/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250117.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, January 17, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 13 Headlines 21 MAIN NORTH: Fortner Seeks More to File Class Cert Reply 3M COMPANY: Bode Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Bryant Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Caldwell Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Chancellor Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Copeland Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Ulrich and Schavrien Allege Marketing Fraud ADAMS COMMUNITY: McGuire Sues Over Automatic Work Time Deduction AKUMIN OPERATING: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Letizio Says AKUMIN OPERATING: Zayatz Sues Over Unprotected Private Information AMERICAN ADDICTION: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Kidder Alleges AMERICAN ADDICTION: Parker Sues Over Inadequate Security Systems ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS: Nemcik Sues for Invasion of Privacy APPLE INC: GBP1.8-Bil. Antitrust Class Action Trial in UK to Begin APPLIED THERAPEUTICS: Ikram Sues Over Share Price Drop APTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL: Hayes Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA AUDI OF AMERICA: Kelly Alleges HV Lithium-Ion Batteries' Defect BELIV LLC: Diaz Sues Over Misleading "No Preservatives" Labels CENTRAL FLORIDA: Mohamad Sues Over Private Tax Return Disclosure DELOITTE LLP: Intercepts Users' Search Queries, Sorensen Suit Says DESERT FIRE: Fails to Pay Dancers All Hours Worked, Johnson Says DILLARD'S INC: Guzman Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA EL NAZARENO: Faces Ledesma Suit Over Illegal Pay Practices ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGNERS: Gomez Must File Conditional Class Cert FMV FAMILY: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Alleges FULLY RINSED: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Zhang Suit Says GARAN ENTERPRISES: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Alleges GOODRX INC: SDDDC LLC Sues Over Alleged Antitrust Law Violations HOT TOPIC: Dominguez Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach HOWLOO INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Jackson Alleges HUDSON VALLEY: Walker Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind I-HEALTH INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Tucker Says INTER-CON SECURITY: Juan Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA INVICTA WATCH: Wilkins ADA Suit Removed to E.D. Pa. ITAN II LLC: Godoy Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA K.L.E.O. COMMUNITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Camarena Suit Claims MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MDL 2591: Dingmann Suit Consolidated in Syngenta Corn Litigation MDL 2738: Panel Vacates Order Transferring Beasly Suit MDL 2741: Aldridge Case Consolidated in Roundup Liability Row MOMENTUM SOLAR: TikTok Software Collects Users' Info, Velasco Says MV TRANS: Fails to Pay Wages Under Labor Code, Edmond Says O POSITIV INC: Faces Henry Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PILOT TRAVEL: Faces Watler Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages PROFESSIONAL TOWING: Court Resets Expert Deadlines PRUDENTRX LLC: Gluesing Sues Over Healthcare Fraud and ACA Breaches RAMACO RESOURCES: Lester Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA RICHMOND UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action on Alleged Data Breach RIVERS CASINO: Faces Multiple Class Suits Over Data Breach RIVERSIDE, CA: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class Action ROBERT LUNA: Bid for Class Certification Tossed w/o Prejudice ROYAL CARE: Garcia-Pena Seeks Home Health Aids' Unpaid Wages RURAL/METRO FIRE: Zapata Suit Removed to S.D. California SAATCHI ONLINE: Fernandez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind SABOR VENEZOLANO: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Medina Says SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Smartwatch Bands Contain PFAS, Gonzalez Says SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Civil Standing Order Entered in Dorado Suit SAND CLOUD: Limon-Gonzalez Balks at Telemarketing Texts SANMEDICA INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SAVE ON SP: Increases Patients' Healthcare Costs, Gurwitch Says SAZERAC CO: Andrews Wins Class Certification Bid SENTARA HEALTHCARE: Carter Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Elza Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages SHASTA BEVERAGES: Ahmed Suit Removed to C.D. California SPRECKELS SUGAR: Castro Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses SRP FEDERAL: Faces McGrier Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info SRP FEDERAL: Ortiz Sues Over Data Security Failures STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Bitfarms Ltd SUGARHOUSE REAL ESTATE: Butera Files TCPA Suit in D. Utah SUPERGOOP LLC: Dunning Amended Complaint Dismissed w/o Prejudice TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Bid to Modify Case Schedule in FWK Tossed TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Bid to Modify Case Schedule Tossed TETRA TECH: Pennington Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class TRANSOCEAN LTD: Gabor Sues Over Securities Law Violations TUNGRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims UMASS MEMORIAL: Progin Wiretapping Suit Removed to D. Mass. UNDER ARMOUR: Partial Bid to Dismiss Lo Class Action Denied UNIFI AVIATION: Panelli-Powell Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. UNITED STATES: Farrell Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement UNITED TAX: Salaiz Must Conduct Immediate Discovery by July 3 UNIVERSAL BEAUTY: Tucker Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website VCA INC: Aids Meta to Eavesdrop Website Visitors, Jimenez Alleges VERITAS PROPERTY: Faces Pizarro Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. VOANCE LLC: Zhinin Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA WHISK 197 ATLANTIC: Fernandez Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website WOLFSPEED INC: Faces Maizner Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop YZER LLC: Misclassifies Drivers as Contractors, Gunaydin Says [*] MMA Applies to Elkhart-County Class Action, High Court Rules [*] Pro-Palestinian Protesters Seek Damages in Class-Action Suit Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Peter Angelos' Estate to Pay $57MM Settlement ********* 21 MAIN NORTH: Fortner Seeks More to File Class Cert Reply ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM FORTNER, and AUTUMN MCMANUS, individually, and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. 21 MAIN NORTH BEACH, LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company, and LOVIN' OVEN CATERING OF SUFFOLK, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 4:24-cv-05893-JD (D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting Plaintiffs' extension request to file a reply to Defendants' response in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification until on or before Jan. 20, 2025. On Jan. 3, 2025, the Defendants filed their Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification. The Responses consists of extensive legal and factual arguments. Pursuant to the Local Rule 7.07, the Plaintiffs' deadline to file a Reply to the Response is January 10, 2025. The Plaintiffs request a 10-day extension to file a Reply because of the voluminous nature of the Response, upcoming scheduling conflicts, and travel by Plaintiffs' counsel. 21 Main owns and operates North Beach Resort located in North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 6, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2B7jAJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jordan Richards, Esq. Michael V. Miller, Esq. Patrick Solberg, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS- JORDAN RICHARDS PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com patrick@usaemploymentlawyers.com - and - Christopher C. Mingledorff, Esq. MINGLEDORFF & PATTERSON, LLC 245 Seven Farms Drive, Suite 310, Box 13 Charleston, SC 29492 Telephone: (843) 471-1015 E-mail: chris@mptrial.com The Defendants are represented by: John F. Connell, Jr., Esq. Matthew T. Scully, Esq. H. Carlton Hilson, Esq. BURR & FORMAN LLP 104 South Main Street, Suite 700 Greenville, SC 29601 Telephone: (864) 271-4940 Facsimile: (864) 271-4015 E-mail: jconnell@burr.com mscully@burr.com chilson@burr.com 3M COMPANY: Bode Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams -------------------------------------------------------------- George Bode, 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, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT 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, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, 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 CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, fictious names whose present identities are unknown, Case No. 2:24-cv-06515-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 15, 2024), is brought for damages relating to Defendants' development, marketing, release, training users of, instructional materials, warnings, sale, handling, and use in connection with Aqueous Film-Forming Foam ("AFFF") containing Perfluorooctanoic Acid ("PFOA"), Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS"), Perfluorononanoic acid ("PFNA"), Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid ("PFHxS"), Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid ("PFBS"), Hexafluoropropylene Oxide ("HFPO", also known as "Gen-X"), and/or their precursors and derivatives, and other fluorochemicals and for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing "fluorochemical products." The Defendants failed to warn users and consumers of their fluorochemical products' persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxic properties, as well as the fluorochemical products' propensity to contaminate water supplies, which was known or knowable to the Defendants. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS as well as result in the contamination of Plaintiff's public drinking water supply. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities and arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing, reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in connection with the contamination of the Plaintiff's drinking water supply with Defendants' fluorochemical products to which Plaintiff was exposed. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with Prostate Cancer. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Wilson, Esq. THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC 434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 560 Raleigh, NC 27601 Phone: (314) 932-3232 Fax: (314) 932-3233 Email: nicholas@thedriscollfirm.com - and - John J. Driscoll, Esq. THE DRISCOLL FIRM, LLC 1311 Avenida Ponce de Leon, Suite 501 San Juan, PR 00907 Phone: (314) 932-3232 Fax: (314) 932-3233 Email: john@thedriscollfirm.com - and - Heidi J. Johnson, Esq. THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC 211 N. Broadway, Ste 4050 St. Louis, MO 63102 Phone: (314) 932-3232 Fax: (314) 932-3233 Email: heidi@thedriscollfirm.com 3M COMPANY: Bryant Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eugene Bryant, 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, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT 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, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, 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 CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, fictious names whose present identities are unknown, Case No. 2:24-cv-06518-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 15, 2024), is brought for damages relating to Defendants' development, marketing, release, training users of, instructional materials, warnings, sale, handling, and use in connection with Aqueous Film-Forming Foam ("AFFF") containing Perfluorooctanoic Acid ("PFOA"), Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS"), Perfluorononanoic acid ("PFNA"), Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid ("PFHxS"), Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid ("PFBS"), Hexafluoropropylene Oxide ("HFPO", also known as "Gen-X"), and/or their precursors and derivatives, and other fluorochemicals and for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing "fluorochemical products." The Defendants failed to warn users and consumers of their fluorochemical products' persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxic properties, as well as the fluorochemical products' propensity to contaminate water supplies, which was known or knowable to the Defendants. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS as well as result in the contamination of Plaintiff's public drinking water supply. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities and arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing, reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in connection with the contamination of the Plaintiff's drinking water supply with Defendants' fluorochemical products to which Plaintiff was exposed. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with Kidney Cancer. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Wilson, Esq. THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC 434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 560 Raleigh, NC 27601 Phone: (314) 932-3232 Fax: (314) 932-3233 Email: nicholas@thedriscollfirm.com - and - John J. Driscoll, Esq. THE DRISCOLL FIRM, LLC 1311 Avenida Ponce de Leon, Suite 501 San Juan, PR 00907 Phone: (314) 932-3232 Fax: (314) 932-3233 Email: john@thedriscollfirm.com - and - Heidi J. Johnson, Esq. THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC 211 N. Broadway, Ste 4050 St. Louis, MO 63102 Phone: (314) 932-3232 Fax: (314) 932-3233 Email: heidi@thedriscollfirm.com 3M COMPANY: Caldwell Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams -------------------------------------------------------------- Ricky Caldwell, 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, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT 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, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, 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 CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, fictious names whose present identities are unknown, Case No. 2:24-cv-06501-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 15, 2024), is brought for damages relating to Defendants' development, marketing, release, training users of, instructional materials, warnings, sale, handling, and use in connection with Aqueous Film-Forming Foam ("AFFF") containing Perfluorooctanoic Acid ("PFOA"), Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS"), Perfluorononanoic acid ("PFNA"), Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid ("PFHxS"), Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid ("PFBS"), Hexafluoropropylene Oxide ("HFPO", also known as "Gen-X"), and/or their precursors and derivatives, and other fluorochemicals and for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing "fluorochemical products." The Defendants failed to warn users and consumers of their fluorochemical products' persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxic properties, as well as the fluorochemical products' propensity to contaminate water supplies, which was known or knowable to the Defendants. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS as well as result in the contamination of Plaintiff's public drinking water supply. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities and arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing, reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in connection with the contamination of the Plaintiff's drinking water supply with Defendants' fluorochemical products to which Plaintiff was exposed. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with Kidney Cancer. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Wilson, Esq. THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC 434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 560 Raleigh, NC 27601 Phone: (314) 932-3232 Fax: (314) 932-3233 Email: nicholas@thedriscollfirm.com - and - John J. Driscoll, Esq. THE DRISCOLL FIRM, LLC 1311 Avenida Ponce de Leon, Suite 501 San Juan, PR 00907 Phone: (314) 932-3232 Fax: (314) 932-3233 Email: john@thedriscollfirm.com - and - Heidi J. Johnson, Esq. THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC 211 N. Broadway, Ste 4050 St. Louis, MO 63102 Phone: (314) 932-3232 Fax: (314) 932-3233 Email: heidi@thedriscollfirm.com 3M COMPANY: Chancellor Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ------------------------------------------------------------ John Chancellor, 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, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT 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, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, 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 CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, fictious names whose present identities are unknown, Case No. 2:24-cv-06519-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 15, 2024), is brought for damages relating to Defendants' development, marketing, release, training users of, instructional materials, warnings, sale, handling, and use in connection with Aqueous Film-Forming Foam ("AFFF") containing Perfluorooctanoic Acid ("PFOA"), Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS"), Perfluorononanoic acid ("PFNA"), Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid ("PFHxS"), Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid ("PFBS"), Hexafluoropropylene Oxide ("HFPO", also known as "Gen-X"), and/or their precursors and derivatives, and other fluorochemicals and for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing "fluorochemical products." The Defendants failed to warn users and consumers of their fluorochemical products' persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxic properties, as well as the fluorochemical products' propensity to contaminate water supplies, which was known or knowable to the Defendants. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS as well as result in the contamination of Plaintiff's public drinking water supply. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities and arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing, reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in connection with the contamination of the Plaintiff's drinking water supply with Defendants' fluorochemical products to which Plaintiff was exposed. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with Kidney Cancer. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Wilson, Esq. THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC 434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 560 Raleigh, NC 27601 Phone: (314) 932-3232 Fax: (314) 932-3233 Email: nicholas@thedriscollfirm.com - and - John J. Driscoll, Esq. THE DRISCOLL FIRM, LLC 1311 Avenida Ponce de Leon, Suite 501 San Juan, PR 00907 Phone: (314) 932-3232 Fax: (314) 932-3233 Email: john@thedriscollfirm.com - and - Heidi J. Johnson, Esq. THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC 211 N. Broadway, Ste 4050 St. Louis, MO 63102 Phone: (314) 932-3232 Fax: (314) 932-3233 Email: heidi@thedriscollfirm.com 3M COMPANY: Copeland Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------- Ted Copeland and Luanne Copeland, his wife, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;) DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case No. 2:24-cv-06530-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 15, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio-persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Ted Copeland regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career in the U.S. Navy and was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis and/or other medical related conditions as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq. John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq. KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC 2 Bridge Ave, Suite 623 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Phone: 732-224-9400 Facsimile: 732-224-9494 ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Ulrich and Schavrien Allege Marketing Fraud ---------------------------------------------------------------- MAX ULRICH and RYAN SCHAVRIEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-09452-AGT (N.D. Cal., December 26, 2024) arises from the role of Abbott Laboratories in perpetuating an alleged ongoing and harmful market fraud. Allegedly, the Defendant's toddler formulas -- Similac "Go & Grow" and PediaSure "Grow & Gain" -- are littered with prominent representations about "Complete, Balanced Nutrition" and similar health claims related to children's growth and brain development. However, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendant injects up to 12 grams of added sugar per serving to these products, equivalent to almost half a can of soda--for very young children. Moreover, the drinks' primary ingredients -- sugar, corn syrup, vegetable oils, and highly processed carbohydrates -- render Defendant's health marketing claims dangerously false, says the suit. Headquartered in Lake County, Illinois, Abbott Laboratories develops, manufactures, and sells health care products. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq. Bahar Sodaify, Esq. Benjamin J. Fuchs, Esq. Samuel M. Gagnon, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com bfuchs@clarksonlawfirm.com sgagnon@clarksonlawfirm.com ADAMS COMMUNITY: McGuire Sues Over Automatic Work Time Deduction ---------------------------------------------------------------- DELANDRIA MCGUIRE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADAMS COMMUNITY CARE CENTER, LLC, DEFENDANT, Case No. 5:24-cv-127-KS-BWR (S.D. Miss., December 26, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked as certified nursing assistant for Adams Community Care Center, LLC until approximately December of 2023. She and all other CNAs frequently worked more than 40 hours per week. However, the Defendant instituted a policy whereby it deducted 30 minutes per day from all its nursing personnel for an unpaid break. Regardless of whether Plaintiff and all other nursing personnel clocked out for the break, the Defendant automatically deducted 30 minutes from each employee's time. As a result, the Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff and the other nursing personnel for all hours worked, says the suit. Adams Community Care Center, LLC operates a skilled nursing facility in Adams County, Mississippi. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William "Jack" Simpson, Esq. SIMPSON, PLLC 100 South Main Street Booneville, MS 38829-0382 Telephone: (662) 913-7811 Facsimile: (662) 728-1992 E-mail: jack@simpson-pllc.com AKUMIN OPERATING: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Letizio Says -------------------------------------------------------------- GINA LETIZIO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AKUMIN OPERATING CORP. f/k/a AKUMIN CORP., Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-62440-DSL (S.D. Fla., December 27, 2024) is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to properly secure, safeguard, and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. The Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack to compromise Defendant's network that, upon information and belief, contained personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and other individuals, asserts the complaint. The Data Breach occurred on October 11, 2023, and was first disclosed on the Akumin website on October 12, 2023, and most recently updated on December 20, 2024. According to the complaint, the data breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' private information with which it was entrusted for either treatment or employment, or both. Through this Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals whose private information was accessed during the data breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct and asserting claims for: (i) negligence and negligence per se, (ii) breach of implied contract, (iii) breach of fiduciary duty, (iv) breach of confidences; (v) unjust enrichment, and (vi) declaratory relief. The Plaintiff has been an Akumin patient and customer. She received treatment at Akumin and has been a patient of Defendant's in the past. Akumin Operating Corp. is a radiology and oncology service provider with several locations in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 879-8200 Facsimile: (786) 879-7520 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com AKUMIN OPERATING: Zayatz Sues Over Unprotected Private Information ------------------------------------------------------------------ DAVID ZAYATZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AKUMIN OPERATING CORP. f/k/a AKUMIN CORP., Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-62439-XXXX (S.D. Fla., December 26, 2024) arises from Defendant's data security failures that allowed a targeted cyberattack to compromise Defendant’s network that contained personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and other individuals. The data breach occurred on October 11, 2023, and was first disclosed on the Akumin website on October 12, 2023, and most recently updated on December 20, 2024. However, the Plaintiff and class Members only received a letter in the mail from Defendant dated December 23, 2024. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct and asserting claims for: (i) negligence and negligence per se, (ii) breach of implied contract, (iii) breach of fiduciary duty, (iv) breach of confidences; (v) unjust enrichment, (vi) declaratory relief and (vii) violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Akumin Operating Corp. is a radiology and oncology service provider headquartered in Plantation, FL. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com AMERICAN ADDICTION: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Kidder Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHRIS KIDDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN ADDICTION CENTERS, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00032 (M.D. Tenn., Jan. 8, 2025) arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant, which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and other current and former patients of Defendant, the putative class members. The Data Breach occurred between September 23 and September 26, 2024. The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included certain personal or protected health information of Defendant's patients, including Plaintiff. According to the Notice of Security Incident Defendant posted online, the Data Breach affected the following information: "name, address, phone number, date of birth, medical record number or other identifier, Social Security Number, treatment information, and health insurance information." The Defendant says that an "unauthorized party" took the data from AAC's systems. The Data Breach resulted from Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which they were entrusted for either treatment or employment or both, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief including improvements to Defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, and adequate credit monitoring services funded by the Defendant. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that they collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information was subjected to unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. The Defendant is a nationwide network of addiction rehab facilities with locations in six states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV. Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, Tennessee 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com AMERICAN ADDICTION: Parker Sues Over Inadequate Security Systems ---------------------------------------------------------------- ETHAN PARKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN ADDICTION CENTERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01505 (M.D. Ten., December 27, 2024) seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused Plaintiff and similarly situated persons in the preventable data breach of Defendant's inadequately protected computer network. On September 26, 2024, AAC detected suspicious activity on its computer network, indicating a data breach. Based on a subsequent forensic investigation, AAC determined that cybercriminals infiltrated its inadequately secured computer environment and thereby gained access to its data files. The investigation further determined that, through this infiltration, cybercriminals potentially accessed and copied files containing the sensitive personal information of 422,424 individuals. By taking possession and control of Plaintiff's and Class members' personal information, Defendant assumed a duty to securely store and protect the personal information of Plaintiff and the Class. The Defendant breached this duty and betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and Class members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their personal information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view it, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including significant improvements to Defendant's data security systems and protocols, future annual audits, Defendant-funded long-term credit monitoring services, and other remedies as the Court sees necessary and proper. American Addiction Centers, Inc. is a publicly traded for-profit addiction treatment chain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Scott Pietrowski, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: spietrowski@sirillp.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Wills Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS: Nemcik Sues for Invasion of Privacy ------------------------------------------------------------ DIANIA NEMCIK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS INC., a Virginia Corporation; ANCESTRY.COM INC., a Delaware Corporation; and ANCESTRY.COM LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00335-WHR-CHG (N.D. Ohio, December 27, 2024) seeks damages, an injunction, and additional relief from Defendants for using Plaintiff's and Class members' names and personas to promote paid subscriptions to the Ancestry website, www.ancestry.com, without consent, in violation of Ohio's right of publicity statute, Ohio Rev. Code, and Ohio common law prohibiting misappropriation of a name or likeness. According to the complaint, Ancestry uses Plaintiff's and Class members' names and likenesses in at least three advertising techniques. In all three advertising techniques, Ancestry displays the Plaintiff's and Class members' photographs in low-resolution or time-limited formats to a potential customer. Ancestry promises the potential customer that purchasing a paid subscription to Ancestry.com will reveal the full versions of Plaintiff's and Class member's photographs and personal information. Ancestry promises that a paid subscription will also deliver many additional services, including the ability to search for and view billions of additional records about millions of other individuals, the suit says. The Plaintiff and Class members have suffered injury through the unlawful taking of their valuable intellectual property; through the invasion of their privacy rights protected by statute and common law; through Ancestry's unlawful profiting from its exploitation of their names, personas, and personal information; and through harm to peace of mind. Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. provides online family genealogy information and resources.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael C. Lueder, Esq. HANSEN REYNOLDS LLC 301 N. Broadway, Suite 400 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 455-7676 Facsimile: (414) 273-8476 E-mail: mlueder@hansenreynolds.com - and - Benjamin R. Osborn, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BENJAMIN OSBORN PLLC 63 Fiddlers Elbow Road Margaretville, NY 12455 Telephone: (347) 645-0464 E-mail: ben@benosbornlaw.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Brittany Resch, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com sam@straussborrelli.com bresch@straussborrelli.com - and - Michael F. Ram, Esq. Marie N. Appel, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 358-6913 Facsimile: (415) 358-6923 E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com mappel@forthepeople.com APPLE INC: GBP1.8-Bil. Antitrust Class Action Trial in UK to Begin ------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo Finance reports that Apple is set to face a GBP1.5bn ($1.8bn) class action lawsuit in the UK, alleging it levies "excessive and unfair" charges on software downloaded from its App Store, reported the Financial Times. Unless a last-minute settlement is reached, the trial is anticipated to commence on Monday, January 13, 2025, at the Competition Appeal Tribunal. The case, which was first launched in 2022, accuses Apple of abusing its market position by charging commissions up to 30% on App Store purchases. The seven-week trial will feature testimony from Apple's newly appointed chief financial officer, Kevan Parekh. This case is part of a series of legal challenges Big Tech companies face globally. Similarly, in the US, the Department of Justice has accused Apple of stifling competition with its App Store rules. Antitrust lawyers and the litigation funding industry are closely watching the proceedings to assess the potential success of other antitrust lawsuits against tech giants such as Alphabet, Microsoft, and Meta. The claimants, led by Rachael Kent, a lecturer at King's College London, argue that Apple has created a monopoly by forcing developers to distribute their apps exclusively through its App Store. They are seeking GBP1.5bn, claiming that the commissions are passed on to consumers who purchase content or digital services within the apps. [GN] APPLIED THERAPEUTICS: Ikram Sues Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------ MOHAMMAD ALI IKRAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPLIED THERAPEUTICS, INC., and SHOSHANA SHENDELMAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-09973 (S.D.N.Y., December 27, 2024) is a securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all purchasers of Applied common stock during the period January 3, 2024 through December 2, 2024, inclusive, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder. Applied Therapeutics, Inc. purports to be a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company whose lead drug candidate, govorestat (also referred to as AT-007), is intended to treat rare metabolic diseases. During the Class Period, the Defendants made positive representations about the Company's New Drug Application for govorestat and Defendants' interactions with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration concerning the NDA for govorestat, such as "things are going very well with the FDA" and that there were no "major sticking points" with the FDA concerning the NDA for govorestat. In response to Defendants' positive representations about the govorestat NDA, Applied's stock price significantly increased and Defendants took advantage of Applied's inflated stock price. The Company sold approximately $100 million in Applied securities through a private placement that valued the Company's shares at $7 per share. However, unknown to investors, during the Class Period, the FDA had serious concerns about the NDA for govorestat and the study data results supporting the NDA, including undisclosed Dosing Errors and Study Data Deletion issues. On November 27, 2024, the truth began to partially be disclosed, when the Company disclosed receipt of a complete response letter from the FDA stating it was unable to approve the NDA for govorestat in its current form, citing deficiencies in the govorestat NDA, a disclosure that caused the Company's stock to crash over 80%. On December 2, 2024 -- when the Class Period ends -- the Company disclosed after the close of trading, that it received a Warning Letter from the FDA relating to the NDA for govorestat, a disclosure that caused Applied's sharesto further decline. Shortly after the end of the Class Period, Defendant Shendelman "stepped down" as Chair and CEO of the Company. As a result of this news, shares of Applied's common stock further declined from a closing price of $1.75 per share on December 2, to a close at $1.38 per share on December 4, a decline of $0.37 per share, or over 21% on heavier than usual volume, the suit alleges.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq. Chang Hahn, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 Facsimile: (212) 687-7714 E-mail: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com chahn@kaplanfox.com APTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL: Hayes Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ ADRIAN HAYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. APTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC, a Utah limited liability company, Case No. 2:25-cv-00018 (D. Utah, Jan. 8, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is a current employee of Defendant since March 17, 2024. Aptive offers pest control service in North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: April L. Hollingsworth, Esq. HOLLINGSWORTH LAW OFFICE 40 South 600 East Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 Telephone: (801) 415-9909 E-mail: april@aprilhollingsworthlaw.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, Michigan 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com - and - Jonathan Melmed, Esq. Laura Supanich, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 824-3828 E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com lms@melmedlaw.com AUDI OF AMERICA: Kelly Alleges HV Lithium-Ion Batteries' Defect --------------------------------------------------------------- DWIGHT KELLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC and VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00071-ELR (N.D. Ga., Jan. 7, 2025) his case arises from the Defendants' failure to disclose or adequately repair a dangerous and widespread defect in high voltage lithium-ion batteries equipped in certain Audi e-tron SUV electric vehicles, model years 2019-2024, that have been subjected to recalls beginning in December 2023. The e-tron SUV is Audi's first all-electric car. In 2019, Audi's e-tron was named a top safety pick over others like Tesla's Model S or the Chevy Bolt, allowing Defendants to sell more cars and generate more profits. The Class Vehicles, however, contain an unsafe defect. The defect causes the batteries to lose power and worse, short circuit, thereby creating the risk of a fire. The Battery Defect presents an unreasonable safety risk to drivers and passengers of the Class Vehicles and to people in residential homes and other structures where the vehicles are parked or nearby, says the suit. The Defendants have been aware of the Battery Defect since April 2020, when Audi received a claim from outside of the United States alleging that the high voltage battery pack in an Audi e-tron quattro vehicle caused a fire. Audi investigated the incident and since then, has learned about several other fires and about numerous owner complaints about the Battery Defect. The Defendants began piecemeal recalls in December 2023 of certain Audi e-tron vehicles, culminating in the most recent recall announced in September 2024 involving several thousand more Class Vehicles. Unfortunately, the recalls do not address the root cause of the defect, and Defendants have not agreed to affirmatively repair or replace all the defective batteries. Rather than identifying a repair or replacement of all the defective batteries, the recalls instruct Audi e-tron owners to limit charging to 80% capacity, resulting in a reduction of the advertised range that Audi e-tron owners and lessees paid for and requiring owners to charge the Class Vehicles more frequently, the suit added. Mr. Kelly is a resident and citizen of Cumming, Georgia. He bought a 2019 Audi e-tron quattro in August 2020 from Audi North America, an authorized Audi dealership located in Roswell, Georgia. Audi is a Delaware limited liability company that maintains its headquarters and principal place of business in Herndon, Virginia. Audi is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Audi is responsible for the marketing and sale of the Class Vehicles in the United States. Volkswagen is a citizen of, and incorporated in Delaware and maintains its headquarters and principal place of business in Reston, Virginia. Volkswagen is the parent company of Audi and is involved in the marketing and sale of Audi vehicles in the United States, including the Class Vehicles.[BN] The Attorneys for the Plaintiff Dwight Kelly and the Putative Class are: Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. David Stein, Esq. Rosanne L. Mah, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: rmr@classlawgroup.com ds@classlawgroup.com rlm@classlawgroup.com - and - Michael A. Caplan, Esq. T. Brandon Waddell, Esq. Ashley C. Brown, Esq. CAPLAN COBB LLC 75 Fourteenth Street, NE, Suite 2700 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 596-5600 Facsimile: (404) 596-5604 E-mail: mcaplan@caplancobb.com bwaddell@caplancobb.com abrown@caplancobb.com BELIV LLC: Diaz Sues Over Misleading "No Preservatives" Labels -------------------------------------------------------------- MELANIE DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BELIV, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-02984-VMC-NHA (M.D. Fla., December 26, 2024), arises from the Defendant's false representations with its pineapple, pear, apple, orange, guava, mango, fruit punch, strawberry banana, and peach-flavored nectars under its Petit brand. According to the complaint, the Defendant marketed and sold these products using a front label which prominently displayed "NO PRESERVATIVES." However, Defendant's claim that these products contain no preservatives is false, as these products contain a significant amount of both citric and ascorbic acids. As a result of Defendant's false and misleading labeling, Defendant was able to sell the products to thousands of unsuspecting consumers throughout Florida and the United States, and to charge a price-premium. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the Florida's Uniform Commercial Code, Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and Florida's prohibition against false, misleading, and deceptive advertising and sales. Beliv, LLC is a beverage company headquartered in San Juan, PR. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan J. Geiger, Esq. SERAPH LEGAL, P. A. 2124 W. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. A Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: (813) 567-1230 E-mail: BGeiger@SeraphLegal.com CENTRAL FLORIDA: Mohamad Sues Over Private Tax Return Disclosure ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANSARI MOHAMAD, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTRAL FLORIDA TAX AND ACCOUNTING, INC, ANEES AHMAD TANOLI LAWGICAL INSIGHT, LLC, ANDREW BAUTA, MICHAEL RUSSO, ROTTENSTREICH FARLEY BRONSTEIN FISHER POTTER HODAS LLP, MELIZA MILLER, and RICHARD I. SEGAL, Defendants, Case No. 6:24-cv-02354 (M.D. Fla., December 27, 2024) is a class action bought by the Plaintiff, and others similarly situated who are present and former clients of Akbar A. Ali, C.P.A., doing business as A.A. Ali C.P.A. alleging violations of 26 U.S. Code Section 6103. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have inspected, disseminated, transmitted any return or return information with respect to the unlawful disclosure of Plaintiff's private tax returns. Collectively, the Defendants have harvested, disseminated, disclosed and inspected thousands of tax returns containing the Taxpayers confidential and privileged tax return information by collecting a forensic mirror image of Ali's computers and cell phones to access all tax filings, including returns and extensions, prepared and/or submitted by Ali, and any documents, records, and data relating to such filings, says the suit. The wrongful disclosure of the personal and private information of the Plaintiffs has further caused much anxiety, grief and mental anguish as it is not known and, in all probability, will never fully be known, who and how many criminals and others with ill intent, have Plaintiff's confidential information and where will Plaintiff's information be disseminated in the foreseeable future, the suit alleges. Central Florida Tax and Accounting, Inc. provides audit, tax, financial advisory, and business management services to large and small privately held companies and public companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Brian Phillips, Esq. J. BRIAN PHILLIPS, P.A. P.O. Box 621176 Orlando, FL 32862-1176 Telephone: (407) 493-7183 E-mail: jason@jbrianphillipsesq.com celina.reis@jbrianphillipsesq.com DELOITTE LLP: Intercepts Users' Search Queries, Sorensen Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MATTHEW SORENSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DELOITTE LLP, a DELAWARE partnership; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV00369 (Jan. 7, 2025, Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.) is a class action against Deloitte for secretly intercepting and sharing users' private search queries with third-party advertising companies -- even after users explicitly deny consent to such tracking. Through its website www.deloitte.com, the Defendant operates what appears to be a simple search function for its services, including its data privacy and protection consulting services. However, this search function doubles as a sophisticated surveillance tool, capturing and transmitting users' confidential business planning and personal queries to advertising networks without authorization -- the very type of unauthorized data sharing that Defendant claims it can prevent. Indeed, Deloitte markets itself as an expert in data privacy compliance, offering services such as "consent and preference management" and "cookie management" to help organizations "build sustainable, scalable programs designed around strategic principles that address operational and regulatory requirements holistically," says the suit. Mr. Sorensen visited Deloitte's Website on Jan. 4, 2025. While on the Website, the Plaintiff chose to "Deny" all non-essential cookies and searched for "h1b visa jobs." The Plaintiff's search term was shared with third-party advertising entities, for corporate surveillance and monetization without Plaintiff's consent. This unauthorized transmission of private communications constitutes a violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, codified at California Penal Code, and California's Unfair Competition Law, the suit alleges. The Defendant's Website prominently markets Deloitte's Data Protection and Privacy services, which include implementing privacy controls, consent management systems, and cookie compliance solutions for its clients worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. Wendy Miele, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: rtauler@taulersmith.com wmiele@taulersmith.com DESERT FIRE: Fails to Pay Dancers All Hours Worked, Johnson Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- LAUREN JOHNSON, an individual, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DESERT FIRE LLC dba SILVER DOLLAR CLUB, an Oregon Limited Liability Company; DAMON SHRADER, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 6:25-cv-00037-AA (D. Or., Jan. 8, 2025) alleges that Defendants evades the mandatory minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as alleges that the Defendant illegally absconds with Plaintiff's tips and demanding illegal kickbacks including in the form of "House Fees." These causes of action arise from Defendants' willful actions while Plaintiff, at various times, were employed by Defendants from 2021 to November 2024. During the Plaintiff's time being employed by Defendants, the Plaintiff was denied minimum wage payments as part of Defendant’s scheme to classify Plaintiffs and other dancers/entertainers as "independent contractors," says the suit. The Plaintiff worked at the Defendants' adult entertainment facility, Silver Dollar Club located at 2620 W. 10th Place, Eugene, Oregon.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: S. Amanda Marshall, Esq. S. AMANDA MARSHALL LLC 4545 SW Angel Avenue, Suite 104 Beaverton, Oregon 97005 Telephone: (503) 472-7190 E-mail: amanda@maclaw.com - and - John P. Kristensen, Esq. KRISTENSEN LAW GROUP 120 Santa Barbara St., Suite C9 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 837-2000 E-mail: john@kristensen.law DILLARD'S INC: Guzman Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- Cathya Guzman and other similarly situated individuals v. Dillard's, Inc. d/b/a Dillard's, Case No. 0:25-cv-60043 (S.D. Fla., Jan. 7, 2025) seeks to recover damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ms. Guzman is a resident of Broward County, Florida and worked at Dillard's store located at 11945 Pines Blvd., Pembroke Pines, Florida. Dillard's is a department store chain. The company operates multiple stores across 29 states, including 42 stores in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com EL NAZARENO: Faces Ledesma Suit Over Illegal Pay Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- MANUEL LEDESMA, Plaintiff v. EL NAZARENO MEAT PRODUCT CORP., 152 V M GROCERY CORP., "JOHN DOE" and MARIA DIAZ, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-09963 (S.D.N.Y., December 26, 2024) is a class action arising from Defendants' alleged failure to pay proper wages to Plaintiff and class members. The Defendants intentionally compensated the Plaintiff only at a rate of $11 per hour and failed to pay him his lawful overtime pay for the period from May 11, 2024, to December 2, 2024. Throughout this period, the Plaintiff worked well beyond 40 hours per workweek, as necessitated by the work schedule established by Defendants. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wage compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, as recently amended by the Wage Theft Prevention Act, and related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations. El Nazareno Meat Product Corp. owns and operates a deli located in Bronx, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12t Floor NY Telephone: (212) 203-2417 Website: www.StillmanLegalPC.com ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGNERS: Gomez Must File Conditional Class Cert --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GOMEZ v. ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGNERS LAWN AND LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03666 (D.N.J., Filed July 8, 2023), the Hon. Judge Julien Xavier Neals entered an order directing the Plaintiff to file the unopposed motion for conditional class certification by Jan. 31, 2025. The Plaintiff must attach the following to its motion:’ (i) the proposed publication order, (ii) notice of the lawsuit, and (iii) form for consent to in the joint lawsuit, incorporating any proposed changes discussed during the status conference before Magistrate Judge Adams. Unless the parties agree otherwise, the motion shall be heard by the District Judge, the Court says. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendant is a landscape design firm.[CC] FMV FAMILY: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO v. FMV FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Case No. 1:25-cv-20081 (S.D. Fla., Jan. 7, 2025) is a class action seeking injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 12181, the Americans with Disabilities Act. The subject Commercial Property is open to the public. The individual Plaintiff visits the Commercial Property and businesses located within the commercial property, to include visits to the Commercial Property and business located within the Commercial Property on or about Nov. 17, 2024, and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the Commercial Property, says the suit. Mr. Pardo has very limited use of his hands and cannot operate any mechanisms which require tight grasping or twisting of the wrist. He has lower paraplegia, which inhibits him from walking or otherwise ambulating without the use of a wheelchair. He additionally has limitations involving his arms and hands. He is limited in his major life activities by such, including but not limited to walking, standing, grabbing, grasping and/or pinching.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beverly Virues, Esq. Armando Mejias, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, Fl 33134 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 E-Mail: bvirues@lawgmp.com amejias@lawgmp.com jacosta@lawgmp.com aquezada@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 E-Mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com ramon@rjdiegolaw.com FULLY RINSED: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Zhang Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW ZHANG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fully Rinsed Productions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00011 (S.D.N.Y., January 2, 2025) is a civil rights action against Fully Rinsed Productions for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://www.pigbeachnyc.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Plaintiff Zhang has made an attempt to visit and use Pigbeachnyc.com. On October 21, 2024, he was searching online for a restaurant that could provide catering services for a dinner party with his friends, aiming to make the preparation of the meals easier. During the search, the Plaintiff came across Defendant's website, which appeared to offer suitable options for the occasion. However, the Plaintiff encountered accessibility barriers, such as missing labels on interactive elements, insufficient information about link purpose, and when opening a dialog box, focus order did not move from trigger button to dialog items. These barriers to access have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of Pigbeachnyc.com, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Fully Rinsed Productions' policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Fully Rinsed Productions, LLC operates the website that offers a range of barbeque dishes, including smoked meats, sandwiches, burgers, wings, classic sides, sauces, and desserts, along with services like pick up, catering, and private events.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com GARAN ENTERPRISES: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO v. GARAN ENTERPRISES INC., ROMA GROCERS, INC. D/B/A PRESIDENTE SUPERMARKET NO. 6 and SUPERLATINOS CAFE RESTAURANTE CORP., Case No. 1:25-cv-20073 (S.D. Fla., Jan. 7, 2025) is a class action seeking injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 12181, the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff frequently visits the subject commercial plaza property and tenant businesses (including the related parking lots and common areas) to include visits on Nov. 11, 2024, and on Nov. 14, 2024, and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the commercial plaza. Mr. Pardo has very limited use of his hands and cannot operate any mechanisms which require tight grasping or twisting of the wrist. He has lower paraplegia, which inhibits him from walking or otherwise ambulating without the use of a wheelchair. He additionally has limitations involving his arms and hands. He is limited in his major life activities by such, including but not limited to walking, standing, grabbing, grasping and/or pinching. Garan owned and operated a commercial property constituting a commercial plaza located at the following address: 11300 Quail Roost Drive, Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 E-Mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com jr@ajperezlawgroup.com GOODRX INC: SDDDC LLC Sues Over Alleged Antitrust Law Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- SDDDC LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOODRX, INC.; GOODRX HOLDINGS, INC., CVS CAREMARK CORPORATION; EXPRESS SCRIPTS HOLDING COMPANY; MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC.; and NAVITUS HEALTH SOLUTIONS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00550 (D.R.I., December 26, 2024) arises under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act. The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of having an illegal agreement to suppress the prices paid by pharmacy benefit managers to independent pharmacies for generic prescription medication. As a result of Defendant's conduct, independent pharmacies suffer economically in the form of lower rebates and rates of reimbursement for generic prescription medication from third-party payors, says the Plaintiff. Headquartered in Santa Monica, CA, GoodRx, Inc. provides price comparison platforms that tracks prescription drug prices and offers drug coupons. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Darren Corrente, Esq. CORRENTE LAW 226 South Main Street, 3rd Fl. Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 331-7720 E-mail: darren@correntelawri.com - and - Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Scott E. Silberfein, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12061 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com silberfeins@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - James L. Ferraro, Esq. James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM, P.A. 600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3800 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 375-0111 Facsimile: (305) 379-6222 E-mail: jferraro@ferrarolaw.com james@ferrarolaw.com HOT TOPIC: Dominguez Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- JULIANNE DOMINGUEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOT TOPIC, INC. d/b/a HOT TOPIC, and BOXLUNCH; and TORRID, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-11109 (C.D. Cal., December 26, 2024) arises from Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its customers and loyalty account members. The Plaintiff and Class Members' sensitive personal information--which they entrusted to Defendants on the mutual understanding that Defendants would protect it against disclosure--was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to a data breach that occurred in or around October 21, 2024. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf all those similarly situated to address Defendants' inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. Moreover, the Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the California Unfair Competition Law. Headquartered in City of Industry, CA, Hot Topic operates a chain of retail stores under various brand names, including Hot Topic, and BoxLunch. The company has physical retail stores as well as an online store. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com HOWLOO INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Jackson Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- SYLINIA JACKSON, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. HOWLOO, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00153 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 8, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because Defendant's interactive website, https://blackoutcoffee.com, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, 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, says the suit. The Defendant operates the Brewtal Awakening Blackout Coffee online retail store, as well as the Brewtal Awakening Blackout Coffee 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 HUDSON VALLEY: Walker Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- LEAH WALKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hudson Valley Lighting, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00021 (N.D. Ill., January 2, 2025) is a civil rights action against Hudson Valley Lighting for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://mitzi.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a table lamp on the website. Despite her efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. Unless Defendant remedies the numerous access barriers on its website, the Plaintiff and Class members will continue to be unable to independently navigate, browse, use, and complete a purchase on Mitzi.com, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Hudson Valley Lighting's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Hudson Valley Lighting, Inc. operates the website that offers a variety of lighting products, including table and floor lamps, chandeliers, pendants, flush mounts, wall sconces, lanterns, and bulbs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Reyes, Esq. ASHER COHEN LAW PLLC 2377 56th Dr., Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (630)-478-0856 E-mail: dreyes@ashercohenlaw.com I-HEALTH INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Tucker Says ------------------------------------------------------------ HENRY TUCKER, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. I-HEALTH, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00148 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 7, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://azoproducts.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because the Defendant's interactive website, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant’s corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, 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. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually-impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually-impaired persons live in the State of New York. The Defendant operates the AZO Products online retail store, as well as the AZO Products 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 (DG-6151) Jeffrey M. Gottlieb (JG-7905) 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 INTER-CON SECURITY: Juan Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER JUAN, and CHRISTOPHER PEARSON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00182 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 8, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act and the New York Labor Law. On July 15, 2024, the Plaintiffs were hired by their immediate supervisor Fredrick Fittin as non-exempt security guards. The Plaintiffs work duties required neither discretion nor independent judgment. Inter-Con is a California corporation providing private security services through the United States and the world, with its corporate headquarters located in Pasadena, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randy A. Hernandez, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF RANDY A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC 30 Wall Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 597-2688 INVICTA WATCH: Wilkins ADA Suit Removed to E.D. Pa. --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as ANDREW WILKINS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. INVICTA WATCH COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2024-10004-TT, was removed from the Chester County Court of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on January 2, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00009-KSM to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges claims against Invicta for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. As of result of the alleged violations of federal law, the Plaintiff demands judgment against Invicta, for actual damages, punitive damages, statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, and injunctive relief. Invicta Watch Company of America, Inc. is an American watch designer and manufacturer.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jonathan Marmo, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 1650 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 252-9600 Facsimile: (215) 867-6070 E-mail: jonathan.marmo@hklaw.com ITAN II LLC: Godoy Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------- Harold Godoy and other similarly situated individuals, v. Itan II LLC d/b/a Sunset Market & Deli a/k/a Citgo Gas Station, Anil Patel, and Rita Patel, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-20089 (S.D. Fla., Jan. 7, 2025) seeks to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants employed the Plaintiff as a non-exempt, full-time restaurant employee from Nov. 21, 2023, to Nov. 10, 2024. The Plaintiff worked primarily as a deli cook. In addition to cooking, he was responsible for various other general market and deli tasks, including food preparation, cleaning, restocking supplies, and managing inventory. Sunset Market is a retail business as market, deli, and Citgo gas station. The individual Defendants, Anil Patel and Rita Patel, are the owners/partners and managers of Sunset Market & Deli.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com K.L.E.O. COMMUNITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Camarena Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA MARTINEZ CAMARENA, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. K.L.E.O. COMMUNITY FAMILY LIFE CENTER, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-13225 (N.D. Ill., December 26, 2024) arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law for Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and other hourly paid current and former employees. The Plaintiff worked as a hourly "shift supervisor" at the American Islamic College (AIC) shelter between approximately May 2024 and the end of November, 2024. However, Defendant classified Plaintiff, and other persons who provided services for Defendant at the AIC shelter, as independent contractors instead of employees. As a result, the Plaintiff was not paid proper overtime pay for all the time she worked in excess of 40 hours in individual work weeks. Based in Chicago, IL, K.L.E.O Community Family Life Center is an Illinois 501(c)(3) corporation that provides staffing at one or more temporary migrant shelters pursuant to contracts with governmental entities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. Sarah J. Arendt, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington St., Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com sarendt@flsalaw.com MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSEPH ORTIZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00023 (W.N.D.Y. , Jan. 8, 2025) alleges that Manchester failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Because the Defendant's interactive website, https://www.manchester.edu/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, including, but not limited to, https://muspartans.com and https://manchester.getugear.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA, says the suit. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, 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. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant operates the Manchester online interactive Website and retail store across the United States. This online interactive Website and retail store constitutes a place of public accommodation because it is a university, place of exhibition, place of entertainment, service establishment and sales establishment.[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 MDL 2591: Dingmann Suit Consolidated in Syngenta Corn Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers the case captioned "Dingmann, et al. v. Bassford Remele, P.A., et al.," C.A. No. 0:24−03675 (D. Minn.) to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge John W. Lungstrum for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in "In re: Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation," MDL No. 2591. Dingmann moved to vacate the transfer order while defendants Bassford Remele PA, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Schwebel Goetz & Sieben PA, Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, Lewis A. Remele Jr., and Daniel E. Gustafson opposed the motion. The actions in the MDL share allegations regarding Syngenta's decision to commercialize the MIR162 genetically modified corn trait in the absence of Chinese approval to import corn with that trait. Because the Dingmann action concerns alleged misrepresentations and other allegedly improper conduct by counsel relating to the litigation and settlement of such claims in the transferee court, it falls within the scope of the MDL, rules the panel. Plaintiffs in Dingmann are corn farmers who retained defendants and another firm, WATTS GUERRA LLP, to represent them in individual suits against Syngenta concerning improper commingling of its unapproved genetically modified corn. They allege that, in persuading them to sign contingent fee retainers and file individual actions, defendants failed to advise them of the benefits of participating in the litigation as members of putative class actions filed by others. Defendants also entered into joint prosecution agreements with class counsel in the MDL that purported to exclude 60,000 farmers from the Syngenta MDL and Minnesota litigation classes, allegedly without farmers’ knowledge and informed consent. The Dingmann plaintiffs contend that defendants' conduct violated the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct and constituted mail and wire fraud and an obstruction of justice. As defendants note, the allegations and claims in Dingmann closely track those in two prior actions, both of which the panel found appropriate for inclusion in the MDL. Plaintiffs raise several arguments in opposition to the transfer of Dingmann. They maintain, among other things, that transfer is improper because their pending motion for remand to state court likely will be granted. However, the transferor court denied the motion for remand on November 12, 2024, and this argument is thus moot, opines the panel. The Dingmann plaintiffs further argued that Judge Lungstrum should recuse from presiding over this action because of a supposed conflict of interest arising from his unwitting participation in the defendant law firms' alleged enterprise to generate excess fees. But Judge Lungstrum on multiple occasions rejected an identical argument that he should recuse in Kellogg, and the panel has long held that it "has neither the statutory authority nor the inclination to review decisions of district courts, whether they are transferor or transferee courts." The panel notes that the MDL is in its final stages, and that no actions remain pending. While these circumstances typically weigh against transfer, it concludes that transfer nonetheless is appropriate. The factual allegations in the Dingmann action are closely related to the MDL proceeding hence transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation, it adds. A full-text copy of the court's December 11, 2024 Transfer Order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2591-Transfer_Order-12-24.pdf MDL 2738: Panel Vacates Order Transferring Beasly Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, issued an order vacating the conditional transfer of the case styled as "Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis and Miles, P.C. v. The Smith Law Firm, PLLC, et al.," C.A. No. 2:24−00582 (M.D. Ala.) to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for inclusion in "IN RE: JOHNSON & JOHNSON TALCUM POWDER PRODUCTS MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION," MDL No. 2738. The Plaintiff moved to vacate the order that conditionally transferred Beasley Allen to the District of New Jersey. The actions in the MDL share factual questions arising from allegations that plaintiffs or their decedents developed ovarian cancer following perineal application of Johnson & Johnson talcum powder products (namely, Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower body powder). Beasly Allen is a breach of contract action involving a joint venture agreement between three law firms that agreed to pool their resources to prosecute talcum powder claims against Johnson & Johnson. While it includes different claims than the actions in the MDL, it seems likely that it will implicate at least some common factual questions, the panel says. "Despite any factual overlap, we are persuaded that transfer of Beasley Allen at this time is not necessary to promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation," rules the panel. Moreover, a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition was filed in the Southern District of Texas that seeks to resolve all ovarian cancer talc claims, the panel held. All activity in the MDL has been stayed, including litigation of defendants' motion to disqualify the plaintiff's law firm from its leadership in the MDL. While the bankruptcy stay does not limit the panel's authority to transfer, at present there is no pretrial activity in the MDL with which to coordinate it. Thus, there are few efficiency or convenience benefits to be gained through transfer and because said case involves a peripheral dispute that will focus on the parties' joint venture agreement and their obligations under that agreement, allowing this action to proceed separately from the MDL is unlikely to result in significant duplication or inconsistent rulings, it adds. A full-text copy of the court's December 12, 2024 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2738-Order_Vacating_CTO-12-24.pdf MDL 2741: Aldridge Case Consolidated in Roundup Liability Row ------------------------------------------------------------- In the multi-district action captioned "In Re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 2741, Chairperson Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring the case styled as "Aldridge, et al. v. The Bayer Corporation, et al.," C.A. No. 5:24−00831 (W.D. Okla.) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The Plaintiffs in the action moved to vacate the transfer order while defendant Monsanto Company opposed the motion. The actions in the MDL involve common questions of fact arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Like the cases already in the MDL, plaintiffs in Aldridge allege that Mr. Aldridge suffers from non-Hodgkin's lymphoma caused by exposure to Roundup herbicide, notes the panel. Plaintiffs have also argued that their pending motion for remand to state court should be decided before transfer. However, the panel rules that jurisdictional objections generally do not present an impediment to transfer. A full-text copy of the court's December 12, 2024 Transfer Order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2741-Transfer_Order-12-24.pdf MOMENTUM SOLAR: TikTok Software Collects Users' Info, Velasco Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ VIANCA VELASCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOMENTUM SOLAR, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00016 (C.D. Calif., January 2, 2025) arises from the Defendants' unlawful conduct in violation of the California Trap and Trace Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant uses a trap and trace process on its website, www.momentumsolar.com by deploying the TikTok Software that is designed to capture the phone number, email, routing, addressing and other signaling information of website visitors, including that of Plaintiff's. As such, the TikTok Software is designed precisely to identify the source of the incoming electronic and wire communications to the website. The Defendant did not obtain consent from Plaintiff or any of the class members before using this trap and trace technology to identify users of its website, says the suit. Momentum Solar, LLC provides solar energy installation services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. Narain Kumar, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: robert@taulersmith.com nkumar@taulersmith.com MV TRANS: Fails to Pay Wages Under Labor Code, Edmond Says ---------------------------------------------------------- DESMOND EDMOND, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MV TRANSPORTATION, INC., a California Corporation; MVPUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV00339 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 7, 2025) arises out of the Defendants' failure to provide their non-exempt employees with all wages, meal and rest periods in compliance with the applicable wage order and/or the California Labor Code, by failing to pay sick pay wages, and by failing to comply with the applicable wage order and/or the Labor Code in regard to the payment of wages. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a Bus Operator in Los Angeles, California. He was hired on Aug. 7, 2023, and is still currently employed with the Defendants. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants operate as providers of paratransit services and as a passenger transportation contracting firm. MV Transportation, Inc. provides transit services in the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. Corey S. Smith, Esq. Kasra B. Ramez, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP 31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 270-7100 Facsimile: (805) 270-7589 E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com csmith@bradleygrombacher.com kramez@bradleygrombacher.com O POSITIV INC: Faces Henry Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- CONSTANCE HENRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. O Positiv, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-13276 (N.D. Ill., December 27, 2024) is a civil rights action against O Positiv for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Despite readily available accessible technology, such as the technology in use at other heavily trafficked retail websites, which makes use of alternative text, accessible forms, descriptive links, resizable text and limits the usage of tables and JavaScript, the Defendant has chosen to rely on an exclusively visual interface. O Positiv's sighted customers can independently browse, select, and buy online without the assistance of others. However, blind persons must rely on sighted companions to assist them in accessing and purchasing on Opositiv.com. By failing to make the website accessible to blind persons, Defendant is violating basic equal access requirements under both state and federal law, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in O Positiv's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. O Positiv, Inc. operates the website which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view supplements, including vitamin capsules and gummies, for vaginal and urinary support, hormone balance, general wellness, metabolism boosting, hair growth, skin improvement, and various health support bundles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Reyes, Esq. ASHER COHEN LAW PLLC 2377 56th Dr. Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (630) 352-6997 E-mail: dreyes@ashercohenlaw.com PILOT TRAVEL: Faces Watler Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------------- KEDEDRA WATLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00195 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 8, 2025) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff utilizes the cellular telephone number that received Defendant's telephone solicitations for personal purposes and the number is Plaintiff's residential telephone line and primary means of reaching Plaintiff at home. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, defined as: "All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through the date of class certification (1) Defendant, or anyone on Defendant's behalf, (2) placed more than one marketing text message within any 12- month period; (3) where such marketing text messages were initiated before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (local time at the called party's location). The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the Class members. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Pilot Travel Centers LLC, doing business as Pilot Flying J, is a North American chain of truck stops in the United States and Canada. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D, Lane Jr., Esq. GERALD D. LANE, JR., Esq. The Law Offices of Jibrael S. Hindi 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com PROFESSIONAL TOWING: Court Resets Expert Deadlines -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kevin Barrett, v. Professional Towing and Recovery LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-02025-ROS (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Roslyn Silver entered an order granting the Parties' first joint motion to reset expert deadlines. The Court further entered an order that the Parties shall propose new expert deadlines once the Court rules on anticipated motions for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Condition Certification and Rule 23 Class Certification. Professional Towing offers towing and roadside assistance 24 hours a day, seven days a week. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3Z8vHD at no extra charge.[CC] PRUDENTRX LLC: Gluesing Sues Over Healthcare Fraud and ACA Breaches ------------------------------------------------------------------- Sheila Gluesing, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRUDENTRX LLC & CAREMARK RX, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00549 (D.R.I., December 26, 2024) seeks for treble damages under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act against PrudentRx LLC and Caremark Rx, LLC. Plaintiff Gluesing alleges that PrudentRx is running a fraudulent enterprise that deprives patients of the benefits of patient copay assistance funding and increases patients' healthcare costs. Allegedly, PrudentRx has teamed up with pharmacy benefit manager Caremark and Caremark's affiliated specialty pharmacy, CVS Specialty Pharmacy, to divert hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in funding meant to help patients, to insurance plans and enrich themselves instead. Moreover, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants violated the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act incorporated by ERISA. PrudentRx LLC is a company founded in 2020, organized under the laws of Florida, and headquartered at 7901 4th Street North, Suite 300, St. Petersburg, FL. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen M. Prignano, Esq. MCINTYRE TATE LLP 50 Park Row West, Suite 109 Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 351-7700 Facsimile: (401) 331-6095 E-mail: sprignano@mcintyretate.com - and - Kristie A. LaSalle, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 265 Franklin Street, Suite 1702 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 535-3763 E-mail: kalasalle@locklaw.com - and - Brian D. Clark, Esq. David W. Asp, Esq. Derek C. Waller, Esq. Kira Q. Le, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Ave S, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: bdclark@locklaw.com dwasp@locklaw.com dcwaller@locklaw.com kqle@locklaw.com RAMACO RESOURCES: Lester Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- CODY LESTER, individually and for others similarly situated v. RAMACO RESOURCES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00742 (S.D.W. Va., December 27, 2024) is a collective action to recover unpaid wages and other damages from Ramaco Resources pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Lester and the other hourly employees regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek. However, the Defendant does not pay Lester and the other hourly employees for all their hours worked, including overtime hours, says the suit. Rather, Ramaco requires Lester and the other hourly employees to gather tools and equipment necessary to perform their job duties, suit out in protective clothing and safety gear necessary to safely perform their job duties, while on Ramaco's premises, all prior to being "clocked in," the suit relates. The Plaintiff worked as a move crew member for the Defendant since approximately February 2021 in its underground Stonecoal Branch Mine No. 2, which is part of the Elk Creek Mine Complex, located in Logan County, West Virginia. Ramaco Resources, Inc. owns, operates, and/or controls mines and related operations in West Virginia, Virginia, Wyoming, and Kentucky.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Majestro, Esq. Graham B. Platz, Esq. POWELL & MAJESTRO P.L.L.C. 405 Capitol Street, Suite 807 Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 346-2889 Facsimile: (304) 346-2895 E-mail: amajestro@powellmajestro.com gplatz@powellmajestro.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com RICHMOND UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action on Alleged Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Scott R. Axelrod, writing for silive.com, reports that two Staten Island residents have filed a lawsuit against Richmond University Medical Center alleging the hospital violated their privacy through a data breach that leaked personally identifiable information and protected health information to "unauthorized people, especially hackers with nefarious intentions." Matthew Counts of West Brighton and Kaitia Charitable of Richmond, the plaintiffs in the case, filed the class action complaint on Dec. 30 in Brooklyn federal court. The "class" in the case is identified in court documents as "all others similarly situated." Counts and Charitable claim that the West Brighton hospital offered documented assurance that its website was safe and secure and that the facility claimed to be committed to protecting the privacy of information gathered about patients to whom they provide health-related services. As alleged in court documents, Richmond University did not maintain adequate systems and procedures to ensure the security of "highly sensitive" information that it was entrusted with by patients, and as a result, private information of the plaintiffs and class members was exposed to hackers and/or cyber criminals. The suit further alleges that the hospital "enriched itself" by utilizing cheaper, ineffective security measures at the expense of allowing the plaintiffs' data to be compromised. "The data breach occurred as a direct result of defendant's failure to implement and follow basic security procedures necessary to protect its consumers' private information," according to the complaint. The suit goes on to allege that while Richmond University learned of the breach on May 6, 2023, "most consumers" were not informed of the issue until receiving a "notice letter" from the hospital on Dec. 19, 2024 -- 19 months after the breach occurred. In that letter, the hospital stated: "We discovered unauthorized access to our network that resulted in the unauthorized access to, or acquisition of, certain files by an unauthorized actor. Upon learning of this issue, we immediately contained and secured the threat and commenced a prompt and thorough investigation. Our investigation was done in consultation with outside cybersecurity professionals who regularly investigate and analyze these types of situations to help determine whether any sensitive data had been compromised because of the incident." "Although the initial forensic investigation determined our electronic health records system was not affected by the incident, the investigation subsequently determined that certain other files may have been accessed or removed from our network on or around May 6, 2023," the letter goes on to say. However, as a result of the breach and the amount of time they allege went by before they were notified of it, the plaintiffs claim their private information, including their names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, government identification information, health insurance information and medical information had been accessed by hackers and "exposed to an untold number of unauthorized individuals." "Plaintiffs and class members were unable to take affirmative steps during that time period to attempt to mitigate any harm or take prophylactic steps to protect against injury," the suit claims. Without citing any specific incidents that occurred as a result of the data breach, Counts and Charitable allege that they and the other plaintiffs endured "emotional distress" and have been forced to spend time and potential future expenses to monitor their financial information while they continue to face an increased risk of fraud, identity theft and other misuses of their personal and health information. Counts, Charitable, and the other class action members are seeking compensation in an amount they've requested to be determined at a trial by jury, according to court documents. A spokesman for the hospital told the Advance/SILive.com that while the suit is under legal review, the facility does not comment on matters of litigation. Attorneys for the plaintiffs did not respond to email requests for comment. [GN] RIVERS CASINO: Faces Multiple Class Suits Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- John Fitzgerald, writing for Westlaw Today, reports that a data breach that released personal and financial information of both players and employees at Rivers Casino Philadelphia could have been avoided had the company followed industry standards and Federal Trade Commission requirements, multiple class-action lawsuits allege. Moore v. Rush Street Gaming LLC et al., No. 25-cv-91, complaint filed (E.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2025). The first lawsuit, filed Jan. 4 by Robert Volio, was followed by complaints filed by Kevin Brady on Jan. 6, Kevin Brockhoft on Jan. 7, and Brett Nelson, Shawn Martin and William Moore on Jan. 8. All were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. All were casino customers except Nelson, who is a casino employee. Rivers Casino, located on the Delaware River in Philadelphia's Fishtown neighborhood, is owned by Rush Street Gaming LLC. On Nov. 18, 2024, Rush Street Gaming determined that files had been taken from its computer system that included personally identifiable information for patrons and employees including names, Social Security numbers and bank account information, the complaints say. While Rush Street Gaming owns and operates casinos throughout the U.S., it said in notifications to those affected that no other Rivers Casino locations were involved in the data breach. Each complaint says the data breach victims have suffered from invasions of privacy and the loss of their PII. Some also mention the loss of the benefit of the bargain. The plaintiffs say that since the data breach, they have seen "a significant increase" in phishing emails and spam texts. They also say the breach could have been avoided had the company followed industry data security standards as well as guidelines set forth by the FTC, which requires the use of thorough information storage measures and monitoring. All the plaintiffs seek to create a class of those whose PII was exposed in the data breach. The complaints allege violations including negligence and unjust enrichment. They all request damages, attorney fees and costs. Attorneys from Kopelowitz Ostrow PA and Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC represent Volio. Charles E. Schaffer from Levin Sedran & Berman LLP represents Brady and Nelson. Andrew W. Ferich from Ahdoot & Wolfson PC represents Brockhoft. Attorneys from Edelson Lechtzin LLP represent Martin. Attorneys from Kimmel & Silverman PC and EKSM LLP represent Moore. [GN] RIVERSIDE, CA: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RIVERSIDE ALL OF US OR NONE et al., v. CITY OF RIVERSIDE et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-01536-SPG-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will seek an order on Feb. 19, 2025, certifying case as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and Local Rule 23-: -- The motion is made on behalf of all unhoused residents of the City of Riverside who have been or may be subjected to the City of Riverside's policy and practice of seizing and summarily destroying personal property at any time since Jan. 1, 2022. The motion seeks certification of a damages class and an injunctive relief class, as set forth in the accompanying memorandum of points and authorities. The Plaintiffs will also seek an order appointing the undersigned counsel as class counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). The Plaintiffs seek to certify two classes defined as follows: The Injunctive Relief Class: "all persons who are or will be unhoused in the City of Riverside and keep their possessions on public property in the City, making it subject to seizure and summary destruction by City employees and/agents and not stored as required by California Civil Code section 2080." The Plaintiffs Riverside All of Us or None and Jade Anderson are the proposed class representatives; and The Damages Class: "all persons who were homeless and staying on public property in the City of Riverside between Jan. 1, 2022 and continuing to the present, and whose personal property was seized by City of Riverside employees and/or agents and summarily destroyed." The Plaintiffs Anderson, Bryan Yost, and Shawn Yost are the proposed class representatives. The action was filed in August 2023, challenging the City of Riverside's practice of seizing unhoused individuals' property on public spaces. Riverside is a city in and the county seat of Riverside County, California, in the Inland Empire metropolitan area. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 6, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LtmJ1b at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brooke Weitzman, Esq. Allison Greenberg, Esq. Andrea Smith, Esq. ELDER LAW AND DISABILITY RIGHTS CENTER 1535 E. 17th Street, Ste. 110 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Telephone: (714) 617-5353 Facsimile: (714) 754-1306 E-mail: bweitzman@eldrcenter.org agreenberg@eldrcenter.org asmith@eldrcenter.org - and - Carol A. Sobel, Esq. Weston Rowland, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL 2632 Wilshire Boulevard, #552 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Telephone: (310) 393-3055 E-mail: carolsobellaw@gmail.com rowland.weston@gmail.com ROBERT LUNA: Bid for Class Certification Tossed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN STEWART et al., v. ROBERT LUNA et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-04641-ODW-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis Wright, II entered an order denying without prejudice Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not met their burden to show the Proposed Class, as currently defined, satisfies each Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) requirement. At this time, however, the Court does not conclude that Plaintiffs are unable to construct a class that satisfies the Rule 23 requirements. The Plaintiffs may file an Amended Motion for Class Certification to cure the deficiencies discussed herein. The Plaintiffs allege that, on April 21, 2022, the Defendants violated constitutional, federal, and state law when LASD officers deployed tear gas, pepper spray, and pepper balls against them. The Plaintiffs move to certify the proposed class, which they define differently in various filings. In the Complaint, Plaintiffs define the proposed class as: "All NCCF Unit 711 inmates -- approximately 62 (two inmates, Treyvon Daniels and Mynor Larios have opted out and two inmates, who did not comply with orders given by Defendant Gutierrez are excluded) -- who, on April 21, 2022, were subjected to continual tear gassing, pepper spray, and being shot with pepper balls without any justification." A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4xW6tw at no extra charge.[CC] ROYAL CARE: Garcia-Pena Seeks Home Health Aids' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ NIDIA GARCIA-PENA, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE ROYAL CARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08930 (E.D.N.Y., December 31, 2024) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff, and all other similarly situated employees of Defendants, that have not received minimum wages, overtime wages, and spread of hours pay, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and supporting regulations. Throughout Plaintiff's employment, she received no overtime wages despite working excess of 40 hours each week. Additionally, throughout Plaintiff's employment, she was not paid the applicable minimum wage under New York law for all hours worked, says the suit. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a home health aid from approximately 2010 to August 23, 2022. The Royal Care, Inc. operates a third-party home health care agency, that assigns home health workers to provide live-in home care to persons who are in need of services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon A. Thomas, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC 1 Glenlake Parkway, Suite 650 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (678) 862-9344 Facsimile: (678) 638-6201 E-mail: brandon@overtimeclaimslawyer.com RURAL/METRO FIRE: Zapata Suit Removed to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Luis Zapata, individually, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. RURAL/METRO FIRE DEPT., INC., CAPSTONE FIRE & SAFETY MANAGEMENT, GLOBAL MEDICAL RESPONSE, INC., DELTA EQUITIES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24CU022120C was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on Jan. 8, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00049-TWR-DEB. The Complaint seeks damages and penalties for a variety of alleged wage-hour violations for a period commencing on November 12, 2020. The Plaintiff alleges that he and the putative class are entitled to recover purportedly unpaid overtime, minimum wages, and meal and rest period premiums, split shift wages, reporting time pay, recover for failure to provide notice of sick paid time accrual, in addition to wage statement penalties, waiting time penalties, statutory and civil penalties, expense reimbursement, restitution, costs, and attorneys' fees. The Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael S. Kun, Esq. Kevin D. Sullivan, Esq. Heather M. Domingo, Esq. EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 556-8861 Facsimile: (310) 553-2165 Email: mkun@ebglaw.com ksullivan@ebglaw.com hdomingo@ebglaw.com SAATCHI ONLINE: Fernandez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------------ FELIPE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAATCHI ONLINE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-10035 (S.D.N.Y., December 31, 2024) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.saatchiart.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers include but are 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 website also contained a host of broken links, which is a hyperlink to a non-existent or empty webpage. For the visually impaired this is especially paralyzing due to the inability to navigate or otherwise determine where one is on the website once a broken link is encountered, says the suit. The Plaintiff now 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. Saatchi Online, Inc. operates the website that offers a selection of original artworks from global artists, including paintings, photography, sculpture, and other art forms.[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 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com SABOR VENEZOLANO: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Medina Says ------------------------------------------------------------- DANIELA MEDINA, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. SABOR VENEZOLANO KENDALL, INC. KATHERINE ACOSTA and MANUEL VILLALOBOS, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-25096 (S.D. Fla., December 27, 2024) is a collective action to recover from Defendants, regular wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Medina worked for the Defendants from July 23, 2021 to September 27, 2024, or more than three years. However, for FLSA purposes, Plaintiff's relevant employment period is 155 weeks. The Plaintiff was a tipped employee working as a waitress. Sabor Venezolano Kendall, Inc. is a Venezuelan restaurant located in Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Smartwatch Bands Contain PFAS, Gonzalez Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY RAY GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-11234 (C.D. Cal., December 31, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for fraud, fraudulent inducement, fraudulent concealment or omission, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit on behalf of himself and all similarly situated consumers who purchased the Samsung Galaxy Watch Fluoroelastomer Band, Sport Band (20mm), Sport T-Buckle Band, Rugged Sport Band, Extreme Sport T-Buckle Band, and D-Buckle Hybrid Eco-Leather Band. The Defendant advertises these products as designed to support and further human health and wellness, environmentally sustainable, and suitable for everyday use and wear. However, in truth, they contain excessive levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which are toxic to human health and the environment, says the suit. By pervasively advertising the watches as designed to further health, wellness, and sustainability, while encouraging daily/nightly use, the Defendant misleads Plaintiff and consumers like him, causing them to overpay for Products that do not deliver advertised benefits and to forego safe alternatives available on the market, the suit alleges. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. manufactures electronic products. The Company offers televisions, digital cameras, cell phones, storage devices, home appliances, security systems, smartwatches, and computer products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Yana Hart, Esq. Mark Richards, Esq. Tiara Avaness, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213 788-4070 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com mrichards@clarksonlawfirm.com tavaness@clarksonlawfirm.com SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Civil Standing Order Entered in Dorado Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lucy Dorado, v. San Bernardino County et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-02684-HDV-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hernan Vera entered a civil standing order as follows: -- Service of the Complaint The Plaintiff shall promptly serve the Complaint in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and shall comply with Local Rule 5-3 with respect to all proofs of service. -- Removed Actions Any answers filed in state court must be refiled in this Court as a supplement to the Notice of Removal. Any pending motions must be re-noticed in accordance with the Local Rules. -- Discovery All discovery matters are referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge. Proposed protective orders must also be submitted to the Magistrate Judge. -- Motions for Class Certification Counsel in putative class actions shall commence litigation promptly and begin discovery immediately so that the motion filed expeditiously. -- Motions for Summary Judgment No party may file more than one motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, regardless of whether such motion is denominated a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 26, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4A1fd5 at no extra charge.[CC] SAND CLOUD: Limon-Gonzalez Balks at Telemarketing Texts ------------------------------------------------------- SAUL LIMON-GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAND CLOUD HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-10107-DPG (S.D. Fla., December 27, 2024) is a putative class action pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant engages in telemarketing texts at unlawful times to promote its goods and services. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the Class members. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Sand Cloud Holdings, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its headquarters located in San Diego, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faaris K. Uddin, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (813) 340-8838 E-mail: faaris@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com SANMEDICA INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- SYLINIA JACKSON, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SANMEDICA INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-10025 (S.D.N.Y., December 31, 2024) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.serovital.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. By failing to make its wbsite 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, says the suit. 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. SanMedica International, LLC develops and distributes anti-aging products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal SAVE ON SP: Increases Patients' Healthcare Costs, Gurwitch Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ANNABELLE GURWITCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SAVE ON SP LLC, EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC., and ACCREDO HEALTH GROUP INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01583-AMN-DJS (N.D.N.Y., December 26, 2024), alleges violations of the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) incorporated by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiff alleges that SaveOnSP is a fraudulent enterprise that deprives patients of the benefits of patient copay assistance funding and increases patients' healthcare costs. Allegedly, Save On SP LLC has teamed up with pharmacy benefit manager Express Scripts and Express Scripts' affiliated specialty pharmacy Accredo to purloin hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in funding meant to help patients and diverted that money to instead benefit plans and enrich themselves, says the Plaintiff. Headquartered in Buffalo, NY, SaveOnSP advertises and administers employer plan benefit programs in partnership with pharmacy benefit manager Express Scripts, Inc. and Express Scripts' affiliated specialty pharmacy, Accredo. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristie A. LaSalle, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 265 Franklin Street, Suite 1702 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 535-3763 E-mail: kalasalle@locklaw.com - and - Brian D. Clark, Esq. David W. Asp, Esq. Derek C. Waller, Esq. Kira Q. Le, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Ave S, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: bdclark@locklaw.com dwasp@locklaw.com dcwaller@locklaw.com kqle@locklaw.com SAZERAC CO: Andrews Wins Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILBERT ANDREWS and STEVEN KHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SAZERAC COMPANY, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-01060-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Arun Subramanian entered an order certifying a class of: "all persons who purchased the Southern Comfort malt products in the State of New York at any time during the period Feb. 8, 2020, to the date of judgment." Khan's lawyers, Charles D. Moore, Neal Jamison Deckant, and Spencer Sheehan, are appointed as class counsel. In sum, Ingersoll's conjoint analysis "provides an acceptable, though likely imperfect" method of measuring the damages attributable to plaintiffs' theory of liability. The Court disagrees that Khan isn't a typical or adequate representative. Khan's "unique defense," i.e., purchasing one of the larger bottles, is simply a purchasing variation and so doesn’t defeat typicality or adequacy. The Court agrees, however, that Andrews isn't an adequate class representative, given his confusing and contradictory deposition testimony. Sazerac "manufactures, packages, labels, markets, and sells fruit and spice flavored liqueur under the Southern Comfort brand." A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SUGu1l at no extra charge.[CC] SENTARA HEALTHCARE: Carter Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties --------------------------------------------------------------- Tracey Carter and Bonny Davis, as the representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Sentara 403(b) Savings Plan v. SENTARA HEALTHCARE FIDUCIARY COMMITTEE AND SENTARA HEALTH, Case No. 2:25-cv-00016-JKW-DEM (E.D. Va., Jan. 8, 2025), is brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") as a result of the Defendants' breach of their fiduciary duties by failing to monitor the Plan's chronically underperforming stable value investment option. The Defendants' failure to remove and replace the Plan's underperforming stable value investment option resulted in substantial losses to the Plan recoverable from Defendants under ERISA. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of the Class and the Plan pursuant to the ERISA to recover the losses resulting from Defendants' ERISA violations and to compel Defendants to implement prudent processes to prevent further losses to the Plan. The Defendants failed to act with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence required of ERISA fiduciaries in failing to monitor the Plan's fixed income investment option, the Guaranteed Interest Balance Contract ("GIBC"), an insurance product furnished by Principal Life Insurance Company ("Principal"). The Defendants' persistent failure to prudently monitor the Plan's stable value product has caused the Plan to suffer more than $11.4 million in losses throughout the relevant period. These losses continue to accrue as a result of Defendants' ongoing fiduciary failures. The Plaintiffs seek recovery on behalf of the Plan of these losses; recovery of such additional losses as may accrue and compound through trial; and injunctive relief sufficient to correct the deficiencies in Defendants' fiduciary processes and protect the interests of participants in their retirement savings going forward, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs have an account balance in the Plan and has maintained an account balance in the Plan throughout the statutory period. Sentara is designated on the Plan's DOL Form 5500 filings as the "administrator" of the Plan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas D. Thompson, Esq. CASEY JONES LAW FIRM 323 N. Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 305-8349 Facsimile: (612) 677-3050 Email: nthompson@caseyjones.law - and - Jennifer K. Lee, Esq. Carl F. Engstrom, Esq. ENGSTROM LEE LLC 323 N. Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 305-8349 Facsimile: (612) 677-3050 Email: jlee@engstromlee.com cengstrom@engstromlee.com - and - James H. White IV, Esq. THE JAMES WHITE FIRM LLC 2100 Morris Avenue Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 317-2551 Email: james@whitefirmllc.com SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Elza Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------------- AARON WILLIAM ELZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SHARKNINJA OPERATING LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-10037-ADB (D. Mass., Jan. 7, 2025) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages and placing phone calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff brings this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and as a representative of the following class: "All persons throughout the United States (1) who did not provide their telephone number to SharkNinja Operating LLC, (2) to whom SharkNinja Operating LLC delivered, or caused to be delivered, more than one voice message or text message within a 12-month period, promoting SharkNinja Operating LLC goods or services, (3) where the person’s residential or cellular telephone number had been registered with the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days before SharkNinja Operating LLC delivered, or caused to be delivered, at least two of the voice messages or text messages within the 12-month period, (4) within four years preceding the date of this complaint and through the date of class certification." Excluded from the class is Defendant, its officers and directors, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in which Defendant has or had a controlling interest. SharkNinja is a global product design and technology company based in Needham, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com SHASTA BEVERAGES: Ahmed Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jahangir W. Ahmed, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated v. SHASTA BEVERAGES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV30350 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 8, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00212. The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: failure to pay all wages; failure to pay all overtime wages at the legal overtime pay rate; failure to provide all meal periods; failure to authorize and permit all paid rest periods; derivative failure to timely furnish accurate itemized wage statements; independent failure to timely furnish accurate itemized wage statements; violations of California Labor Code; and unfair business practices under California Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Spencer Hamer, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 1 Park Place, 12th Floor Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: 949.253.0900 Fax: 949.253.0902 Email: Spencer.Hamer@klgates.com - and - Carter L. Norfleet, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310.552.5000 Fax: 310.552.5001 Email: Carter.Norfleet@klgates.com - and - Gregory T. Lewis, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 2801 Vía Fortuna, Suite 650 Austin, TX 78746 Phone: 512.482.6800 Fax: 512.482.685 Email: Greg.Lewis@klgates.com SPRECKELS SUGAR: Castro Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARNOLD SAMUEL CASTRO individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SPRECKELS SUGAR COMPANY, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-00747-TWR-LR (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on March 27, 2025, will move the Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1), for an order: 1. Certifying the class; 2. Appointing Plaintiff ARNOLD SAMUEL CASTRO as representative of the proposed class or later proposed and approved by the Court and any other sub-class the Court may devise; 3. Appointing Kane Moon, H. Scott Leviant, and Sandy Pham of Moon Law Group, PC, as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g); and, 4. issuing such other Orders as necessary to effectuate the Court's certification Order. The Plaintiff requests that the Court certify the following class: Class: "All persons who worked for Defendant in California as an hourly, non-exempt employee at any time during the period beginning July 8, 2022, and ending when notice to the Class is sent." Wage Statement Sub-Class: "All Class members who worked for Defendant at any time during the period beginning March 13, 2023, and ending when notice to the Class is sent." Campaign Sub-Class: "All persons who worked for Defendant during any "Campaign Season" but not during any "Intercampaign Season" in hourly-paid or non-exempt positions in California at any time during the period beginning July 8, 2022, and ending when notice to the Campaign Sub-Class is sent." Campaign Wage Statement Sub-Class: "All Campaign Sub-Class members who worked for Defendant at any time during the period beginning March 13, 2023, and ending when notice to the Campaign Sub-Class is sent." Spreckels is an American sugar beet refiner. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 6, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZGBYsl at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. H. Scott Leviant, Esq. Mariam Ghazaryan, Esq. Sandy Pham, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 725 S. Figueroa St., Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 E-mail: kmoon@moonlawgroup.com hsleviant@moonlawgroup.com mghazaryan@moonlawgroup.com spham@moonlawgroup.com SRP FEDERAL: Faces McGrier Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info -------------------------------------------------------------- THERESA MCGRIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SRP FEDERAL CREDIT UNION Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07695-CMC (D.S.C., December 27, 2024) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed on December 12, 2024. An investigation determined that an unauthorized third-party gained access to Defendant's IT network between September 5, 2024, and November 4, 2024, and acquired certain files from the network. The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the data breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. SRP Federal Credit Union is a member-owned financial institution, providing a range of financial products and services to individuals and families in South Carolina and Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karolan Ohanesian, Esq. Glenn V. Ohanesian, Esq. OHANESIAN LAW FIRM P.O. Box 2433 Myrtle Beach, SC 29578 Telephone: (843) 626-7193 Facsimile: (843) 492-5164 E-mail: OhanesianLawFirm@cs.com - and - Mark Svensson, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: msvensson@zlk.com SRP FEDERAL: Ortiz Sues Over Data Security Failures --------------------------------------------------- Oscar Ortiz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SRP Federal Credit Union, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07669-CMC (D.S.C., December 26, 2024) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information including, but not limited to, Plaintiff's and Class members' name, date of birth, Social Security number, and financial account information. On November 22, 2024, the Defendant learned that an unauthorized person was making data available that was allegedly taken from a SRP Federal Credit Union database. Further investigation determined that and unknown and unauthorized third party accessed Defendant's computer systems sometime between September 5, 2024, and November 4, 2024. However, the Defendant failed to provide timely and accurate notice to Plaintiff and Class members that their personal information was compromised as a result of the data breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and for violations of South Carolina state data breach statutes. SRP Federal Credit Union is a financial institution headquartered in Augusta, SC. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan P. Duffy, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RYAN P. DUFFY 1213 W. Morehead St., Suite 500, Unit #450 Charlotte, NC 28208 Telephone: (704) 741-9399 E-mail: rduffy@ryanpduffy.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 732-2792 E-mail: meisenband@eisenbandlaw.com STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Bitfarms Ltd ---------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Stronghold Digital Mining, Inc. (Nasdaq: SDIG), relating to its proposed merger with Bitfarms Ltd. Under the terms of the agreement, Stronghold stockholders are expected to receive 2.52 shares of Bitfarms per share of Stronghold they own. Click link for more information: https://monteverdelaw.com/case/stronghold-digital-mining-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Inflection Point Acquisition Corp. II (NASDAQ: IPXX), relating to its proposed merger with USA Rare Earth, LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, IPXX common stock will automatically be converted into the right to receive shares of USARE common stock. Click link for more information: https://monteverdelaw.com/case/inflection-point-acquisition-corp-ii/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Liberty Broadband Corporation (NASDAQ: LBRDA, LBRDK, LBRDP), relating to the proposed merger with Charter Communications, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Liberty Broadband common stockholders will receive 0.236 of a share of Charter common stock per share of Liberty Broadband common stock they own. Click link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/liberty-broadband-corporation-lbrda-lbrdk-lbrdp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- MoneyLion Inc. (NYSE: ML), relating to the proposed merger with Gen Digital Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, shareholders of MoneyLion will receive $82.00 per share in cash, and, in addition, one contingent value right per share entitling the shareholder to a contingent payment of Gen Digital common stock. Click link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/moneylion-inc-ml/. 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 [GN] SUGARHOUSE REAL ESTATE: Butera Files TCPA Suit in D. Utah --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sugarhouse Real Estate Group, L.C. The case is styled as Eric Butera, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Sugarhouse Real Estate Group, L.C., Case No. 2:25-cv-00014-DAK (D. Utah, Jan. 8, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Sugarhouse Real Estate Group is a reputable real estate agency based in Salt Lake City, Utah.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Morrison, Esq. MORRISON LAW OFFICE 1887 N 270 E Orem, UT 84057 Phone: (801) 845-2581 Email: matt@oremlawoffice.com SUPERGOOP LLC: Dunning Amended Complaint Dismissed w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCEANN DUNNING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and AMBER LATIF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SUPERGOOP, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-11242-JPC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge John Cronan entered an order granting Supergoop's motion to dismiss and dismissing without prejudice the Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, if any, is due two weeks from the date of this Opinion and Order. Because the Amended Complaint lacks sufficient allegations to support the existence of an injury-in-fact for either Plaintiff, Supergoop's motion to dismiss is granted. This dismissal is without prejudice and Plaintiffs are granted leave to further amend if they believe they can sufficiently allege standing. The Plaintiffs MarceAnn Dunning and Amber Latif bring this putative class action against the Defendant, alleging that two of Supergoop's sunscreen products contain a lower Sun Protection Factor ("SPF") level than indicated on the products' labels. Supergoop formulates, manufactures, labels, advertises, distributes, and sells sunscreen products nationwide. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3kGQyA at no extra charge.[CC] TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Bid to Modify Case Schedule in FWK Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FWK Holdings LLC, et al, v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-11057 (D. Mass., Filed June 25, 2021), the Hon. Judge Myong J. Joun entered an order denying motion for modification. -- Takeda's expedited motion to modify the case schedule is denied. -- The court adopts Premera's proposal of a 14-day extension of the existing deadlines, such that Takeda's opposition to Premera's second amended class certification motion, and end-payor specific expert reports are due Jan. 29, 2025. -- Premera's reply in further support of its class certification motion and rebuttal expert reports are due March 12, 2025. -- Takeda is free to seek leave to file a sur-reply on review of Premera's reply, but no later than March 19, 2025. The nature of suit states antitrust litigation. Takeda is a global and research pharmaceutical company.[CC] TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Bid to Modify Case Schedule Tossed --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Premera Blue Cross v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-12918 (D. Mass., Filed Nov. 30, 2023), the Hon. Judge Myong J. Joun entered an order denying Takeda's expedited motion to modify the case schedule. -- Takeda's opposition to the second amended class certification motion, and end-payor specific expert reports are due Jan. 29, 2025. -- While Premera's reply in further support of and rebuttal expert reports are due March 12, 2025. -- Any motion for leave to file a sur-reply must be filed no later than March 19, 2025. The nature of suit states antitrust diversity-contract dispute. Premera is a not-for-profit healthcare company that offers health plans in Washington state and Alaska. Takeda is a global and research pharmaceutical company.[CC] TETRA TECH: Pennington Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA PARKER PENNINGTON, et al., v. TETRA TECH, INC., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-05330-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Pennington Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter certifying a class consisting of: "All individuals or entities who held title to one or more market-rate units on Parcel A at the Shipyard in San Francisco on Aug. 2, 2018." This motion is brought pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The class meets the prerequisites of Rule 23(a), common questions of liability predominate over individual questions, and a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), the Plaintiffs contend. Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy ("CPM") seeks appointment as Lead Class Counsel. As Lead Class Counsel, CPM will continue to work with, and has the support of, Bowles & Verna, LLP and Gibbs Law Group, LLP, who also represent individual class members. CPM will adequately represent the class as shown by the work they have done on the case, their prior experience with similar complex cases, their knowledge of the applicable law, and the resources that they will commit to representing the class. CPM also seeks appointment of Linda Parker Pennington as the representative plaintiff. Mrs. Pennington is a member of the class that she seeks to represent, she has intimate knowledge of the facts, she understands her duties as class representative, and she has no conflicts of interest with other class members. This Court previously appointed Mrs. Pennington as the Representative Plaintiff in connection with the Pennington Plaintiffs’ class action settlement with the Homebuilders. Tetra Tech's misconduct has caused the Pennington Plaintiffs to suffer real property damages because their home values are not appreciating at the same rate as comparable homes throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. Tetra Tech is an environmental construction company located in San Diego. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qzP6RA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. Anne Marie Murphy, Esq. Donald J. Magilligan, Esq. Julie L. Fieber, Esq. Kevin J. Boutin, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 692-3606 E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com amurphy@cpmlegal.com dmagilligan@cpmlegal.com jfieber@cpmlegal.com kboutin@cpmlegal.com - and - Bradley R. Bowles, Esq. Jonathan W. Lee, Esq. BOWLES & VERNA LLP 2121 N California Blvd 875 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 - and - Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. Andre M. Mura, Esq. Amanda M. Karl, Esq. Mark H. Troutman GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 1111 Broadway Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (800) 254-9493 TRANSOCEAN LTD: Gabor Sues Over Securities Law Violations --------------------------------------------------------- MATAY GABOR, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSOCEAN LTD., JEREMY D. THIGPEN, MARK L. MEY, and THAD VAYDA, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-09964 (S.D.N.Y., December 26, 2024), arises out of Defendants' alleged violations of the the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Transocean securities between October 31, 2023 and September 2, 2024, inclusive. Throughout the said period, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) the Discoverer Inspiration and the Development Driller III were considered non-strategic assets; (2) the Company's recorded asset valuations were overstated; (3) as a result, the Company would take nearly twice the vessels' sale price in impairment if sold; and (4) 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. Headquartered in Steinhausen, Switzerland, Transocean provides offshore contract drilling services for oil and gas wells worldwide. Its shares trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "RIG." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca Dawson, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave, Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (213) 521-8007 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 - Eitan Kimelman, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC New York, NY 60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor, New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 TUNGRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Probes 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 Tungray Technologies Inc (NASDAQ: TRSG) resulting from allegations that Tungray Technologies may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Tungray Technologies 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=32968 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 December 31, 2024, Tungray Technologies filed a current report with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 6-K. The current report stated that on "December 30, 2024, the Board of Directors of Tungray Technologies Inc (the "Company"), upon recommendation of the Audit Committee and following discussions with management, determined that the Company's financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2023, 2022 and 2021 included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2024 (the "20-F"), should no longer be relied upon. Similarly, related reports, press releases, earnings releases, and investor communications describing the Company's financial statements for these periods should no longer be relied upon." 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. Contact Information: 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] UMASS MEMORIAL: Progin Wiretapping Suit Removed to D. Mass. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as JANICE PROGIN, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. UMASS MEMORIAL HEALTH CARE, INC., UMASS MEMORIAL COMMUNITY ENTITIES, INC., UMASS MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., UMASS MEMORIAL HEALTHALLIANCE-CLINTON HOSPITAL, INC., MARLBOROUGH HOSPITAL, and HARRINGTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2284CV02899-BLS2, was removed from the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the County of Suffolk to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on January 2, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-40003 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint challenged UMass Memorial's routine on-line practices as illegal wiretapping under the Massachusetts Wiretap Act. The amended complaint includes a number of new claims against the UMass Memorial Defendants, including a claim for violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. UMass Memorial Health Care, Inc. is a non-profit healthcare network based in Worcester, Massachusetts, operated by the University of Massachusetts.[BN] The Defendant is represented by; James H. Rollinson, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 127 Public Street Suite 2000 Cleveland, OH 44116 Telephone: (216) 621-0200 Facsimile: (216) 626-0740 E-mail: jrollinson@bakerlaw.com - and - Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1801 California Street Suite 4400 Denver, CO 80202-2662 Telephone: (303) 764-4013 Facsimile: (303) 861-7805 E-mail: pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com - and - Elizabeth A. Scully, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Washington Square, Suite 1100 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036-5304 Telephone: (202) 861-1500 Facsimile: (202) 861-1783 E-mail: escully@bakerlaw.com - and - Stephen T. Paterniti, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 75 Park Plaza, 4th Floor Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 305-1221 E-mail: Stephen.Paterniti@jacksonlewis.com UNDER ARMOUR: Partial Bid to Dismiss Lo Class Action Denied ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN LO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. UNDER ARMOUR, INC., a Maryland corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-01258-IM (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Karin Immergut entered an order denying the Defendant's partial motion to dismiss Lo class action suit. Therefore, at this stage of the proceedings, this Court concludes that Plaintiff has standing on behalf of others who purchased Under Armour factory products who were similarly misled by Defendant's pricing scheme, whether in-store or online. Accordingly, Defendant's partial Motion to Dismiss is denied. The Plaintiff alleges that Under Armour advertised false price discounts for merchandise sold in its factory outlet stores and on the outlet section of its website, a violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act ("UTPA"). The Plaintiff filed his Complaint in August 2024. ECF 1. He alleges the following class: "All persons who, within the State of Oregon and within the applicable statute of limitations preceding the filing of this action (the "Class Period"), purchased from a Under Armour Factory store (in-person or online) one or more products at discounts from an advertised reference price and who have not received a refund or credit for their purchase(s)." On July 13, 2024, he purchased six items from Defendant’s factory outlet store in Woodburn, Oregon. Under Armour is a specialty retailer of athletic apparel. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 23, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XXkM3F at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kim D. Stephens, Esq. Joan M. Pradhan, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 5th Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 - and - Connor James Porzio, Esq. Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. James B. Drimmer, Esq. Scott G. Braden, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1234 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 The Defendants are represented by: Andrew R. Escobar, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4700 Seattle, WA 98104 UNIFI AVIATION: Panelli-Powell Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as SUZANNE PANELLI-POWELL, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIFI AVIATION, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24CV101385, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on January 2, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00010 to the proceeding. In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, eight total causes of action, seven of which are for various violations of the California Labor Code and one of which is for "Unfair Competition" under the California Business & Professions Code. Unifi Aviation, LLC provides aviation ground handling services in North America.[BN] Defendant Unifi Aviation, LLC is represented by: Andrew P. Frederick, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1400 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 843-4000 Facsimile: (650) 843-4001 E-mail: andrew.frederick@morganlewis.com - and - Joseph R. Lewis, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 Telephone: (415) 442-1000 Facsimile: (415) 442-1001 E-mail: joseph.lewis@morganlewis.com UNITED STATES: Farrell Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERRILL FARRELL, JAMES GONZALES, HAYDEN POWELL, JULIANNE "JULES" SOHN, STEPHAN "LILLY" STEFFANIDES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; LLOYD J. AUSTIN III, Secretary, United States Department of Defense, in his official capacity; CHRISTINE WORMUTH, Secretary, United States Army, in her official capacity; CARLOS DEL TORO, Secretary, United States Navy, in his official capacity; FRANK KENDALL, Secretary, United States Air Force, in his official capacity, Case No. 3:23-cv-04013-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) finding that, for purposes of effectuating the proposed settlement, the prerequisites for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 are likely satisfied, and granting conditional class certification; and (2) preliminarily approving the proposed class action Settlement Agreement dated Jan. 3, 2025, including the form and manner of notice to the Settlement Class, Plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act, and setting a date for a Final Approval Hearing. The Defendants have represented that they intend to file a statement of non-opposition that includes a request for the Court to deem this matter submitted for immediate determination without a hearing. The Plaintiffs join in Defendants' anticipated request. Should the Court desire a hearing on this motion, Plaintiffs will move pursuant to Rules 23 and 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the aforementioned relief on February 12, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard by the Honorable Joseph C. Spero of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Plaintiffs brought this putative class action on behalf of themselves and tens of thousands of veterans discharged under DADT and similar prior policies that prohibited individuals from serving in the armed forces based on actual or perceived sexual orientation. The Settlement Class The settlement contemplates certification of a Settlement Class under Rule 23(b)(2), defined as: "Veterans of the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, and U.S. Marine Corps who were administratively separated prior to Sep. 20, 2011, and whose most recent Service separation document shows their basis for discharge was sexual orientation, homosexual conduct, homosexual admission, homosexual marriage, similar language, or a policy title or number signifying separation for sexual orientation." U.S. Department of Defense provides the military forces needed to deter war and ensure the nation's security. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 6, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aCCFD3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jocelyn D. Larkin, Esq. Lindsay Nako, Esq. Lori Rifkin, Esq. Fawn Rajbhandari-Korr, Esq. Meredith Dixon, Esq. IMPACT FUND 2080 Addison Street, Suite 5 Berkeley, CA 94704 Telephone: (510) 845-3473 Facsimile: (510) 845-3654 E-mail: jlarkin@impactfund.org lnako@impactfund.org lrifkin@impactfund.org fkorr@impactfund.org mdixon@impactfund.org - and - Elizabeth Kristen, Esq. Lynnette Miner, Esq. LEGAL AID AT WORK 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 864-8848 Facsimile: (415) 593-0096 E-mail: ekristen@legalaidatwork.org lminer@legalaidatwork.org - and - David K. Willingham, Esq. Rachel Yeung, Esq. Radha Manthe, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4433 Facsimile: (213) 443-4310 E-mail: dwillingham@kslaw.com ryeung@kslaw.com rmanthe@kslaw.com - and - Chelsea Corey, Esq. HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP 50 S. Tryon Street, Suite 700 Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (980) 771-8251 E-mail: chelsea.corey@haynesboone.com UNITED TAX: Salaiz Must Conduct Immediate Discovery by July 3 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIK SALAIZ, v. UNITED TAX DEFENSE LLC and GARY W CRAIG, Case No. 3:24-cv-00361-KC (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Kathleen Cardone entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion for leave to conduct immediate discovery on or before July 3, 2025. The Court further entered an order that: -- if appropriate, Plaintiff shall file a motion for class certification no later than July 3, 2025. -- should Plaintiff determine that class certification is inappropriate in this case, Plaintiff shall file his motion for default judgment no later than July 3, 2025. -- Otherwise, the Plaintiff may file a motion for default judgment no later than two weeks after the Court’s decision on the motion for class certification. Because both United Tax and Craig have failed to appear, Plaintiff cannot conduct the discovery necessary to certify the class or determine damages absent a Court order. Accordingly, the Court finds that there is good cause to allow Plaintiff to conduct limited discovery pertaining to class certification and damages. The Plaintiff filed his Complaint as a putative class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on October 3, 2024. Plaintiff appears to have properly served United Tax and Gary Craig on Oct. 10, 2024. Accordingly, both United Tax and Craig's answers were due on October 31, 2024. That deadline passed, and United Tax and Craig did not file an Answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint. On Dec. 17, 2024, Plaintiff moved for Clerk's entry of default, which the Clerk entered the same day. United Tax offers practical and affordable solutions to individuals and businesses. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eZW8iC at no extra charge.[CC] UNIVERSAL BEAUTY: Tucker Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- HENRY TUCKER, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL BEAUTY PRODUCTS INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00024 (S.D.N.Y., January 2, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://jamaicanmangolime.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. 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, says the suit. 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. Universal Beauty Products Inc. operates the Jamaican Mango Lime online interactive website and retail store that offers hair care products & essentials.[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 VCA INC: Aids Meta to Eavesdrop Website Visitors, Jimenez Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- LIZETH JIMENEZ and AYREANNE BORDEAUX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VCA, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00301-LB (N.D. Cal., Jan. 8, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all California residents who have a Facebook account and accessed and navigated vcahospitals.com while in California. According to the complaint, the Defendant aids, agrees with, employs, or otherwise enables a third party, Meta Platforms, Inc., to eavesdrop on communications sent and received by Plaintiffs and Class Members on the Website that Defendant owns and operates, including communications that contain sensitive and confidential information about their pets. By failing to procure consent before enabling Meta to intercept these communications, Defendants violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act. Plaintiff Lizeth Jimenez is a resident and citizen of Huntington Park, California. In 2010, he created a Facebook account. Between 2019 and November 2022, he visited the VCA Website on the same browser that she used to access Facebook. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and Class Members did not consent to any of Meta's actions. Nor have Plaintiffs or Class Members consented to Meta's intentional use of an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon and record the confidential communications of Plaintiffs and Class Members. Meta sells advertising space by highlighting its ability to target users. Meta can target users so effectively because it surveils user activity both on and off its site. This allows Meta to make inferences about users beyond what they explicitly disclose, like their "interests," "behaviors," and "demographics, the suit alleges. VCA Animal Hospitals provides veterinary care services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com VERITAS PROPERTY: Faces Pizarro Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- MARCUS PIZARRO, on behalf of himself, individually, and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VERITAS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC and 2023 BELMONT AVENUE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CORPORATION d/b/a 2023 BELMONT AVENUE HDFC, and JAMES MAISTRE, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-10050 (S.D.N.Y., December 31, 2024) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations. The Plaintiff brings this action to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid wages for Defendants' failure to pay agreed upon rates of pay, damages for failure to provide accurate wage statements for each pay period, damages for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit under New York common law, and to recover unpaid prevailing wages and supplemental benefits owed to Plaintiff as a third-party beneficiary of contracts entered into with one or more public entities, and any other claims that can be inferred from the facts set forth herein. The Plaintiff commenced his employment with Defendant 2023 Belmont Avenue HDFC as a non-exempt porter and laborer in or about 2012, a position that he held until his termination in or about January 2024. Veritas Property Management LLC is a full-service property management firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Barnhorn, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 VOANCE LLC: Zhinin Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------- LUZ ALEJANDRINA GUAMAN ZHININ, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. VOANCE LLC d/b/a VOANCE HAIR SALON, and RASHEDA AKTER, Case No. 1:25-cv-00126 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 7, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants employed the Plaintiff to work as a non-exempt hair washer/brusher, pedicurist, and porter at the Hair Salon from in or about May 2021 until Dec. 6, 2024. Voance owns and operates a hair salon doing business as "Voance Hair Salon," located at 1065 Lexington Avenue, New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 60 East 42nd Street, 40th Floor New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com WHISK 197 ATLANTIC: Fernandez Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WHISK 197 ATLANTIC AVE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00017 (S.D.N.Y., January 2, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.whisknyc.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff was injured when she attempted multiple times, most recently on August 22, 2024 to access Defendant's website from her home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Due to Defendant's failure to build the website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the drying rack (White Dish Rack), that Plaintiff wished to acquire from the website, says the suit. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. WHISK 197 Atlantic Ave, Inc. operates the website that offers and sells kitchen supplies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com WOLFSPEED INC: Faces Maizner Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------------ WILLIAM MAIZNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WOLFSPEED, INC., GREGG A. LOWE, and NEILL P. REYNOLDS, Case No. 6:25-cv-00046-ECC-MJK (N.D.N.Y., Jan. 8, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons and entities other than the Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Wolfspeed securities between Aug. 16, 2023, and Nov. 6, 2024, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The alleged misrepresentations in this case focus on Wolfspeed's Mohawk Valley fabrication facility and the Company's broader growth potential. In pertinent part, the Defendants provided the public with revenue projections that depended on the Mohawk Valley fabrication facility ramping its production to meet and/or exceed demand for its 200mm wafer product. The Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, misrepresenting and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Wolfspeed's growth potential and, in particular, the operational status and profitability of the Mohawk Valley fabrication facility. First, to meet its publicly stated projections, the Company would have to cancel or otherwise indefinitely suspend planned future projects. Second, the Company would have to terminate a significant portion of its workforce (approximately 20%) and shutter the Durham fabrication facility. On this news, Wolfspeed's stock price fell $2.24 per share, or 8.62%, to close at $23.76 per share on June 20, 2024. Then, on November 6, 2024, Wolfspeed announced its financial results for the first quarter of fiscal year 2025 and unveiled guidance for the second quarter well below expectations. While Defendants had repeatedly claimed that 20% utilization of the Mohawk Valley fabrication facility would result in $100 million revenue out of the facility, Defendants now guided to a range 30% to 50% below that mark. The Company attributed its results and lowered guidance to "demand ramping more slowly than we originally anticipated" as "EV customers revise their launch time lines as the market works though this transition period." On this news, Wolfspeed's stock price fell $5.38 per share, or 39.24%, to close at $8.33 per share on Nov. 7, 2024. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Wolfspeed is a global semiconductor company focused on silicon carbide materials and the fabrication of devices for power applications. Wolfspeed largely targets its products toward the electric vehicle and industrial and energy sectors through its fabrication facilities in Mohawk Valley, New York and Durham, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: ahood@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com YZER LLC: Misclassifies Drivers as Contractors, Gunaydin Says ------------------------------------------------------------- MUHAMMED GUNAYDIN and DELVIS TAVAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Yzer, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00198 (D.N.J., Jan. 8, 2025) seeks relief under the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs and others performed pharmaceutical and other deliveries for Yzer. Although they were labelled as "independent contractors" of Yzer, the drivers are actually "employees" of Yzer as that term is defined in New Jersey's wage laws and the FLSA. As a result of this misclassification, Plaintiffs and other drivers have been denied full payment of wages, including overtime and minimum wage, the lawsuit says. Mr. Gunaydin is an adult resident of Beverly, New Jersey. He worked performing delivery services for Yzer in New Jersey from approximately April 2021 to May 2022. Mr. Tavarez is an adult resident of Lyndhurst, New Jersey. He worked performing delivery services for Yzer in New Jersey from December 2021 to November 2024. The Plaintiffs bring this action on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals comprised of all other persons who have worked for Yzer as delivery drivers in the State of New Jersey at any time during the applicable limitations period and who have been classified as independent contractors. The Plaintiffs and other drivers pick up products from various warehouse locations in New Jersey and deliver them to pharmacies, hospitals, and long-term care facilities in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The Defendant operates a last-mile delivery service specializing in delivery of prescription drugs and other products from warehouses to retail pharmacies, hospitals, and long term care facilities in New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Abay, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 76 E. Euclid Avenue, Suite 101 Haddonfield, NJ 08035 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: jabay@llrlaw.com - and - Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Matthew W. Thomson, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com mthomson@llrlaw.com [*] MMA Applies to Elkhart-County Class Action, High Court Rules ---------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Carson, writing for The Indiana Lawyer, reports that a split Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday, January 9, 2025, the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act does apply to claims in a class-action lawsuit brought in Elkhart Superior Court on behalf of patients against an unspecified hospital. The high court affirmed the lower court's ruling on the application of the MMA, but reversed the trial court's denial of the patients' motion for class certification. The court found that the law covers all claims for medical "malpractice" (as that term is defined) and is not limited to claims involving only bodily injury or death. It also ruled that the trial court had jurisdiction to preliminarily determine class certification and remanded the case for the trial court to consider the plaintiffs' certification motion. According to court records, Linda Gierek was one of more than 1,000 patients who had a surgical procedure at an unspecified hospital and who were later informed that one of the hospital's technicians didn't complete a step in sterilizing surgical instruments. Gierek and her husband filed a class-action complaint with the Elkhart Superior Court and a proposed class-action complaint with the commissioner of the Indiana Department of Insurance, asserting claims against the hospital for negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence and, in the alternative, medical malpractice. The Giereks also filed motions requesting the certification of two classes: one for the hospital's patients and another for patients' spouses. Additional plaintiffs were permitted to intervene in the action, which was consolidated with a later-filed class-action brought by Cheyanne Bennett, who filed her own motion for class certification. The Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund intervened and filed a motion for partial summary judgment, asserting the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act doesn't apply to the plaintiffs' claims. The plaintiffs filed statements in support of the PCF's motion. The hospital filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment, asserting the MMA does apply. The trial court denied the PCF's motion for partial summary judgment and granted the hospital's cross-motion for partial summary judgment, ruling the MMA applies to the plaintiffs' claims. But the trial court also denied the plaintiffs' motions for class certification, ruling it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to grant them as a preliminary determination under the MMA. In June, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. The appellate court found that the trial court didn't err in concluding the MMA applies to their claims. But the appellate court agreed that the trial court erred in its conclusion that it didn't have subject-matter jurisdiction to grant the motions to certify a class. The issue was remanded for full consideration of the plaintiffs' motions for class certification. In their petition to transfer, defendants "Anonymous 1", "Anonymous 2" and "Anonymous 3" argued the appellate court had violated well-established rules of statutory construction. The supreme court granted transfer in October. Justice Christopher Goff, writing for the majority, said the court concluded that the MMA covers all claims for "malpractice" by a "patient" against a "health care provider" (as those terms are defined in the Act) and that nothing in the state's Complaint Statute limits this scope of coverage. "Our conclusion follows from the plain language of the Complaint Statute, and it aligns with decades of precedent, the Act's legislative history, and its overarching purpose. What's more, our reading of the Statute ensures compliance with the MMA's statute of limitations by patients, like those here, that may suffer from a latent bodily injury following an act of malpractice," Goff wrote, in an opinion joined by Chief Justice Loretta Rush and Justice Mark Massa. The court also ruled the trial court had jurisdictional discretion to preliminarily determine class certification in the case. Goff wrote the act only prohibits a trial court from issuing a preliminary determination on an "affirmative defense or issue of law or fact" reserved for the panel's expert opinion -- i.e., whether the defendant "failed to comply with the appropriate standard of care" and whether the conduct factored into the "resultant damages." Justice Geoffrey Slaughter concurred in the judgment in part and dissented in part with a separate opinion, which Justice Derek Molter joined. Slaughter wrote that the act does not apply because the plaintiffs are not alleging "bodily injury or death". "The plaintiffs here have not alleged bodily injury (or death) -- only emotional distress. Their limited allegation means their claims are not subject to the act," Slaughter wrote. The case is Linda Gierek and Stephen Gierek, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, et al. v. Anonymous 1, Anonymous 2, and Anonymous 3, et al. and Amy L. Beard, Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Insurance, 23S-CT-277. [GN] [*] Pro-Palestinian Protesters Seek Damages in Class-Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Sarrouh, writing for CTV News, reports that protestors at Square Victoria suffered damages when police dismantled their encampment, according to an activist with the group Divest for Palestine. Rene Delvaux now seeking up to $30,000 dollars for each camper in an application for a class-action lawsuit against the City of Montreal. But establishing common cause is a long shot, says CTV's legal analyst Ari Goldkind. "The way this reads . . . is that there's a bunch of separate claims," he says. The application was filed at the Quebec Superior Court on Dec. 23. It alleges police intimidated and repressed protestors, which caused them psychological distress. Montreal police are also accused of damaging the group's property, including tents and sleeping bags. That could have legal consequences, if proven, Goldkind says. "The police have to act with reasonable force in the lawful execution of their duties. They're not to take hammers, to break stuff," he adds. The motion also alleges police dismantled the encampment without notice or justification, infringing on protestors' fundamental freedom to demonstrate. Another claim is that a spokesperson with the group was arrested and unjustifiably detained. The law firm leading the motion, Melancon Marceau Grenier, did not respond to CTV's request for an interview. The city says it can't comment on a case before the court. In order to move forward, the class action has to be authorized by a judge. [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Peter Angelos' Estate to Pay $57MM Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Terri Oppenheimer of Mesothelioma.net reports that in 1994, a Baltimore law firm reached a settlement with an asbestos installer that paid thousands of mesothelioma and asbestos-related disease victims between $1,000 and $9,500 per claim. Three decades later, the victims settled a legal malpractice claim with the law firm over errors made in the original agreement: the new settlement provides an additional $57 million to the more than 7,000 beneficiaries. The path that mesothelioma and other asbestos-disease victims traveled to the new $57 million asbestos settlement has been long and winding. The original 1994 settlement agreement with Baltimore-area asbestos installer MCIC, Inc. was negotiated by the Law Offices of Peter Angelos. That agreement agreement was predicated on an MCIC's insurers paying out all available insurance to a settlement fund. But in 1998, the Angelos firm discovered "substantial additional insurance applicable to the claims." The firm filed a motion on behalf of the mesothelioma and asbestos-disease victims to enforce the settlement but did not do so until 2002, by which time the courts ruled too much time had passed. Nineteen years later, a different law firm representing those victims filed suit against the original attorneys who managed their claim, accusing the firm of legal malpractice. In November, that claim resulted in an agreement to pay $57 million to those victims based on the injury categories established in the original settlement. The monies will largely be paid from the estate of the law firm's principal. ********* 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 2025. 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 ***