third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc.
d/b/a Meta ("Facebook" or "Meta"), and potentially others via
tracking technologies used on its website.
The Defendant knowingly configured and implemented into its
website, www.mhtlc.org, code-based tracking devices known as
"trackers" or "tracking technologies," which collected and
transmitted Plaintiffs and Class Members' private information to
Facebook, Google, and other third parties, without Plaintiffs and
Class Members' knowledge or authorization. Defendant utilized data
from these trackers to market its services and bolster its profits.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now seek remedy of the harms and bring
causes of action for (I) Negligence; (II) Negligence Per Se; (III)
Breach of Express Contract; (IV) Breach of Implied Contract; (V)
Unjust Enrichment; (VI) Bailment; (VII) Violation of the Illinois
Eavesdropping Statute (VIII) of the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act; (IX) Violation of the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act; (X) Violation of Title II of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act; and (XI) Violation of the Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act.
Headquartered in Bloomington, IL, Chestnut Health Systems, Inc. is
a private, nonprofit hospital. It maintains residential and
outpatient drug and alcohol addiction treatment facilities, primary
care medical homes, and a research institute. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Amina A. Thomas, Esq.
Mallory K. Schiller, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
athomas@cohenandmalad.com
mschiller@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Andrew E. Mize, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
amize@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina Borelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORELLI PLLC
908 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
CLARE V. LLC: Picon Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
------------------------------------------------------------
YELITZA PICON, individually and on behalf of all others similary
situated, Plaintiff v. CLARE V., LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-08906 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.clarev.com, is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Clare V., LLC manage a website featuring handbags, accessories and
apparel designed by Clare Vivier and made in L.A. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
Email: Gevyfirm@gmail.com
COLE HAAN: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
----------------------------------------------------------
JULIE DALTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COLE HAAN COMPANY STORE, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 0:24-cv-04247 (D. Minn., Nov. 21, 2024) alleges violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, www.colehaan.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Cole Haan Company Store, LLC operates as an online clothing store.
The Company provides apparel, bags, accessories, and footwear for
men, women, and children. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 S. 8 th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
D.M. SMUCKER: Fernandez Sues Over Website's Barriers to the Blind
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. D.M. SMUCKER, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-09011 (S.D.N.Y., November 25, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law, and
declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.urbansouthern.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
D.M. Smucker, LLC is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
F.A. BARTLETT: Removes Bowen Class Suit to C.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of WILLIAM BOWEN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE F.A.
BARTLETT TREE EXPERT COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Santa Barbara (Case No.
24CV05757) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on Nov. 20, 2024, 2024.
The clerk of court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-10027. The case is assigned to Wesley L Hsu and
referred to the Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian.
The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company was founded in 1907 by
Francis A. Bartlett and is the world's leading scientific tree and
shrub care company. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
David L. Cheng, Esq.
Min K. Kim, Esq.
FORD HARRISON LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 237-2400
Facsimile: (213) 237-2401
Email: dcheng@fordharrison.com
mkim@fordharrison.com
FINANCE AUTHORITY: Unlawfully Collects Student Loans, Webber Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN WEBBER, ELIZABETH BRANN, and WILLIAM BRANN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FINANCE
AUTHORITY OF MAINE, EDWIN R. DAGGETT, JR., DAGGETT & PARKER, and
ANN QUINLAN, in her official capacity as Maine State Court
Administrator, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00401-JAW (D. Me.,
November 25, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Maine's
Student Loan Bill of Rights, and Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act
and for breach of contract.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged use of false,
deceptive, and misleading representations in collecting student
loan debt in Maine courts. According to the complaint, the scheme
is designed to pressure student borrowers to consent to judgement,
which causes lasting financial harm. As a result of the Defendants'
unfair practices, the Plaintiffs and Class members suffered
damages.
The Finance Authority of Maine (FAME) is a loan agency in Maine.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Cynthia A. Dill, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF CYNTHIA DILL
1227 Shore Road
Cape Elizabeth, ME 0107
Telephone: (207) 747-4172
Email: cynthia@dillesquire.com
FULL SAIL: Office Gurus Must Produce Documents by Dec. 12
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN BUXTON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
FULL SAIL, LLC AND THE OFFICE GURUS, LLC, Case No.
6:24-cv-00747-JSS-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Daniel Irick
entered an order that:
1. Plaintiff's motion is granted in part to the extent that on
or
before Dec. 12, 2024, Office Guru shall (1) produce documents
responsive to Requests Nos. 33 and 34; and (2) produce the
documents responsive to Request No. 17 that Office Guru
withheld
based on its prematurity objection;
2. The remainder of the Motion is denied; and
3. The Court finds that payment of reasonable expenses,
including
attorney fees, incurred in making the Motion is not necessary
pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(C).
The Court did not bifurcate the discovery process, discovery is
open, and the Court is not otherwise persuaded that Plaintiff’s
requests relating to the proposed class are premature. Accordingly,
the Court rejects Office Gurus prematurity argument.
With respect to Request No. 17, Office Guru produced certain
documents but appears to have withheld others related to "Potential
Class Members" because the class has not yet been certified. Since
the Court has rejected the prematurity argument, Office Guru is not
permitted to withhold documents based on that objection.
The Plaintiff initiated this Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) action against Defendants.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HRwenC at no extra
charge.[CC]
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Fails to Protect Private Info, Morrison Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
REBEKAH MORRISON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-03139 (D.D.C., November 5, 2024) is a class action
complaint against Georgetown for failing to adequately secure and
protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive personal
and academic information.
Doug Little, the Chief Information Officer for Georgetown, reported
that on October 17, 2024, the university notified affected students
and alumni of a data breach. The breach occurred between 8 a.m. on
Wednesday, October 16, and 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, October 17, 2024,
following a maintenance and outage period in the GU Experience
platform, Georgetown's student information system, which contained
sensitive personal and academic data.
The complaint alleges that the data Breach resulted from
Georgetown's inadequate security measures and failures, including
insufficient protocols for safeguarding sensitive information.
These vulnerabilities allowed unauthorized individuals to access
Georgetown's systems and extract the personal and academic data of
potentially hundreds of thousands of individuals.
As a result of the Data Breach caused by Georgetown's negligence,
the Plaintiff and Class Members face a significantly increased risk
of future identity theft, both in the present and for the
foreseeable future, says the suit.
The Plaintiff is a graduate of Georgetown and part of their alumni
network.
Georgetown University is a private university in Washington,
D.C.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
David W. Lawler, Esq.
Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Suite 1010
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
dlawler@tzlegal.com
ssoneji@tzlegal.com
INITO INC: Faces Data Privacy Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
Kat Black, writing for Law.com, reports that Inito Inc., a company
that sells at-home fertility tracking kits connected to a
smartphone app, was hit with a class action on Monday, November 25,
for allegedly siphoning sensitive medical data to third-party
advertisers and potentially endangering its users in states that
criminalize abortion.
What You Need to Know
-- Inito Inc., a provider of fertility tracking services, was hit
with a data privacy class action.
-- The complaint accuses Inito of siphoning users' sensitive
medical information without their consent to third-party
advertisers.
-- The plaintiffs' counsel contends that the alleged privacy
violations could have serious legal ramifications for users in
states that have banned or restricted abortion access.
Inito Inc., a company that sells at-home fertility tracking kits
connected to a smartphone app, was hit with a class action for
allegedly siphoning sensitive medical data to third-party
advertisers and potentially endangering its users in states that
criminalize abortion.
Bursor & Fisher and Drury Legal filed the complaint against Inito
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.
The anonymous lead plaintiff, "Jane Doe," alleged invasion of
privacy under California's constitution on behalf of both the
nationwide class and the California subclass; intrusion upon
seclusion; and violations of Section 631 of the California Invasion
of Privacy Act, also known as the "wiretapping" statute. Counsel
has not yet appeared for the defense.
This complaint was surfaced by Law.com Radar.
"This case is about the protection of women's privacy in their
personal, intimate information related to their reproductive and
sexual health," wrote attorneys for the plaintiff. "In protecting
sexual and reproductive health data and keeping this data private,
outside the grasp of advertisers, the overarching outcome is the
protection of human dignity and personal autonomy."
Bursor & Fisher and Drury Legal could not immediately be reached
for comment.
Inito, a startup based in Bengaluru, India, was founded in 2015 and
debuted its flagship fertility monitor product in the United States
in 2021. According to its website, it is the only fertility testing
company that measures "all four" fertility hormones on a single
test strip. Users can access their fertility and ovulation
diagnostic results on the Inito smartphone app just 10 minutes
after using the monitor and test strips included in its at-home
testing kits.
The company, which bills its products as "the smarter way to get
pregnant" and "a fertility lab at your fingertips," recently
secured $6 million in Series A funding after attracting a seed
investment of $9 million from prestigious startup incubator Y
Combinator and others. Inito claims to have "the world's largest
dataset of fertility hormones" with "over 20,000 users" and
"thousands of confirmed pregnancies."
According to the complaint, Google unlawfully intercepts Inito
users' medical survey answers via the Google Analytics software
marketing tool embedded in the Inito smartphone app. The data at
issue includes detailed information about users' menstrual cycles,
reproductive health, fertility status, past medical diagnoses and
the number of fertility treatments they have received, it said.
In addition to using this "highly coveted" information to fuel
targeted advertising that exploits "a woman's willingness to
overspend and make unplanned purchases," the plaintiff's counsel
contends that the data could be weaponized as "criminal evidence"
after the Supreme Court's landmark 2022 decision to revoke the
constitutional right to abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health
Organization. Twenty-one states have since enacted bans or
restrictions on the procedure.
"As such, the social and psychological consequences of this data
being leaked are of a delicate and potentially humiliating nature,
elevating the need to adequately protect this information," stated
the complaint, echoing similar concerns espoused about data privacy
that led to a nationwide decline in period tracker use in the wake
of Dobbs.
Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief; compensatory, punitive
and statutory damages; the disgorgement of ill-gotten revenues and
profits; prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded; attorney fees
and costs; and a jury trial. Inito did not immediately respond to a
request for comment. [GN]
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Sued Over Rigging Wheel of Fortune Machines
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zak Thomas-Akoo, writing for NEXT.io, reports that a class-action
lawsuit filed in federal court in Nevada alleges that IGT's Wheel
of Fortune slot machines are systematically designed to deceive
players by rigging the bonus wheel feature to prevent them from
winning larger monetary prizes.
The lawsuit, filed on 21 November by four plaintiffs from different
states, targets IGT and several major casino operators, including
MGM Resorts International, Bally's Corporation, and Penn
Entertainment.
According to the complaint, the Wheel of Fortune electronic gaming
devices appear to offer players a fair chance of winning by
featuring a bonus wheel with equally sized segments representing
different monetary amounts.
However, the plaintiffs allege that the wheel is actually
controlled by an internal computer programmed to stop much more
frequently on lower-value segments.
The complaint said: "By way of analogy, the 'Wheel of Fortune' game
at issue in this case is the modern-day equivalent of a roulette
wheel with a magnet surreptitiously affixed beneath the green zero
and double-zero segments."
The complaint highlights IGT's strategic use of the popular game
show's branding to create a false perception of fairness.
It added the company has licensed the voices of Wheel of Fortune
hosts Vanna White and Pat Sajak, and uses sound effects from the
television show to reinforce the game's seemingly random nature.
IGT Wheel of Fortune devices date to 1997
IGT has been manufacturing Wheel of Fortune-themed gaming devices
since 1997 and renewed its licensing agreement with Sony Pictures
Television in 2023.
The devices have become very popular, with the company describing
them as "one of the most successful slot themes of all time."
The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and an injunction that
would require the defendants to clearly disclose the true odds of
the Bonus Wheel Feature.
They argue that the casinos have used these devices to "illegally
siphon billions of dollars from consumers' pockets into their own
coffers."
The lawsuit is brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) and state common law, alleging fraud and
deceptive practices.
The plaintiffs claim that the gaming devices are designed to induce
players to continue playing by creating a false sense of potential
big winnings.
The case, filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada, seeks class-action status and a jury trial.
An IGT spokesperson told NEXT.io the business did not comment on
pending litigation. [GN]
J & J TIRES: De La Cuesta Alleges Wage & Hour Law Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------
JAYSON DE LA CUESTA, on his own behalf and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. J & J TIRES & WHEELS, LLC, and
all other affiliated entities and/or joint employers and JUAN M.
MEJIA, Individually, and JEANNETTE MEJIA, Individually, Defendants,
Case No. 2:24-cv-10689 (D.N.J., November 22, 2024) accuses the
Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
Jersey State Wage and Hour Law, and associated provisions of the
New Jersey Administrative Code, as well as the New Jersey Wage
Payment Law.
Plaintiff Cuesta became employed by Defendants, full-time, as a
non-exempt tire and auto mechanic, beginning in or about August
2023, and continuing through in or about July 2024, performing
duties in furtherance of Defendants' tire and general auto
maintenance business. In his complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants failed to provide overtime wages, at the rate of one-
and one-half times the regular rate of pay, for all time worked in
excess of 40 hours.
Headquartered in Lodi, NJ, J&J Tires and Wheels, LLC offers auto
repair services and sells tires. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (201) 687-9977
Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com
jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com
KITCHEN KINGS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Davis Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE DAVIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Kitchen Kings, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-12060 (N.D. Ill., November 22, 2024) arises from
Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate
their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The inaccessibility of Defendant's website has deterred Plaintiff
from making an online order on it. Moreover, Defendant failed to
remove the access barriers its website, depriving Plaintiff and
blind persons full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, the
goods, benefits and services of the website, says the suit.
Kitchen Kings owns and maintains the website, Volarerestaurant.com,
which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and
services, including, the ability to make online reservations,
request pickup and delivery services, and arrange catering of
Italian cuisine. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul Camarena, Esq.
1016 W. Jackson, No. 32
Chicago, IL 606607
Telephone: (630) 534-2527
E-mail: northandsedwicklaw@gmail.com
KROGER CO: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over No-Poach Agreements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bridget Goldschmidt, writing for Progressive Grocer, reports that a
longtime grocery worker has become the lead plaintiff in a class
action, filed Nov. 26 on behalf of grocery store workers across
Colorado, against the King Soopers and City Market divisions of The
Kroger Co., as well as the Safeway banner of Albertsons Cos. Filed
by Denver-based nonprofit Towards Justice, a public-interest law
firm, the suit alleges that unlawful no-poach agreements were
entered into by the two companies at the time of a 2022 strike
against King Soopers by United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW)
Local 7. The lead plaintiff, UFCW Local 7 member Valarie Morgan,
was on the union's contract negotiation team in 2021-22.
An investigation into the proposed Kroger-Albertsons merger led to
a lawsuit filed by Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, which is
currently pending before the Denver District Court. As part of the
suit, which seeks to block the proposed $24.6 billion mega-merger,
Weiser also challenged the alleged no-poach agreements.
At the time, the AG noted: "King Soopers was concerned about losing
employees and customers to Safeway during the strike and entered
into an agreement with Albertsons whereby Safeway agreed not to
hire any King Soopers employees and to not solicit any of King
Soopers' pharmacy customers, according to an email between company
executives leading up to the strike. Such no-poach and
non-solicitation agreements are illegal under the Colorado State
Antitrust Act, because they are agreements to not compete."
Although AG Weiser's suit seeks to impose penalties against the
grocers for allegedly making those agreements, the class action
seeks to recover lost wages and other economic gains for workers
that could have been secured without the alleged agreements.
"This case is an attempt to bring light and justice to the 18,000
unionized grocery store workers, and the thousands of non-union
grocery store workers, who were harmed by this hidden and illegal
deal between King Soopers, City Market, and Safeway parent
companies Kroger and Albertsons," said Kim Cordova, president of
UFCW Local 7, which has offices in Colorado Springs, Cheyenne,
Denver, Grand Junction, Greeley and Pueblo, Colo. "Our members went
on strike and won a major new contract, but now it has become clear
we could have made even more gains if these corporations had not
broken the law behind our backs."
When contacted for comment by Progressive Grocer, a Kroger
spokesperson responded: "There were no non-solicitation or
so-called no-poach agreements between Kroger and Albertsons. Kroger
competes for talent in a broad and diverse labor market, including
from non-grocery, non-union retailers like restaurants, foodservice
companies, convenience stores, warehouses and more. In fact, data
shows that only 1%-2.5% of Kroger associates come from and/or move
to Albertsons."
The Kroger Family of Companies' nearly 420,000 associates serve
more than 11 million customers daily through a digital shopping
experience and retail food stores under a variety of banner names.
The Cincinnati-based grocer is No. 4 on The PG 100, Progressive
Grocer's 2024 list of the top food and consumables retailers in
North America. As of Sept. 7, Albertsons Cos. operated 2,267 retail
food and drug stores with 1,726 pharmacies, 405 associated fuel
centers, 22 dedicated distribution centers and 19 manufacturing
facilities. The Boise, Idaho-based company operates stores across
34 states and the District of Columbia under more than 20
well-known banners. Albertsons is No. 9 on The PG 100 PG also named
both companies among its Retailers of the Century.[GN]
LIFETIME VALUE: Class Suit Remanded to Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ATLAS DATA PRIVACY
CORPORATION, et al., v. THE LIFETIME VALUE CO. LLC, et al., Case
No. 1:24-cv-04850-HB (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Harvey Bartle III
entered a memorandum as follows:
-- The plaintiffs' motions to remand these actions will be granted
except for Atlas Data Privacy Corp. v. MyHeritage Ltd., Civil
Action No. 24-4392, as to which the motion to remand will be
denied. The defendant MyHeritage (USA) Ltd. in that action will
be
dismissed because it is fraudulently joined.
The court concludes that:
(1) Atlas is a real party in interest;
(2) the assignments to and joinder of Atlas are not collusive;
(3) there is no fraudulent joinder except as noted above;
(4) complete diversity of citizenship is lacking under 28 U.S.C.
section 1332(a) except for the one action noted above; and
(5) subject matter jurisdiction is absent under the class action
and mass action provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act,
28
U.S.C. section 1332(d).
Since there are not a hundred named plaintiffs in any of the
complaints, defendants' argument that subject matter jurisdiction
exists because these lawsuits are mass actions under 28 U.S.C.
section 1332(d)(11) is without merit.
The Plaintiffs in these 40 actions allege violations of a New
Jersey statute known as Daniel's Law.
The actions were originally filed in the Superior Court in a number
of different counties in New Jersey. The defendants thereafter
removed them to the United States District for the District of New
Jersey under 28 U.S.C. sections 1441 and 1446 on the ground that
subject matter jurisdiction exists either under 28 U.S.C. section
1332(a) as a result of complete diversity of citizenship or under
the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").
The Defendants assert that plaintiffs have collusively attempted to
defeat federal jurisdiction.
Lifetime Value is a tech company with a culture of innovation and
passion for data.
A copy of the Court's memorandum dated Nov. 20, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kDdfE9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
MACY'S INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Macy's, Inc. (NYSE: M) resulting from allegations
that Macy's may have issued materially misleading business
information to the investing public.
So What: If you purchased Macy's 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=31645 or 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 25, 2024, The New York Times
published an article entitled "Macy's Discovers Employee Hid
Millions in Delivery Expenses." This article stated that "Macy's
said on Monday, November 25, that an employee had "intentionally"
misstated and hidden up to $154 million in delivery expenses over
the past few years, forcing the retailer to delay a
much-anticipated earnings report that Wall Street uses to gauge the
strength of holiday shopping."
On this news, the price of Macy's, Inc. stock fell 2.2% on November
25, 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 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]
MCBRIDE SISTERS: Miller Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY MILLER, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MCBRIDE SISTERS COLLECTIONS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01077 (W.D.N.Y., November 5, 2024) is a
civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://mcbridesisters.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and New York State Human Rights Law.
During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on
October 16, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a Colgate Optic White
Limited Edition Set from Defendant and to view the information on
the website, she encountered multiple access barriers that denied
Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person
and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the
public and made available to the public. She was not able to add
the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without
alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website,
which prevented her from doing so, says the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
McBride Sisters Collections, Inc. operates the McBride Sisters
online retail store, as well as the McBride Sisters interactive
Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New
York and throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
MEMPHIS, TN: Court Overturned Rulings in Rape Kit Backlog Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Action News 5 reports that a Tennessee appeals court has overturned
rulings in a rape kit backlog lawsuit against the City of Memphis.
The now-former class-action lawsuit has been working through the
court system for years after Memphis Police Department officials
failed to test rape kits, leading to a backlog of more than 12,000
untested kits.
City attorneys appealed following the initial ruling by Circuit
Court Judge Gina Higgins in March 2023.
The appeals court also reversed the prior decision in the case to
allow victims to bypass the statute of limitations in filing the
suit. [GN]
NOBLE HOUSE: Lawal Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
-----------------------------------------------------------
ADERIYIKE LAWAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NOBLE HOUSE HOTELS & RESORTS, L.P., D.B.A.
MISSION BAY RESORT; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-10038 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 20, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.missionbayresort.com, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Noble House Hotels & Resorts, L.P., dba Mission Bay Resort operates
boutique hotels and luxury resorts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Azar Mouzari, Esq.
BEVERLY HILLS TRIAL ATTORNEYS, P.C.
9350 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 203
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 858-5567
Facsimile: (310) 627-8642
Email: azar@bhtrialattorneys.com
PAYCHEX NORTH: Smith Seeks Payroll Specialists' Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA SMITH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PAYCHEX NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 6:24-cv-06686 (W.D.N.Y., November 25, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for unpaid overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act
and for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
The Defendant employed the Plaintiff as an hourly payroll
specialist from approximately January 2021 to October 2023.
Paychex North America, Inc. is a provider of integrated human
capital management solutions, headquartered in Monroe County, New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan G. Files, Esq.
GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC
7030 East Genesee Street
Fayetteville, NY 13066
Telephone: (315) 314-8000
Facsimile: (315) 446-7521
Email: rfiles@gclawoffice.com
- and -
Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
Paulina R. Kennedy, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
Email: jthompson@sommerspc.com
pkennedy@sommerspc.com
PINK & RED: Gaspa Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
----------------------------------------------------------
VERONICA GASPA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PINK & RED, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-10646 (D.N.J., Nov. 21, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.pizzaporta.com, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
HOROWITZ LAW PLLC
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (718) 705-8706
Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
PINNACLE PROPANE: Settles 2022 Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Pinnacle Propane reached a
settlement to resolve class action lawsuit claims surrounding a
data breach that occurred in December 2022.
The Pinnacle Propane settlement benefits current and former
employees whose private information was compromised or potentially
compromised in the data breach, which Pinnacle disclosed in June
2023.
The Pinnacle Propane data breach class action alleges the
cybersecurity incident compromised the names, addresses and Social
Security numbers of some of the company's current and former
employees. The lawsuit alleges Pinnacle should have done more to
protect employee data by implementing reasonable cybersecurity
measures.
Pinnacle Propane is a domestic and commercial propane supplier.
Pinnacle hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an
undisclosed sum to resolve the Pinnacle Propane data breach class
action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the Pinnacle Propane settlement, class members
can receive compensation for out-of-pocket losses and lost time.
Class members can receive up to $2,000 in out-of-pocket losses and
$240 in lost time. Claimants who receive this reimbursement are
also eligible for three years of credit monitoring services, which
includes three-bureau monitoring, identity restoration services and
$1 million in identity theft insurance.
Class members who do not wish to file a claim for reimbursement can
instead elect to receive an alternative cash payment of up to $100,
but those who choose this option are not eligible to enroll in the
credit monitoring services.
The deadline for exclusion and objection was Nov. 13, 2024.
The final approval hearing is scheduled for Dec. 19, 2024.
The deadline for class members to submit a claim form is Dec. 13,
2024.
Who's Eligible
Individuals whose private information was compromised or
potentially compromised in the Pinnacle Propane data breach
Potential Award
Up to $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses and lost time, plus three
years of credit monitoring services or a $100 alternative cash
payment
Proof of Purchase
Documentation of unreimbursed expenses, such as bank statements,
credit card statements, receipts, etc.
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
12/13/2024
Case Name
Fitton v. Pinnacle Propane LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-01559, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division
Final Hearing
12/19/2024
Settlement Website
PinnaclePropaneDataSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Pinnacle Propane Data Settlement
c/o Analytics Consulting LLC
PO Box 2009
Chanhassen, MN 55317-2009
PinnaclePropaneDataSettlement@NoticeAdministrator.com
(877) 410-5068
Class Counsel
Raina Borrelli
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
Defense Counsel
John A Vogt
JONES DAY [GN]
POSEIDA THERAPEUTICS: M&A Investigates Merger With Roche Holdings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating:
-- Poseida Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: PSTX), relating to the
proposed merger with Roche Holdings, Inc. Under the terms of the
agreement, Poseida Therapeutics will be acquired at a price of
$9.00 per share in cash at closing, plus a non-tradeable CVR to
receive certain contingent payments of up to an aggregate of $4.00
per share.
Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/poseida-therapeutics-inc-pstx/. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- EnLink Midstream, LLC (NYSE: ENLC), relating to the proposed
merger with ONEOK. Under the terms of the agreement, each
outstanding EnLink common unit will be converted into 0.1412 shares
of ONEOK common stock.
Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/enlink-midstream-llc-enlc/. 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.
-- Manitex International, Inc. (Nasdaq: MNTX), relating to its
proposed merger with Tadano Ltd. Under the terms of the agreement,
Manitex International shares will automatically be converted into
the right to receive $5.80 in cash per share.
ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for December 20, 2024.
Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/manitex-international-inc/. 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]
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Opry Says
------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID OPRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, and WISCONSIN
PHYSICIANS SERVICE INSURANCE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-12790 (D. Mass., November 5, 2024) is a class action
against Defendants for their failure to properly secure and
safeguard Plaintiff and similarly situated customers' personally
identifiable information and private health information.
On or around September 6, 2024, the Plaintiff received a letter
from WPS and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services informing
Plaintiff of an incident involving his personal information related
to services provided by WPS. According to the letter, this data
breach involved at least the following types of information: names,
Social Security Numbers, Individual Taxpayer Identification
Numbers, dates of birth, addresses, gender information, hospital
account numbers, dates of service, and Medicare Beneficiary
Identification Numbers.
Despite its duties to Plaintiff and Class Members related to and
arising from its cloud hosting and secure file transfer services
and applications involving MOVEit, Progress stored, maintained,
and/or hosted Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information on
its MOVEit Transfer tool that was negligently and/or recklessly
configured and maintained so as to contain security vulnerabilities
that resulted in multiple breaches of its network and systems, or
of its customers' networks and systems, including WPS, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of himself
and those similarly situated to address Defendants' inadequate
safeguarding of Class Members' private information that they
collected and maintained.
Progress Software Corporation is a Massachusetts based software
company that offers a wide range of software products and services
to corporate and governmental entities throughout the United States
and the world, including cloud hosting and secure file transfer
services such as MOVEit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristen A. Johnson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1 Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Fl.
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 482-3700
Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
E-mail: kristenj@hbsslaw.com
- and -
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE, PC
1229 Tyler St., NE, Ste. 205
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Telephone: (612) 594-5933
Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
- and -
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Ave., 5th Fl.
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: Gary@lcllp.com
- and -
Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW, 5th Fl.
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
E-mail: dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Karen H. Riebel, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 Washington Ave. S., Ste. 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 612-339-0981
E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Ste. 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
E-mail: cshaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (513) 345-8291
Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
- and -
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
THE LYON FIRM
2754 Erie Ave.
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Telephone: (513) 381-2333
Facsimile: (513) 766-9011
E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
RENTOKIL INITIAL: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit
(the "Class Action") in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee against Rentokil Initial plc
("Rentokil" or the "Company") (NYSE: RTO) and certain of its
executive officers (collectively, "Defendants"). The Class Action
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 and entities that purchased Rentokil American
Depositary Shares ("ADSs") between December 1, 2023 and September
10, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby
(the "Class"). The Class Action filed by Saxena White is captioned
Laborers Local #235 Pension Fund v. Rentokil Initial plc, et al.,
No. 24-cv-2932 (W.D. Tenn.).
Based in Crawley, England, Rentokil provides pest control, hygiene,
and wellness services worldwide. The Company's three main business
lines are Pest Control, Hygiene & Wellbeing, and France Workwear.
Rentokil is the largest global pest control services provider.
North America Pest Control accounts for more than half of the
Company's annual revenue. Rentokil's Level II sponsored ADSs are
listed and traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the
ticker symbol "RTO."
Leading up to the Class Period, Rentokil announced on October 12,
2022, that it had completed its acquisition of Memphis,
Tennessee-based Terminix Global Holdings, Inc. ("Terminix") in a
transaction valued at $6.7 billion, including $1.34 billion in cash
and over 129 million new Rentokil ADSs (the "Terminix
Acquisition"). As a result of the Terminix Acquisition, the
Terminix business became part of Rentokil's pest control business
line, making Rentokil the largest pest control services provider in
North America. After the Terminix Acquisition closed, Rentokil
claimed it was well positioned to successfully integrate Terminix
into Rentokil's pest control business. Throughout the Class Period,
Defendants touted Rentokil's progress and success integrating
Terminix and the benefits of the Terminix Acquisition.
The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, including that: (1) Rentokil
experienced levels of disruption in the early pilots of the
Terminix integration; (2) Rentokil experienced significant,
ongoing, self-inflicted execution challenges integrating Terminix;
(3) the disruption and execution challenges imperiled Rentokil's
integration plan for Terminix; (4) Rentokil and Terminix were still
two separate businesses that were not yet integrated; (5)
Rentokil's failure to integrate Terminix negatively impacted the
Company's business and operations, particularly organic revenue
growth in North America; and (6) as a result of the above,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
The truth began to be revealed prior to the markets opening on
April 18, 2024, when Rentokil issued a press release announcing its
financial results for the first quarter of 2024, reporting that
organic revenue growth in North America had increased by only 1.5%
year-over-year—below the Company's guidance of 2% for the first
quarter and 2% to 4% for the full year, issued just six weeks
earlier. During the corresponding earnings call held later that day
Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") Andrew M. Ransom assured investors
that "our integration program is on track[,]" while Chief Financial
Officer ("CFO") Stuart M. Ingall-Tombs maintained, "we're pretty
confident about our revenue guidance now." On this news, the price
of Rentokil ADSs fell over 9%, from a closing price of $28.25 per
ADS on April 17, 2024, to a closing price of $25.61 per ADS on
April 18, 2024.
The truth was revealed on September 11, 2024 when, before the
markets opened, Rentokil provided an unscheduled "Trading Update,"
announcing that the Company now expected only 1% organic revenue
growth in North America for the second half of 2024—well below
the Company's prior guidance. In the related press release,
Rentokil disclosed, "[T]he trading performance in July and August
was lower than anticipated. There has also been some modest
disruption to organic growth from branch integration." During a
related conference call with analysts held later that same day, CFO
Ingall-Tombs revealed that, after nearly two years of integration
efforts, "I think what we have got is still because we've got 2
separate businesses, which are largely at an operational front-end
not integrated yet. . . ." During the same conference call, CEO
Ransom admitted, "This is a manifestation of execution challenges,
execution -- a need to improve our execution. It's not a market
phenomenon. As we can see at the moment, if further information
comes to light suggest [sic] reserve the right to change that
answer, but I don't think it's market[,] I think this is on us." On
this news, the price of Rentokil ADSs fell over 21%, from a closing
price of $31.60 per ADS on September 10, 2024, to a closing price
of $24.95 per ADS on September 11, 2024.
If you purchased Rentokil ADSs during the Class Period and were
damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to apply to be lead
plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee no later than
January 27, 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 the Class 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 contact Marco A. Dueñas (mduenas@saxenawhite.com), a
Senior Attorney at Saxena White P.A., to discuss your rights
regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the
Class Action. You also may retain counsel of your choice to
represent you in the Class Action. You may obtain a copy of the
Complaint and inquire about actively joining the Class Action at
www.saxenawhite.com.
Saxena White P.A., with offices in Florida, New York, California,
and Delaware, is a leading national law firm focused on prosecuting
securities class actions and other complex litigation on behalf of
injured investors. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous
securities class actions nationwide, Saxena White has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of injured investors.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Marco A. Dueñas, Esq.
mduenas@saxenawhite.com
Saxena White P.A.
10 Bank Street, Suite 882
White Plains, New York 10606
Tel: (914) 437-8551
Fax: (888) 631-3611
www.saxenawhite.com [GN]
SCANLAN THEODORE: Picon Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
----------------------------------------------------------------
YELITZA PICON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Scanlan Theodore Americas, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-08421 (S.D.N.Y., November 5, 2024) is a civil
rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website,
https://www.scanlantheodore.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff intended to purchase a shirt and a matching cape. She
enjoys modern fashion and was looking for a website that
specializes in refined styles. On October 25, 2024, while browsing
the internet in search of a store in her close proximity, she came
across the Defendant's website. During her navigation, she
encountered significant accessibility errors, among which is being
blocked in the carousel region on the Product Detail Page. This
disorientation prevented her from determining the location of the
keyboard focus on the site. Consequently, she was unable to
purchase the items she desired. These access barriers have rendered
Scanlantheodore.com inaccessible to, and not independently usable
by, blind and visually impaired persons, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Scanlan Theodore Americas' policies, practices, and procedures to
that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.
Scanlan Theodore Americas, LLC operates the website that provides
and sells dresses, jackets, tops, outerwear, denim, knitwear,
bottoms, shoes, jewelry, bags, and belts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
SET FORTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Cheek Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW CHEEK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SET FORTH, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-12028 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 21, 2024) is a class action on
behalf of individuals whose personally identifying information was
stolen by hackers as part of a major data breach which occurred in
or around May 2024, and which affected Defendant's network.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant breached
its duty to the Plaintiff and Class Members when it failed to
implement and maintain adequate cybersecurity procedures and
protocols to safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII,
resulting in the unauthorized disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class
Members' PII to cybercriminals.
But for the Defendant's failure to implement and maintain
reasonable cybersecurity protocols and procedures, Plaintiff's and
Class Members' PII would not have been inadvertently disclosed to
hackers, making Defendant's actions a factual cause of the
unauthorized disclosure, says the suit.
Set Forth, Inc., is a corporation that provides online
administration and processing services to consumers enrolled in
debt relief programs. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON
& MILLEN LLC
923 Fayette Street
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 234-6486
Email: jjagher@fklmlaw.com
- and -
Nicholas R. Lange, Esq
FREED KANNER LONDON
& MILLEN LLC
100 Tri-State International, Suite 128
Lincolnshire, IL 60069
Telephone: (224) 632-4500
Email: nlange@fklmlaw.com
- and -
Amber L. Schubert, Esq.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
2011 Union St., Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94123
Telephone: (415) 788-4220
Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
Email: aschubert@sjk.law
SPORTS UNLIMITED: Fernandez Sues Over Website's Access Barriers
---------------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPORTS UNLIMITED, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-09004 (S.D.N.Y., November 25, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law, and
declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.sportsunlimitedinc.com, contains access barriers which hinder
the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Sports Unlimited, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
THOMAS JEFFERSON: Filling for Class Cert Bid Due May 28, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY MURPHY, et al., v.
THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS, INC. Case No.
2:22-cv-04674-CMR (W.D. Pa,), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Rufe entered
an initial scheduling order:
1. The parties' request for bifurcated discovery is approved.
The
parties may conduct initial discovery related to class
certification, and Plaintiffs may file a motion for class
certification no later than May 28, 2025.
2. Defendant shall file an opposition to the motion no later
than
60 days after the motion is filed.
3. The Plaintiffs shall file a reply within 30 days thereafter
if
the Defendant does not present expert testimony in its
opposition or within 60 days thereafter if Defendant does
present expert testimony in its opposition.
4. If Plaintiffs present expert testimony, the Defendant may
file a
sur-reply no later than 60 days after Plaintiffs' reply.
5. The Court contemplates issuing a further, comprehensive case
management order at the appropriate time. It is so ORDERED.
Thomas Jefferson is a multi-state non-profit health system.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9kCDeW at no extra
charge.[CC]
TRADITIONAL MEDICINALS: DelaCruz Sues Over Website Access Barriers
------------------------------------------------------------------
EMANUEL DELACRUZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRADITIONAL MEDICINALS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08937 (S.D.N.Y., November 22, 2024)
accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities
Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City
Human Rights Law.
The Defendant failed to update or remove access barriers on its
website so it can be independently accessible to Plaintiff and
other blind persons. By failing to make its Website available in a
manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, the
Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the
benefits of its online goods, content, and services -- all benefits
it affords nondisabled individuals -- thereby increasing the sense
of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was
meant to redress.
Traditional Medicinals, Inc. owns and operates the website,
www.traditionalmedicinals.com, which allows the consumers to access
goods and services including information about its herbal tea
remedies. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
TRNK NEW YORK: Hernandez Sues Over Blind Users' Access to Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRNK NEW YORK, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-08181 (E.D.N.Y., November 25, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law, and
declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.trnk-nyc.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
TRNK New York, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
UNITED NETWORK: Randall Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY RANDALL, v. UNITED
NETWORK FOR ORGAN SHARING; CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, Case No.
2:23-cv-02576-MEMF-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting his application to file documents under
seal in support of his motion for class certification.
To be clear, the Plaintiff applies to file these documents under
seal only because they have been designated "Confidential" by
either Defendant United Network for Organ Sharing ("UNOS") or
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center ("Cedars") pursuant to the parties'
Stipulated Protective Order.
This Application applies to the following documents, all of which
have been designated as confidential by either UNOS or Cedars, who
also refused to de-designate:
-- Venezia Declaration Exhibits 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19,
22,
23, 29, 30, 31, 32,
-- Weisbord Report Exhibits 10, 12, 16.
The Plaintiff does not believe any of these documents may properly
be filed under seal. There is a strong presumption in favor of the
public accessibility of court records.
While it is true that requests to seal documents on non-dispositive
motions are held to a lesser standard, there must still be a
showing made of good cause. The records UNOS and Cedars seek to
file under seal concern an important public issue, alleged
discrimination against Black kidney disease patients in the
Country's organ donation system.
There is also no patient identifying information contained in any
of the documents (besides limited, relevant information of Mr.
Randall's), as patient names have either been redacted or replaced
with a numerical identifier.
United Network for Organ Sharing is a non-profit scientific and
educational organization that administers the only Organ
Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) in the United
States.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EwgK24 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew L. Venezia, Esq.
George B. A. Laiolo, Esq.
Andrew R. Iglesias, Esq.
ELLIS GEORGE LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, 30th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 274-7100
Facsimile: (310) 275-5697
E-mail: mvenezia@ellisgeorge.com
glaiolo@ellisgeorge.com
aiglesias@ellisgeorge.com
- and -
David J. Ko, Esq.
Daniel P. Mensher, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3400
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
E-mail: dko@kellerrohrback.com
dmensher@kellerrohrback.com
W6LS INC: Faces Wood Suit Over Issuance of Usurious Loans
---------------------------------------------------------
ADAM WOOD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. W6LS, INC. d/b/a WITHU and WITHU LOANS, and CALIBER
FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-00128-DJH
(W.D. Ky., November 25, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) and
Kentucky Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in a
rent-a-tribe scheme in order to issue and enforce unlawful loans
with staggering interest rates. The Defendants misrepresent
themselves as being owned and operated by a Native American tribe
to invoke sovereign immunity and avoid state usury laws. In
reality, the Defendants are not exempt from state usury laws, nor
are their transactions. As a result of the Defendants'
misrepresentations, the Plaintiff and Class members have taken
usurious loans from the Defendants and were forced to personally
guarantee these debts.
W6LS, Inc., doing business as Withu and Withu Loans, is an online
lending website operator, doing business in Kentucky.
Caliber Financial Services, Inc. is a portfolio management services
provider doing business in Kentucky. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew T. Lockaby, Esq.
Amanda M. Lockaby, Esq.
John M. Ghaelin, Esq.
LOCKABY PLLC
476 East High Street, Suite 200
Lexington, KY 40507
Telephone: (859) 263-7884
Facsimile: (859) 406-3333
Email: mlockaby@lockabylaw.com
alockaby@lockabylaw.com
jghaelian@lockabylaw.com
- and -
Matthew J. Langley, Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
849 W. Webster Avenue
Chicago, IL 60614
Telephone: (773) 554-9354
Email: matt@almeidalawgroup.com
WARNER BROS: Faces Class Action Over Misleading NBA Rights
----------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Pinto, writing for C21Media, reports that Warner Bros
Discovery (WBD) has been hit with a class-action lawsuit by
investors claiming, among other things, that the media company made
misleading statements about the true impact that losing NBA rights
would have on its business.
The proposed class action, filed in New York on Tuesday, November
26, alleges WBD made "false and/or misleading statements" between
February 23 and August 7 of this year when it failed to disclose
that losing the rights would cause it to "significantly reevaluate
its business and goodwill."
After its cablenet TNT lost the rights to a package of NBA games it
had carried for over 30 years, WBD took a US$9.1bn write-down on
the value of its linear TV networks.
The lawsuit claims WBD played down the uncertainty surrounding its
affiliate and sports rights renewals, as well as the continued
softness in the US ad market, at the same time as overstating its
"overall business and financial prospects."
As a result, WBD's "public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times," read the lawsuit.
WBD, led by president and CEO David Zaslav, has experienced a rough
year in the stock market, although its share price has shown signs
of modest recovery over the past month.
After starting the year at US$10.78 per share, its value dropped to
less than US$9 during the spring before sinking below US$7 in
August after its cable TV write-down. Over the past month, the
share price has climbed nearly 33% to US$10.11 per share.
This isn't the only piece of legal action related to WBD losing NBA
rights, with the package of games currently held by TNT set to move
to Amazon's Prime Video for the 2025/26 season.
In late July, WBD sued the NBA claiming the basketball league did
not adhere to WBD's right to match any competing offers. However,
last week WBD and the NBA settled the dispute and agreed a new
multi-faceted deal focused on digital and international markets
including the Nordics (Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden), Poland
and Latin America (excluding Brazil and Mexico). [GN]
WARNER BROS: Faces Securities Class Suit Over Misleading Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a securities class action
lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc.
("Warner Bros." or the "Company") (NASDAQ: WBD) securities between
February 23, 2024 and August 7, 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: (i) the Company's sports
rights negotiations with the NBA were causing, or were likely to
cause, the Company to significantly reevaluate its business and
goodwill; (ii) the Company's goodwill in its Networks segment had
significantly deteriorated as a result of the difference between
its market capitalization and book value, continued softness in
certain U.S. advertising markets, and uncertainty related to
affiliate and sports rights renewals, including with the NBA; (iii)
the foregoing significantly increased the likelihood of the Company
incurring billions of dollars in goodwill impairment charges; (iv)
accordingly, Defendants had overstated the Company's overall
business and financial prospects; and (v) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
On August 7, 2024, the Company issued a press release announcing
its second quarter 2024 financial results. Among other items, the
Company reported disappointing revenue of $9.71 billion,
representing a 6.3% year-over-year decrease and missing consensus
estimates by $360 million; as well as a net loss of approximately
$10 billion because of a $9.1 billion non-cash goodwill impairment
charge from its Networks segment and $2.1 billion in other one-time
accounting effects. The Company disclosed that the goodwill
impairment charge was "triggered in response to the difference
between market capitalization and book value, continued softness in
the U.S. linear advertising market, and uncertainty related to
affiliate and sports rights renewals, including the NBA." On this
news, the Company's stock price fell $0.69 per share, or 8.95%, to
close at $7.02 per share on August 8, 2024.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Warner
Bros. should contact the Firm prior to the January 24, 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. [GN]
WELLS FARGO: Christner Sues Over Unlawful Deposit Sweep Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL CHRISTNER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY and WELLS
FARGO CLEARING SERVICES, LLC dba WELLS FARGO ADVISORS, Defendants,
Case No. 1:24-cv-08953 (S.D.N.Y., November 22, 2024) seeks to
recover damages arising out of Defendants' unlawful conduct related
to their Bank Deposit Sweep Program, which transferred idle
customer cash into interest-bearing "cash sweep" accounts.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' use of the Sweep Program to
enrich themselves by paying unreasonably low interest rates
breaches their fiduciary duties and contractual obligations to
customers and violates several state and federal laws including the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Wells Fargo & Company is a
financial services company that provides a diversified set of
banking, investment and mortgage products and services, as well as
consumer and commercial finance, through banking locations and
offices. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen R. Astley, Esq.
Andrew T. Rees, Esq.
Rene A. Gonzalez, Esq.
Scott I. Dion, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 750-3000
E-mail: sastley@rgrdlaw.com
arees@rgrdlaw.com
rgonzalez@rgrdlaw.com
sdion@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Alfred G. Yates, Jr.
LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C.
1575 McFarland Road, Suite 305
Pittsburgh, PA 15216
Telephone: (412) 391-5164
E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com
YARDI SYSTEMS: Manipulates Market Rental Pricing, Shewmaker Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MADISON SHEWMAKER, JAMAAR FAISON, and CYNTHIA BEEVERS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. YARDI
SYSTEMS, INC.; A. J. DWOSKIN & ASSOCIATES, INC.; ALCO MANAGEMENT,
INC.; ARDMORE RESIDENTIAL, INC.; ASSET LIVING, LLC; AVENUE5
RESIDENTIAL, LLC; BALACIANO GROUP; BALKE BROWN TRANSWESTERN, INC.;
BANYAN LIVING OHIO LLC; OAKLAND MANAGEMENT CORP. d/b/a BEZTAK
MANAGEMENT COMPANY; BRIDGE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, L.C.; CALIBRATE
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC; CONTINENTAL REALTY CORPORATION; DALTON
MANAGEMENT, INC.; EDWARD ROSE & SONS; ENVOLVE COMMUNITIES, LLC; FPI
MANAGEMENT, INC.; GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; GRUBB
PROPERTIES, LLC; GUARDIAN REAL ESTATE SERVICES LLC; HNN ASSOCIATES,
LLC; KRE GROUP, INC.; LUMACORP, INC.; MANCO ABBOTT, INC.; MCWHINNEY
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC; MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC.; PRG
REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT, INC.; R.D. MERRILL REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS,
LLC; RAM PARTNERS, LLC; RPM LIVING, LLC; SINGH MANAGEMENT CO.,
L.L.C.; SUMMIT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.; CREEKWOOD PROPERTY
CORPORATION; TOWNE PROPERTIES ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LTD.;
TRIBRIDGE RESIDENTIAL, LLC; WALTON COMMUNITIES, LLC; WESTERN
NATIONAL SECURITIES d/b/a WESTERN NATIONAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT;
WILLOW BRIDGE PROPERTY COMPANY NATIONAL d/b/a LINCOLN PROPERTY
COMPANY; 10 FEDERAL MGMT, LLC; and FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS JOHN DOES
1-100, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01948 (W.D. Wash., November 25,
2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Section 1 of the Sherman Act and the Colorado Antitrust Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants conspired to fix rental
pricing in the multifamily market by using Defendant Yardi's
algorithmic software pricing. The Defendants' anticompetitive
practices include but not limited to, fixing advertised list
prices, fixing end lease prices, and fixing market conditions to
eliminate concessions and specials. As a result of the Defendants'
unlawful practices, the Plaintiffs and Class members suffered
damages.
Yardi Systems, Inc. is a software company, headquartered in Santa
Barbara, California.
A. J. Dwoskin & Associates, Inc. is a multifamily property manager
and owner, headquartered in Fairfax, Virginia.
Alco Management, Inc. is a multifamily property manager,
headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee.
Ardmore Residential, Inc. is a multifamily property manager,
headquartered in Greensboro, North Carolina.
Asset Living is a multifamily property manager, headquartered in
Houston, Texas.
Avenue5 Residential, LLC is a multifamily property manager,
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.
Balaciano Group f/k/a California Home Builders/DEELS Properties is
a multifamily property manager, headquartered in Canoga Park,
California.
Balke Brown Transwestern, Inc. is a multifamily property manager,
headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.
Banyan Living Ohio LLC d/b/a Banyan Living is a multifamily
property manager, headquartered in Garden City, New York.
Oakland Management Corp. d/b/a Beztak Management Company is a
multifamily property manager, headquartered in Farmington Hills,
Michigan.
Bridge Property Management, L.C. is a multifamily property manager,
headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Calibrate Property Management, LLC is a multifamily property
manager, headquartered in Kirkland, Washington.
Continental Realty Corporation is a multifamily property manager,
headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland.
Dalton Management, Inc. is a multifamily property manager,
headquartered in Beaverton, Oregon.
Edward Rose & Sons is a multifamily property manager, headquartered
in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan.
Envolve Communities, LLC d/b/a Envolve LLC is a multifamily
property manager, headquartered in Montgomery, Alabama.
FPI Management, Inc. headquartered in Folsom, California.
Greystar Management Services, LLC is a multifamily property
manager, headquartered in South Carolina.
Grubb Properties, LLC is a multifamily property manager,
headquartered in Cary, North Carolina.
Guardian Real Estate Services, LLC is a multifamily property
manager, headquartered in Portland, Oregon.
HNN Associates, LLC is a multifamily property manager,
headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.
KRE Group, Inc. d/b/a Kushner Real Estate Group is a multifamily
property manager, headquartered in Jersey City, New Jersey.
LumaCorp, Inc. d/b/a Luma Residential is a multifamily property
manager, headquartered in Dallas, Texas.
Manco Abbott, Inc. is a multifamily property manager, headquartered
in Fresno, California.
McWhinney Property Management, LLC is a multifamily property
manager, headquartered in Denver, Colorado.
Morguard Management Company Inc. is a multifamily property manager,
headquartered in Metairie, Louisiana.
PRG Real Estate Management, Inc. is a multifamily property manager,
headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
R.D. Merrill Real Estate Holdings, LLC d/b/a Pillar Properties is a
multifamily property manager, headquartered in Seattle,
Washington.
RAM Partners, LLC is a multifamily property manager, headquartered
in Atlanta, Georgia.
RPM Living, LLC is a multifamily property manager, headquartered in
Austin, Texas.
Singh Management Co., L.L.C. is a multifamily property manager,
headquartered in West Bloomfield, Michigan.
Summit Management Services, Inc. is a multifamily property manager,
headquartered in Akron, Ohio.
Creekwood Property Corporation is a multifamily property manager,
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.
Towne Properties Asset Management Company, LTD. is a multifamily
property manager, headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Tribridge Residential, LLC is a multifamily property manager,
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.
Walton Communities, LLC is a multifamily property manager,
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.
Western National Securities d/b/a Western National Property
Management is a multifamily property manager, headquartered in
Irvine, California.
Willow Bridge Property Company National d/b/a Lincoln Property
Company is a multifamily property manager, headquartered in Dallas,
Texas.
10 Federal MGMT, LLC d/b/a 10 Federal Companies is a multifamily
property manager, headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
- and -
W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
Alison D. Hawthorne, Esq.
Lauren E. Miles, Esq.
Paul W. Evans, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
272 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
Email: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com
alison.hawthorne@beasleyallen.com
lauren.miles@beasleyallen.com
paul.evans@beasleyallen.com
- and -
Rebecca D. Gilliland, Esq.
Jessica M. Haynes, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
301 St. Louis St.
Mobile, AL 36602
Telephone: (251) 308-1515
Email: rebecca.gilliland@beasleyallen.com
jessica.haynes@beasleyallen.com
- and -
Michael W. Slocumb, Esq.
Charles W. Beene, Esq.
SLOCUMB LAW FIRM, LLC
1967 East Samford Avenue
Auburn, AL 36830
Telephone: (334) 219-3906
Email: mike@slocumblaw.com
cbeene@slocumblaw.com
ZETA GLOBAL: Davoodi Sues Over Artificially Inflated Stock Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
ARMIN DAVOODI, Plaintiff v. ZETA GLOBAL HOLDINGS CORP., DAVID A.
STEINBERG, and CHRISTOPHER GREINER, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-08961 (S.D.N.Y., November 22, 2024) is a class action
asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act.
The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Zeta securities
between February 27, 2024 and November 13, 2024, inclusive.
Throughout the said period, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Zeta used two-way contracts to artificially
inflate financial results; (2) that Zeta engaged in round trip
transactions to artificially inflate financial results; (3) that
Zeta utilized predatory consent farms to collect user data; (4)
that these consent farms have driven almost the entirety of Zeta's
growth; and (5) 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. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and other members of the Class
purchased or otherwise acquired Zeta's securities at artificially
inflated prices during the class period.
Headquartered in New York, Zeta operates a cloud-based platform for
marketers to identify and target potential consumers across a wide
range of digital channels. Its common stock trades on the New York
Stock Exchange under the symbol "ZETA." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rebecca Dawson, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave, Suite 358
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
E-mail: rdawson@glancylaw.com
- and -
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
- and -
Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800
Century City, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 914-5007
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 6,324 Pending Exposure Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation has recorded 6,324 total claims
pending for the nine months ended September 30, 2024, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure to
asbestos-containing components historically used in some products
manufactured by predecessors of Air & Liquid (the "Asbestos
Liability"). Air & Liquid, and in some cases the Corporation, are
defendants (among a number of defendants, often in excess of 50
defendants) in claims filed in various state and federal courts.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sWILxS
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argonaut Defends Asbestos Related Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Argo Group International Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiary
Argonaut Insurance Company ("Argonaut"), is exposed to asbestos
liability at the primary level through claims filed against its
direct insureds, as well as through its position as a reinsurer of
other primary carriers, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Argonaut has direct liability arising
primarily from policies issued from the 1960s to the early 1980s,
which pre-dated policy contract wording that excluded asbestos
exposure. The majority of the direct policies were issued on behalf
of small contractors or construction companies. We believe that the
frequency and severity of asbestos claims for such insureds is
typically less than that experienced for large, industrial
manufacturing and distribution concerns.
"Argonaut also assumed risk as a reinsurer, primarily for the
period from 1970 to 1975, a portion of which was assumed from the
London market. Argonaut also reinsured risks on policies written by
domestic carriers. Such reinsurance typically provides coverage for
limits attaching at a relatively high level, which are payable only
after other layers of reinsurance are exhausted. Some of the claims
now being filed on policies reinsured by Argonaut are on behalf of
claimants who may have been exposed at some time to asbestos
incorporated into buildings they occupied but have no apparent
medical problems resulting from such exposure. Additionally,
lawsuits are being brought against businesses that were not
directly involved in the manufacture or installation of materials
containing asbestos. We believe that a significant portion of
claims generated out of this population of claimants may result in
incurred losses generally lower than the asbestos claims filed over
the past decade and could be below the attachment level of
Argonaut."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TaYhs1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Has $274MM Total Reserves at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc. has reported total reserves for asbestos claims of
$274 million at September 30, 2024, compared to $281 million at
September 30, 2023, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Ashland is subject to liabilities from claims alleging personal
injury caused by exposure to asbestos. Such claims result primarily
from indemnification obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection
with the sale of Riley Stoker Corporation (Riley), a former
subsidiary. Although Riley was neither a producer nor a
manufacturer of asbestos, its industrial boilers contained some
asbestos containing components provided by other companies.
The claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos
asserted against Ashland result primarily from indemnification
obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with the sale of
Riley, a former subsidiary. The amount and timing of settlements
and number of open claims can fluctuate from period to period.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NAFUc0
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Emerson Electric Defends Product Liability Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Emerson Electric Co. is a party to a number of pending legal
proceedings and claims, including those involving general and
product liability (including asbestos) and other matters, several
of which claim substantial amounts of damages, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company accrues for such liabilities when it is probable that
future costs (including legal fees and expenses) will be incurred
and such costs can be reasonably estimated. Accruals are based on
developments to date; management's estimates of the outcomes of
these matters; and the Company's experience in contesting,
litigating and settling similar matters. The Company engages an
outside expert to develop an actuarial estimate of its expected
costs to resolve all pending and future asbestos claims, including
defense costs, as well as its related insurance receivables. The
reserve for asbestos litigation, which is recorded on an
undiscounted basis, is based on projected claims through 2065.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bfQGI6
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Has $357MM A&E Exposure Liabilities
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Enstar Group Limited has recorded net liabilities relating to
defendant asbestos and environment (A&E) exposures of $357 million,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gsyBMh
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Has $74MM Asbestos Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International plc, as of September 30, 2024, has
net asbestos-related liabilities of $74 million, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company's estimate of the liability and corresponding insurance
recovery for pending and future claims and defense costs is based
on the Company's historical claim experience, and estimates of the
number and resolution cost of potential future claims that may be
filed and is discounted to present values from the time that the
costs are expected to be incurred which in some cases is not until
2068 (which is the Company's reasonable best estimate of the
actuarial determined time period through which asbestos-related
claims will be filed against Company affiliates). Estimated
asbestos-related defense costs are included in the asbestos
liability. The Company's legal strategy for resolving claims also
impacts these estimates. The Company considers various trends and
developments in evaluating the period of time (the look-back
period) over which historical claim and settlement experience is
used to estimate and value claims reasonably projected to be made
through 2068. At least annually, the Company assesses the
sufficiency of its estimated liability for pending and future
claims and defense costs by evaluating actual experience regarding
claims filed, settled and dismissed, and amounts paid in
settlements. In addition to claims and settlement experience, the
Company considers additional quantitative and qualitative factors
such as changes in legislation, the legal environment, and the
Company's defense strategy. The Company also evaluates the
recoverability of its insurance receivable on an annual basis. The
Company evaluates all of these factors and determines whether a
change in the estimate of its liability for pending and future
claims and defense costs or insurance receivable is warranted.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZC1AIl
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Reports $17.8MM Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc., has asbestos liabilities, net of related
insurance coverage of $17.8 million and $20.0 million as of
September 30, 2024 and 2023, respectively, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "The uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation
make it difficult to predict accurately the ultimate outcome of
asbestos claims. That uncertainty is increased by the possibility
of adverse rulings or new legislation affecting asbestos claim
litigation or the settlement process. Subject to these
uncertainties and based on our experience defending asbestos
claims, we do not believe these lawsuits will have a material
effect on our business, financial condition, or results of
operations.
"We have, from time to time, divested certain of our businesses. In
connection with these divestitures, certain lawsuits, claims, and
proceedings may be instituted or asserted against us related to the
period that we owned the businesses, either because we agreed to
retain certain liabilities related to these periods or because such
liabilities fall upon us by operation of law. In some instances the
divested business has assumed the liabilities; however, it is
possible that we might be responsible to satisfy those liabilities
if the divested business is unable to do so. We do not believe
these liabilities will have a material effect on our business,
financial condition, or results of operations."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VO54tx
*********
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 ***