/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250122.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, January 22, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 16
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Adams Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Cruz Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Darling Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Forbes Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Sued Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Chemicals
3RD DEGREE SOLUTIONS: Terrell Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
530 FOOD CORP: Gallardo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
AG-PRO COMPANIES: Lioces Sues to Challenge Wage-and-Hour Practices
AGENUS INC: Faces Chen Suit Over 58.83% Decline of Stock Price
ALTAMAREA INTELLECTUAL: Riley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Bid to Strike Mangar Class Allegations Tossed
AMERICAN CUSTOM: Faces Reyes Labor Class Action in Cal. Super.
AMPLIFY ENERGY: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Juniper Capital
ASM GLOBAL: Hoover Files Personal Injury Suit in C.D. Calif.
ASM RESEARCH: Faces Simaytis Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Va.
BET INFORMATION SYSTEMS: Tiry Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BEVERAGE WORKS: Court Withdraws Class Certification Bid
BLOCK INC: Tucker Sues Over Unfair Competition Law Violation
BREEZE FINANCIAL: Laughlin Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
BROOKHAVEN BOROUGH: Bradley Sues Over Reckless Deprivation
CARDLYTICS INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
CARRIAGE PURCHASER: Dooley Files Suit in N.D. Alabama
CERTEGY PAYMENT: Stachewicz Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
CHIP COOKIE CORP: Sumlin Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
CHRISTINE WORMUTH: Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge
CHRISTINE WORMUTH: Rosales Seeks to Certify Servicemember Class
CITIZENS UNITED RECIPROCAL: Alsaga Files Suit in Mich. Cir. Ct.
CLEANSPARK INC: Bishins Securities Suit Seeks to Certify Class
COLONIAL BEHAVIORAL: Lee Files Contract Suit in E.D. Virginia
COLUMN GROUP: Faces Bryant Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
CONNECTONCALL.COM LLC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Denny Says
CORE ANALYTICS: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Garrett Says
CRUNCHLABS LLC: Kohn Files Suit in E.D. New York
D'ARTAGNAN INC: Faces Class Suit Over Telemarketing Text Messages
DELOITTE CONSULTING: Pannozzi Files Personal Injury Suit in D.R.I.
DITCHEY GEIGER: Faces Cherrie Suit Over FDCPA Breach
ECOATM LLC: Faces Rodriguez Suit Over Tiktok Software Installation
ELI LILLY: Sued Over Insulin Pricing Scheme
FCA US: Jeep Vehicles Prone to Underhood Fires, Suit Alleges
FLORIDA CREDIT: Refuses DACA Membership Due to Immigration Status
FULTON COUNTY, GA: Hambrick Seeks to Certify Rice Street Class
GILMORE SERVICES: Halton Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
GLOBAL EXCHANGE: Bid to Seal Exhibit in Avery Class Suit OK'd
GLOBAL EXCHANGE: Class Cert Hearing in Avery Extended to March 10
GOLDEN KRUST: Trippett Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
GRASS ROOTS NATURAL: McMahon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
GREEN FARMS: Gomez-Badajoz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
GREY DOG INC: Reyes Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
GROW CARE: Doe Files Personal Injury Claims in N.D. Calif.
HEALTH TECH ACADEMY: Radvansky Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
HELLO KIDS: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Fluoride Mouthrinses
ICHIGO ICHIE: Zheng Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Restaurant Chefs
INDIANA UNIVERSITY: Ex-IU Basketball Player Joins Abuse Lawsuit
JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Boduch Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
JORIKI USA INC: Gretano Files Suit in Del. Bankruptcy Ct.
JUMPSTARTMD INC: Andrighetto Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
KIEF'S REEF: Leon Sues Over Failure to Compensate Overtime
LATCH INC: Settlement in Schwartz Suit for Court OK
LATCH INC: To Settle Brennan Securities Suit in New York Court
LCPTRACKER INC: Mazmanian Files Personal Injury Suit in C.D. Cal.
LIFECARE AMBULETTE: Lee Sues Over Unlawful Employment Policies
LINENS AND HUTCH: Schulman Files TCPA Suit in C.D. Calif.
LISA WOLFE: Bid for Class Cert Hearing in Weinberg Suit OK'd
M&V MEXICAN FOOD: Moshan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MAC PROPERTY: Faces Moore Suit Over Voucher Discrimination in Ill.
MARTECH STACK: Faces Keshishyan TCPA Suit in C.D. Calif.
MCLAUGHLIN BODY: Scheduling Order Deadlines Entered in Hagerman
MDL 2873: AFFF Products "Defective," Thompson Suit Alleges
MDL 2873: DiPietro Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
MDL 2873: Faces Hall Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Elements
MDL 2873: Kennelly Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products
MDL 2873: Two Suits Consolidated in AFFF Liability Row
MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Fisher Sues Over Defective Wound Dressing
MIDLAND CREDIT: Filing for Class Certification Bids Due Nov. 14
NATIONAL MENTOR: Hagans Wins Class Cert Bid
NAVY FEDERAL: Buckholts State Sues Over Check Fraud
NEW FIELD HONOLULU: Heard Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
NEXA MORTGAGE: Raslavich TCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
NEXSTAR BROADCASTING: Radford Suit Removed to C.D. California
NEXUSCW INC: Haws Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
NORTHERN TRUST: $6.9MM Class Settlement Reached in Retirement Suit
NOVUS CREATUS: Fagnani Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
NURTURE INC: Bid to Continue Class Certification Briefing OK'd
OAKLAND COUNTY, MI: Sinclair Loses Bid for Class Certification
ONTARIO TEACHERS': Members Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
ORTHOPEDICSNY: Glassman Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI
PACIRA BIOSCIENCES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
PETSMART LLC: Oaks Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
PIH HEALTH: Bottoms Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Personal Info
PIH HEALTH: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Estrada Suit Says
PIH HEALTH: Fails to Protect Patients' Personal Info, Walsh Alleges
POLYGLASS USA: Conditional Cert. Bid Filing Extended to March 31
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Rivera Files Debt Collection Suit in M.D. Fla.
POSITEC TOOL: Figueroa Sues Over Unlawful Telephonic Calls
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: E.H. Sues Over Data Breach
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Vargha Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
PRESSLER FELT: Carrasco Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
PRINX CHENGSHAN: Smith Sues Over Unlawful Manufacturing
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Amendment of Class Cert Dates Sought in CIS
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Amendment of Class Cert Dates Sought in Pietoso
RESTORE IT ALL: Arteaga Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
RICARDO LLC: Agostini Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
RICHLAND COUNTY, SC: Parties Must File Additional Briefings
RITTER LAW: Class Settlement in Church Suit Gets Initial Nod
ROCHE BROTHERS INC: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SAG-AFTRA HEALTH: Furlan Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Parties Seek to Re-set Class Cert Deadlines
SET FORTH INC: Meza Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
SET FORTH: Faces $9.9M Jones Class Action Suit in N.D. Ill.
SET FORTH: Moses Sues Over Failure to Protect Information
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Koelbl Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
SIEMENS MOBILITY: Class Cert Hearing in Keopadubsy Set for March 27
SMG FOOD: Filing for Class Certification in Ordono Due March 9
SMG FOOD: Parties Seek March 9 Class Certification Bid Filing
SOLAR MOSAIC: Faces Sauer Suit Over Undisclosed Financing Fees
SPRECKELS SUGAR: Briefing Schedule Entered in Castro Class Suit
SPROUTS FARMERS: Tyndall Sues Over Unfair Competition
SRP FEDERAL: Dunn Sues Over Unlawful Data Security Practices
STERLING INVESTMENT: Prelim. Approval of Settlement Deal Sought
STOPBOX USA: Faces Rodriguez Class Suit Over Fake Prices
STURM & RUGER: All Pretrial Deadlines in Jones Class Suit Stayed
SUTHERLAND GLOBAL: Less Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action
SYSTEM1 INC: Agrees to Settle Subscriptions Class Suit for $2.5-M
TARANTINO PROPERTIES: Cross Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TARGET CORPORATION: Oaks Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
TELUS INTERNATIONAL: Faces Breach Class Suit Over AI Offerings
TENNESSEE GAS: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Bradish Due April 30
TESLA MOTORS: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California
TESLA MOTORS: Pizano Suit Removed to C.D. California
TRANSDEV SERVICES: Court OK's Submission of Bid to Certify Class
TRUMBULL INSURANCE: Scheduling Order in Grawe Class Suit Amended
TURBO DEBT: Andoh Sues Over Invasion of Privacy
TWITTER INC: Order on Joint Discovery Entered
TYCON MEDICAL SYSTEMS: Davis Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
UMR INC: Troxel Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
UNITED HEALTH: Class Cert Hearing in Mitchell Continued to Feb. 28
UNITED STATES: Class Settlement in Farrell Gets Initial Nod
UNITED STATES: Settlement Agreement in Giotto Gets Initial Nod
VAIL RESORTS: Bisaillon Sues Over Unlawful Concealment
VENTRA SALEM: Davidson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
VENUS FASHION: Walker Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
VMSB LLC: Volpe Seeks Extension of Discovery Deadline
VOICE SEARCH: Leither Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
VONACHEN SERVICES: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Kallas
WALDORF ASTORIA: Yarijanian Suit Removed to C.D. California
WALMART INC: Court Strikes E-Filed Documents
WOLFSPEED INC: Ferreira Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC: Wiernik Removed from Sup. Ct. to D. Mass.
*********
3M COMPANY: Adams Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Adams, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL
COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No.
2:24-cv-06720-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 21, 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.
PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist
biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in
people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air,
and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire
suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to
extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS,
PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS.
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 man-made compounds that are
persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the
environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and
safety. 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.
Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required
to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades
by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in
training and in response to Class B fires.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff,
and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate
for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing,
reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in
connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as
a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive,
equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's service in the United
States Air Force.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone (305) 375-0111
Email: james@ferrarolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Cruz Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Cruz, 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-06491-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 Testicular 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: Darling Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Darling, 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-06503-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 Testicular 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: Forbes Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
Lewis Forbes, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL
COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No.
2:24-cv-06735-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 21, 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.
PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist
biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in
people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air,
and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire
suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to
extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS,
PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS.
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 man-made compounds that are
persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the
environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and
safety. 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.
Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required
to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades
by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in
training and in response to Class B fires.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff,
and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate
for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing,
reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in
connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as
a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive,
equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's service in the United
States Army.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone (305) 375-0111
Email: james@ferrarolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Sued Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael De La Garza, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION;
ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.;
CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD
INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.;
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX
CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY
APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE
DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No. 2:24-cv-06732-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 21,
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.
PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist
biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in
people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air,
and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire
suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to
extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS,
PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS.
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 man-made compounds that are
persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the
environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and
safety. 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.
Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required
to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades
by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in
training and in response to Class B fires.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff,
and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate
for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing,
reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in
connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as
a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive,
equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's service in the United
States Army.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone (305) 375-0111
Email: james@ferrarolaw.com
3RD DEGREE SOLUTIONS: Terrell Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3RD DEGREE SOLUTIONS,
INC., et al. The case is styled as Daniel Terrell, and all others
similarly situated v. 3RD DEGREE SOLUTIONS, INC., Does 1-100. Case
No. 24CV023409 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 15, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
3rd Degree Solutions, Inc. -- https://www.3rdgm.com/ -- offers
business development, leadership, management training, career
growth, entry-level job opportunities, and more across
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Mara, Esq.
MARA LAW FIRM, PC
2650 Camino Del Rio N., Ste. 302
San Diego, CA 92108-1632
Phone: 619-234-2833
Fax: 619-234-4048
Email: dmara@maralawfirm.com
530 FOOD CORP: Gallardo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Isidro Gallardo, on behalf of himself and others similarly Situated
v. 530 FOOD CORP. d/b/a KEY FOOD, 2401 FOOD CORP. d/b/a KEY FOOD
UWS, TED Y PARK, Case No. 1:25-cv-00201 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 10, 2025),
is brought pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") the New
York Labor Law ("NYLL"), that he and other similarly situated
individuals are entitled to recover from Defendants: unpaid wages,
including overtime, due to time-shaving; compensation for late
payment of wages; unpaid spread of hours premium; statutory
penalties; liquidated damages; and attorney's fees and costs.
The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with
a policy of not paying Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and
Class members for all hours worked, including overtime, due to
Defendants' policy of timeshaving. The Defendants knowingly and
willfully operated their business with a policy of not paying
Plaintiff and Class members their proper wages within seven days
after the end of the week in which the wages are earned, in
violation of the NYLL.
The Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and
Class members their spread of hours premiums for shifts worked in
excess of 10 hours, in violation of the NYLL. Defendants knowingly
and willfully operated their business with a policy of not
providing Plaintiff and Class members with wage notices upon hiring
and annually thereafter as required under NYLL, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed to work in the Produce Department at
Defendants' Key Food located in New York City in June 2016.
The Defendants collectively own and operate grocery stores at the
following locations in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 465-1188
Fax: (212) 465-1181
AG-PRO COMPANIES: Lioces Sues to Challenge Wage-and-Hour Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
John Lioces, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. AG-PRO COMPANIES, LLC and, AG-PRO OHIO, LLC, Case No.
7:25-cv-00009-WLS (M.D. Ga., Jan. 13, 2025), is brought challenging
wage-and-hour practices of Defendants by which they willfully
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and Georgia's
common law of unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff, the Opt-Ins, and the Class Members regularly work
over 40 hours in a workweek. The weekly wages of Plaintiff, the
Opt-Ins, and the Class Members regularly consist of a larger
proportion of salary/guaranteed payment than commissions, rendering
those employees non-exempt for such workweeks. Yet, due to
Defendants' misclassification of all salespersons as outright
exempt, Defendants illegally withhold any overtime premium for
salespersons even in weeks where they work over forty hours and are
not eligible for any exemption.
The Defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, that its
salespersons were entitled to overtime compensation under federal
law. Nevertheless, Defendants willfully circumvented and violated
the requirements of the FLSA by uniformly classifying their
salespersons as exempt from overtime. Defendants knew or had full
reason to know – with a modicum of investigation – that their
Sales Representatives were due time-and-a-half compensation for
their overtime hours, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants from May 15, 2024 through end
of October 2024 as a salesperson, with primary job duties of
selling John Deere equipment and machinery.
Ag-Pro Companies runs the largest chain of John Deere equipment
retailers in North America, all branded as "Ag-Pro" stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun C. Southworth (GA Bar# 959122)
SOUTHWORTH PC
1100 Peachtree ST NE, Suite 200
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: 404-585-8095
Fax: 404-393-4129
Email: shaun@southworthpc.com
- and -
Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq.
TITTLE & PERLMUTER
4106 Bridge Ave.
Cleveland, OH 44113
Phone: 216-308-1522
Fax: 888-604-9299
Email: scott@tittlelawfirm.com
AGENUS INC: Faces Chen Suit Over 58.83% Decline of Stock Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL CHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GARO H. ARMEN, CHRISTINE M. KLASKIN, STEVEN
J. O'DAY, BRIAN CORVESE, SUSAN HIRSCH, ALLISON M. JEYNESELLIS, ULF
WIINBERG, TIMOTHY R. WRIGHT, and AGENUS INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-13088 (D. Mass., December 13, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.
According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by issuing, causing the issuance of, and/or failing to
correct the materially false and/or misleading statements and
omissions of material fact to the investing public from at least
January 23, 2023, through July 17, 2024. Specifically, the
Defendants failed to disclose: (i) Agenus's investigational
botensilimab/balstilimab combination therapy was less effective
than Defendants had led investors to believe; and (ii) as a result,
the botensilimab/balstilimab combination therapy's clinical results
and regulatory and commercial prospects were overstated. As a
result, the Defendants caused the company's public statements to be
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
When the truth emerged, the company's stock price declined $10.43
per share, or 58.83 percent, to close at $7.30 per share on July
18, 2024. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the company
has incurred significant financial losses, including the cost of
defending and paying class-wide damages in the securities class
action, as well as additional losses, including reputational harm
and loss of goodwill, the suit alleges.
Agenus Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company in Lexington,
Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Coyle IV, Esq.
THE BROWN LAW FIRM, PC
767 Third Avenue, Suite 2501
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (516) 922-5427
Facsimile: (516) 344-6204
Email: jcoyle@thebrownlawfirm.net
- and -
Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
RIGRODSKY LAW, P.A.
825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 683-3516
Email: tjm@rl-legal.com
- and -
Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
GRABAR LAW OFFICE
One Liberty Place
1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 507-6085
Email: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com
ALTAMAREA INTELLECTUAL: Riley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amanie Riley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Altamarea Intellectual Property, LLC, Case No.
1:25-cv-00281 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2025), is brought against the
Defendants for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Dr. Reddy's Laboratories provides to their non-disabled
customers through https://www.marearestaurant.com (hereinafter
"Marearestaurant.com" or "the website"). Defendant's denial of full
and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its
products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans
with Disabilities Act (the "ADA").
Because Defendant's website, Marearestaurant.com, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change
in Altamarea's policies, practices, and procedures to that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.
The Grey Dog provides to the public a website known as
Thegreydog.com which provides consumers with access to an array of
services, including, the ability to view American comfort food,
including classic breakfast options, sandwiches, salads, burgers,
and dinner plates.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher Cohen, Esq.
ASHER COHEN LAW PLLC
2377 56th LY,
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Phone: +1 (718) 914-9694
Email: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Bid to Strike Mangar Class Allegations Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MALYSHA MANGAR and
CHASELYNN BENAVIDES on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-00188-JXN-AME (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Julien Xavier Neals
denies in its entirety Defendant's motion to dismiss and strike
Plaintiffs' class allegations.
It is premature at this stage of the proceeding for the Court to
address Defendant's arguments calling into question the viability
of the purported class.
Moreover, it is not apparent from the allegations before the Court
"that the requirements for maintaining a class action cannot be
met."
On Jan. 11, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against the
Defendant, alleging interference under the FMLA (Count I) and
retaliation under the FMLA (Count II).
The Complaint seeks to define the class as:
"Employees of Defendant Amazon who took approved medical
leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act and were
involuntarily terminated during the period of the approved
medical leave."
Since September 2020, Mangar worked for the Defendant as a
Warehouse Associate in its Edison, New Jersey warehouse.
Amazon.com Services provides e-commerce services. The Company
retails books, diamond jewelry, electronics, appliances, apparels,
and accessories.
A copy of the Court's opinion dated Dec. 28, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CEJj1t at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMERICAN CUSTOM: Faces Reyes Labor Class Action in Cal. Super.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Custom
Meats, LLC, a California limited liability company et al. The case
is captioned as Johalmo Jurado Reyes, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. American Custom Meats, LLC, a
California limited liability company et al., Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2024-0018066 (Cal. Super., Dec. 26, 2024).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Blanca Banuelos.
The suit alleges labor law-related violations.
American Custom provides controlled meat programs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John G. Yslas, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wishire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 255-3937
E-mail: jyslas@wilshirelawfirm.com
AMPLIFY ENERGY: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Juniper Capital
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating Amplify Energy Corp. (NYSE: AMPY), relating to the
proposed merger with Juniper Capital. Under the terms of the
agreement, Amplify shareholders will retain approximately 61% of
Amplify's outstanding equity.
Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/amplify-energy-corp-ampy/. 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 the above listed company 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]
ASM GLOBAL: Hoover Files Personal Injury Suit in C.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ASM Global Parent,
Inc. The case is captioned as SHEA HOOVER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. ASM GLOBAL PARENT, INC.,
Case No. 2:24-cv-10794-WLH-PVC (C.D. Cal., December 13, 2024).
The Plaintiff brings personal injury claims against the Defendant.
ASM Global Parent, Inc. is a venue & event management company based
in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, APLC
12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (747) 777-7748
Email: aberry@justice4you.com
gharoutunian@justice4you.com
- and -
Grayson Wells, Esq.
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
STRANCH JENNINGS AND GARVEY PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Email: gwells@stranchlaw.com
gstranch@stranchlaw.com
ASM RESEARCH: Faces Simaytis Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Va.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ASM Research LLC. The
case is captioned as LUCAS SIMAYTIS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ASM RESEARCH LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-02304-CMH-IDD (E.D. Va., December 17, 2024).
The suit is brought over the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
ASM Research LLC is a provider of information technology services
in Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kathryn E. Milz, Esq.
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ PC
One Towne Square, Suite 1700
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
Facsimile: (248) 746-4001
Email: kmilz@sommerspc.com
kstoops@sommerspc.com
- and -
Matthew Thomas Sutter, Esq.
SUTTER & TERPAK PLLC
Annandale, VA 22003
Telephone: (703) 256-1800
Facsimile: (730) 991-6116
Email: matt@sutterandterpak.com
BET INFORMATION SYSTEMS: Tiry Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BET Information
Systems, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Deanna Tiry, as an
individual and on behalf of all other similarly situated class
members v. BET Information Systems, Inc., Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2025-0000422 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Jan.
10, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
BET Information Systems was formerly known as Interaction Media
Group.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary Crosner, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Phone: (310) 496-5818
Fax: (310) 510-6429
Email: zach@crosnerlegal.com
BEVERAGE WORKS: Court Withdraws Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ortiz v. The Beverage
Works NY, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-04424 (E.D.N.Y., Filed June 21,
2024), the Hon. Judge Allyne R. Ross entered an order granting
motion to withdraw Class Certification bid.
Beverage Works is a Red Bull distributor founded in 2000.
The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.[CC]
BLOCK INC: Tucker Sues Over Unfair Competition Law Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
David Tucker, and Lucille Moragne, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. BLOCK, INC., and CAS*H APP
INVESTING, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00370 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 10, 2025),
is brought asserting claims of: violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law; negligence; and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs
bring this action on behalf of a nationwide class for damages,
restitution, injunctive relief, and any other relief deemed
appropriate by the Court.
The Defendant is legally obligated to comply with laws mandating
customer verification and reporting procedures. Yet, two
whistleblowers recently exposed that the Defendant blatantly
disregards these duties to maximize its profit.
This failure to comply with basic legal requirements has fueled the
rise of a new disturbing type of scam, known as "pig butchering."
In 2023 alone, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") reported losses
of a staggering $10.4 billion from these types of scams, with that
number only growing in 2024. The Defendant could have prevented
many of these scams by simply complying with its legal obligations
imposed by laws designed to curb this very conduct. Its failure to
do so has led to significant financial and emotional harm for
countless individuals who have fallen victim to fraud.
Meanwhile, the Defendant portrays itself as a safe and secure
platform. But many consumers would not have used The Defendant had
they known it was actively flouting its legal obligations. Indeed,
"trust" is often the top reason consumers adopt new financial
technologies like The Defendant. By misleading its users, The
Defendant not only breached that trust but also placed those
individuals at significant risk, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs used Cash App's service.
The Defendants are leading digital payment app boasting more than
57 million monthly users.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James B. Zouras, Esq.
Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
Justin M. Caparco, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC
222 West Adams Street, Suite 2020
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: 312-233-1550
Email: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
rstephan@stephanzouras.com
jcaparco@stephanzouras.com
- and -
Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
235 Montgomery Street, Ste. 810
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 277-7235
Email: helland@nka.com
- and -
Robert L. Schug, Esq.
Matthew H. Morgan, Esq.
Martin A. Sandberg, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
80 South 8th Street, Ste. 4700
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 256-3200
Email: schug@nka.com
morgan@nka.com
msandberg@nka.com
BREEZE FINANCIAL: Laughlin Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Breeze Financial,
Inc. The case is styled as Michael Laughlin, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Breeze Financial, Inc., Case
No. 1:25-cv-20157-BB (S.D. Fla., Jan. 10, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Breeze Financial LLC -- https://breezefinancialllc.com/ -- is a
financial services practice that provides, in a totally objective
way, quality products and services to individuals and groups.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael James Pascucci, Esq.
Joshua Harris Eggnatz, Esq.
EGGNATZ PASCUCCI P.A.
7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
Davie, FL 33314
Phone: (954) 889-3359
Fax: (954) 889-5913
Email: MPascucci@JusticeEarned.com
Jeggnatz@JusticeEarned.com
BROOKHAVEN BOROUGH: Bradley Sues Over Reckless Deprivation
----------------------------------------------------------
Armand Bradley, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BROOKHAVEN BOROUGH, Case No. 2:25-cv-00155 (E.D. Pa.,
Jan. 10, 2025), is brought arising from Brookhaven's reckless
deprivation of persons' constitutional rights to property, notice,
and a hearing in conjunction with Brookhaven's towing, impounding,
and disposal of vehicles.
Among its obligations, Brookhaven must provide the affected
vehicles' owners with notice of the vehicle's removal, status, and
location, as well as information on how a vehicle may be reclaimed.
However, between January 2023 and spring of 2024, Brookhaven never
sent any notices nor afforded any opportunity for a hearing to
owners of vehicles that Brookhaven had towed, impounded, or
disposed.
Hundreds of persons had their vehicles towed, impounded, or
disposed of during this time. None of them ever received any notice
of their vehicles' status or location, nor information on how to
reclaim their vehicles, nor an opportunity to appear to dispute or
otherwise reclaim their vehicles.
Instead, Brookhaven wrongly towed, impounded, and disposed of
numerous vehicles, without providing the most fundamental
irreducible Due Process protections of notice and a hearing.
Compounding its shocking and blatant conduct, Brookhaven and/or its
towing agent also has disposed of vehicles that were wrongly towed
and impounded without notice and a hearing. Brookhaven and/or its
hired agent unjustly profited off of this illicit practice to the
extent vehicles were sold.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and other
persons similarly situated for injunctive, declaratory, and
monetary relief because Brookhaven's conduct constitutes a
violation of Plaintiff's and other class members' state and federal
constitutional rights, as well as negligence and unjust enrichment
under state law, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is one of the many vehicle owners who was deprived
notice and a hearing in connection with Brookhaven's improper
towing, impoundment, and disposal practices.
Brookhaven Borough is a local governmental entity in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ruben Honik, Esq.
David J. Stanoch, Esq.
HONIK LLC
1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: 267-435-1300
Email: ruben@honiklaw.com
david@honiklaw.com
CARDLYTICS INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Cardlytics, Inc. (NASDAQ: CDLX) resulting from
allegations that Cardlytics may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
So What: If you purchased Cardlytics 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=33595 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 August 7, 2024, after market hours,
Cardlytics announced its results for the second quarter of 2024. In
pertinent part, Cardlytics announced a 9% year-over-year revenue
decrease. Commenting on these results, the announcement quoted
Cardlytics' Chief Financial Officer as saying that "[w]hile we
observed strong growth in redemptions, our results were challenged
by slower-than-anticipated billings growth coupled with higher
consumer incentives[.] We remain confident that our improved
balance sheet continues to support investment in the business."
On this news, the price of Cardlytics stock fell 57.1% on August 8,
2024.
Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS
Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class
action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4
each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438
million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was
named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's
attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
CARRIAGE PURCHASER: Dooley Files Suit in N.D. Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carriage Purchaser,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Gregory Dooley, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Carriage Purchaser,
Inc. d/b/a PS Logistics, Case No. 2:25-cv-00051-RDP (N.D. Ala.,
Jan. 10, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Carriage Purchaser, Inc. doing business as PS Logistics --
https://www.pslogistics.com/ -- is a full-service transportation
and logistics solution.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Austin Brock Whitten, Esq.
PITTMAN, DUTTON & HELLUMS, P.C.
2001 Park Place North, Ste. 1100
Birmingham, AL 35203
Phone: (205) 322-8880
Fax: (205) 328-2711
Email: austinw@pittmandutton.com
- and -
Jonathan S. Mann, Esq.
PITTMAN DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN
2001 Park Place North, Ste. 1100
Birmingham, AL 35203
Phone: (205) 322-8880
Fax: (205) 328-2711
Email: jonm@pittmandutton.com
CERTEGY PAYMENT: Stachewicz Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY STACHEWICZ, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CERTEGY
PAYMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01258-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23:
-- certifying class action,
-- certifying Plaintiff Nancy Stachewicz as a proper
representative, and
-- appointing the law firms of Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C. and
SmithMarco, P.C. as class counsel.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent two classes of consumers, each of
which can be identified through reference to Certegy's records.
The Inaccurate Records Class First, the Plaintiff seeks to
represent a group of consumers who, like her, were inaccurately
portrayed as higher risk check writer, defined as:
"All natural persons residing within the United States and its
Territories who, from July 11, 2021, and continuing through the
date of certification, (1) Certegy communicated a decline
recommendation associated with the internal R Code 2111 or
2112, (2) the same drivers' license number and/or Full MICR was
associated with the recommendation was, at the time of the
recommendation, with a claim in the Negative File with a return
reason code "M," (3) to whom Certegy sent a Soft Collect
Letter, and (4) Certegy successfully identified a corrected
MICR and redeposited the check."
The Failure to Disclose Class Plaintiff also seeks to represent a
group of individuals who requested, but did not receive, a complete
and accurate disclosure of their Certegy file due to Certegy's
failure to use sufficient identifiers to generate the response,
defined as:
"All natural persons residing within the United States and its
Territories from July 11, 2021, and continuing through the date
of certification, who made a request for information from
Certegy, and Certegy responded with a CFDR that (a) was
generated using one or two identifiers, included an item in the
Inquiries section memorializing a decline recommendation due to
reason code 05 (negative information on file), but for which
there was no record shown in both the Outstanding Items and
Resolved Items sections, or (b) was generated using only social
security number and included no information in any section of
the report."
Thes case, brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C.
§§ 1681-1681x ("FCRA") against Defendant Certegy Payment
Solutions, LLC addresses Certegy's operation of a check guarantee
and consumer reporting business, which provides recommendations to
its retailer customers regarding whether to accept checks as a form
of payment at the point of sale.
Certegy is a specialty credit reporting agency.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 10, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hZwclV at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Francis, Esq.
Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com
- and -
David M. Marco, Esq.
SMITHMARCO, P.C.
5250 Old Orchard Road, Suite 300
Skokie, IL 60077
Telephone: (312) 546-6539
Facsimile: (888) 418-1277
E-mail: dmarco@smithmarco.com
CHIP COOKIE CORP: Sumlin Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Sumlin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Chip Cookie Corp., Case No. 1:25-cv-00292 (S.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 13, 2025), is brought against the Defendants for their failure
to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Dr. Reddy's Laboratories provides to their non-disabled
customers through https://www.chipcitycookies.com (hereinafter
"Chipcitycookies.com" or "the website"). Defendant's denial of full
and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its
products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans
with Disabilities Act (the "ADA").
Because Defendant's website, Marearestaurant.com, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change
in Chip Cookie's policies, practices, and procedures to that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.
Chip Cookie provides to the public a website known as
Chipcitycookies.com which provides consumers with access to an
array of goods and services, including, the ability to view freshly
baked cookies in a wide variety of both innovative and classic
flavors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher Cohen, Esq.
ASHER COHEN LAW PLLC
2377 56th LY,
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Phone: +1 (718) 914-9694
Email: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com
CHRISTINE WORMUTH: Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rosales v. Wormuth, et
al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00440 (W.D. Tex., Filed April 26, 2023), the
Hon. Judge David A. Ezra entered an order referring motion to
certify class to Mag. Judge Susan Hightower.
The suit alleges violation of the Right to Privacy Act.[CC]
CHRISTINE WORMUTH: Rosales Seeks to Certify Servicemember Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENISE A. ROSALES,
individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. CHRISTINE WORMUTH, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00440-DAE
(W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
certifying proposed class, appointing class counsel, and granting
any further relief to which she may be justly entitled.
The Plaintiff's proposed class consists of:
"all servicemembers who have served in the United States Army,
Army National Guard, and/or Army Reserve who have been
fingerprinted using the FBI FD-249 fingerprint card but were
not in fact arrested, incarcerated, or charged with a crime
during the period between April 26, 2017 through the date of
judgment."
The nature of the Defendants' behavior applies across the whole
class, and the relief sought by the Plaintiff likewise applies to
all class members equally.
By systematically generating false records of arrest and refusing
to correct them, the Army has denied all class members the ability
to fully participate in society without having their character
impugned by a false criminal history.
From June 2020 to February 2021, Sgt. Rosales was deployed to
Kuwait along with her husband. Starting in December 2020, while
still overseas, Sgt. Rosales’s command investigated her and other
soldiers for the alleged presence of alcohol at her husband's
birthday party, specifically, whether some water bottles had trace
amounts of alcohol. No one alleged that she was intoxicated.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 9, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pNBHUx at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas K. O'Connell, Esq.
O'CONNELL WEST, PLLC
505 West 12th Street, Suite 200
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 547-7265
E-mail: doug@oconnellwest.com
- and -
William B. Thomas, Esq.
William X. King, Esq.
Richard R. Hood, Esq.
MCDOWELL HETHERINGTON LLP
1001 Fannin, Suite 2400
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 337-5580
Facsimile: (713) 337-8850
E-mail: William.Thomas@mhllp.com
William.King@mhllp.com
Richard.Hood@mhllp.com
CITIZENS UNITED RECIPROCAL: Alsaga Files Suit in Mich. Cir. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CITIZENS UNITED
RECIPROCAL EXCHANGE, et al. The case is styled as Hasan Alsaga,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
CITIZENS UNITED RECIPROCAL EXCHANGE, DAILY BLACK FRIDAY LLC, Case
No. 25-000563-NF (Mich. Cir. Ct., Wayne Cty., Jan. 13, 2025).
The case type is stated as "No-Fault Automobile Insurance."
Citizens United Reciprocal Exchange (CURE) -- https://www.cure.com/
-- operates as an insurance firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Majed A. Moughni, Esq.
Abdallah Majed Moughni, Esq.
Phone: (313) 581-0800
CLEANSPARK INC: Bishins Securities Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bishins v. CleanSpark,
Inc. et al., DARSHAN HASTHANTRA, et al., v. CLEANSPARK, INC., et
al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00511-LAP (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs move the
Court for an order:
1. Certifying the following Class:
"All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired the publicly-traded securities of CleanSpark, Inc.
between Dec. 10, 2020 and Aug. 16, 2021, both dates
inclusive."
Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendants; (ii) current
and former officers, employees, and directors of CleanSpark,
Inc.; (iii) blood relatives and household members of any
person excluded under (i) or (ii); and (iv) any entities
affiliated with, controlled by, or more than 10% owned by,
any person excluded under (i) through (iii); and (v) the
legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns of any
person or entity excluded under (i) through (iv).
2. Appointing Lead Plaintiff Darshan Hasthantra as a Class
Representative;
3. Appointing Lead Counsel Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as Class
Counsel; and
4. Granting such other and further relief the Court may deem
just and proper.
CleanSpark operates as a bitcoin miner in the Americas.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 10, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W7rrwh at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Kara Wolke, Esq.
Christopher R. Fallon, Esq.
Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com
kwolke@glancylaw.com
cfallon@glancylaw.com
glinkh@glancylaw.com
- and -
Frank Cruz, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF FRANK CRUZ
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 914-5007
E-mail: fcruz@frankruzlw.com
COLONIAL BEHAVIORAL: Lee Files Contract Suit in E.D. Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Colonial Behavioral
Health. The case is captioned as SONIA LEE, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COLONIAL
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Case No. 4:24-cv-00145-JKW-RJK (E.D. Va.,
December 17, 2024).
The suit is brought over the Defendant's alleged contract
violation.
Colonial Behavioral Health is a healthcare service provider in
Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Seth R. Carroll, Esq.
COMMONWEALTH LAW GROUP
3311 West Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23230
Telephone: (804) 999-9999
Email: scarroll@hurtinva.com
COLUMN GROUP: Faces Bryant Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Column Group, LP,
David V. Goeddel, and David J. Woodhouse. The case is captioned as
Charles Bryant v. The Column Group, LP, David V. Goeddel, and David
J. Woodhouse, Case No. 2024-1314-MTZ (Del. Ch., Dec. 19, 2024).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Morgan Zurn.
The suit alleges breach of fiduciary duties.
Mr. Bryant was a beneficial stockholder of NGM common stock at all
relevant times and had his NGM shares exchanged for cash when the
Transaction closed.
The Column Group operates as a venture capital firm that makes
significant financial and operational commitments to build
early-stage drug discovery companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron M Nelson, Esq.
Brendan Patrick McDonnell, Esq.
Elena M Sassaman, Esq.
Kurt M Heyman, Esq.
HEYMAN ENERIO GATTUSO & HIRZEL LLP
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 200
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 472-7300
Facsimile: (302) 472-7320
E-mail: kheyman@hegh.law
anelson@hegh.law
bmcdonnell@hegh.law
esassaman@hegh.law
- and -
Joel Fleming, Esq.
Amanda Crawford, Esq.
EQUITY LITIGATION GROUP LLP
101 Arch Street, 8th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 468-8602
- and -
Brian Schall, Esq.
Rina Restaino, Esq.
THE SCHALL LAW FIRM
2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 301-3335
CONNECTONCALL.COM LLC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Denny Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DIANNA DENNY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CONNECTONCALL.COM, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-08828-EK-ST
(E.D.N.Y., Dec. 26, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to
properly protect the personally identifiable information and
personal health information it collects, thereby allowing hackers
to exfiltrate the highly sensitive PII and PHI entrusted to the
Defendant.
Between Feb. 16, 2024, and May 12, 2024, at least one unauthorized
third party accessed the data of at least 914,138 individuals
during a cyber-attack that the Defendant failed to detect for
approximately three months. The compromised data included patients'
and other individuals' names, phone numbers, medical record
numbers, dates of birth, information related to health conditions,
treatments, or prescriptions, and Social Security numbers. Nearly
five months after the Defendant learned of the Data Breach,
Defendant disclosed the Data Breach publicly on Dec. 11, 2024.
The Plaintiff and Class members suffered injuries as a result of
Defendant's conduct, including: lost or diminished value of their
PHI and PII; out-of-pocket expenses associated with the prevention,
detection, and recovery from identity theft, medical fraud, tax
fraud, and/or unauthorized use of their PII and PHI; lost
opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual
consequences of the Data Breach; and the continued and increased
risk of compromise to their PHI and PII. These risks will remain
for the lifetimes of Plaintiff and the Class, the lawsuit
contends.
Plaintiff Denny is a resident of Port Townsend, Washington and
citizen of the United States. The Plaintiff's PII was shared with
the Defendant and implicated in the Data Breach.
The Defendant operates a medical services communication platform
for connecting healthcare providers with patients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, Esq.
Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
Megan E. Shannon, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT LLC
305 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (332) 216-2101
Facsimile: (312) 264-0100
E-mail: jonathan@feganscott.com
beth@feganscott.com
megan@feganscott.com
CORE ANALYTICS: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Garrett Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
LERE GARRETT, an individual, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated v. CORE ANALYTICS RADIOLOGY,
INC., a California corporation; CORE ANALYTICS LABORATORY, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Case No.
24CV103976 (Cal. Super., Dec. 19, 2024) alleges that the Defendants
failed and continues to fail to accurately pay the Plaintiff and
other members of the California Class for all hours worked,
including minimum regular, overtime, and double time wages.
The suit says that the Defendants required the Plaintiff and other
members of the California Class to perform pre-shift or
post-shiftwork, including sending and receiving work-related
communications and performing tasks such as sending X-ray images,
and remaining on-call under Defendants' control. This resulted in
Plaintiff and other California Class members having to work while
off-the-clock.
Because the Plaintiff and the other members of the California Class
typically worked over 40 hours in a workweek, and more than eight
hours per day, the Defendants' policies and practices also deprived
them of overtime pay. The Defendants also failed and continues to
fail to accurately calculate and pay the Plaintiff and the other
California Class members for their overtime and double time hours
worked, meal and rest period premiums, and redeemed sick pay, says
the suit.
The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants in California
since July of 2022.
Core Analytics owns and operates a clinical laboratory and mobile
x-ray.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shani O. Zakay, Esq.
Jackland K. Hom, Esq.
Rachel Newman, Esq.
Jennifer Gerstenzang, Esq.
ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
5440 Morehouse Drive, Suite 3600
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (619) 255-9047
E-mail: shani@zakaylaw.com
jackland@zakaylaw.com
rachel@zakaylaw.com
jenny@zakaylaw.com
- and -
Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
JCL LAW FIRM, APC
5440 Morehouse Drive, Suite 3600
10 II San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (619) 599-8292
E-mail: jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com
CRUNCHLABS LLC: Kohn Files Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CrunchLabs LLC. The
case is styled as Jesse Kohn, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CrunchLabs LLC, Case No.
1:25-cv-00210-RER-PK (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.
CrunchLabs -- https://www.crunchlabs.com/ -- is a YouTube channel
and monthly STEM toy subscription box for kids, designed by former
NASA engineer and YouTuber Mark Rober.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
ARISOHN LLC
513 8th Avenue #2
Brooklyn, NY 11215
Phone: (917) 656-0569
Email: josh@arisohnllc.com
D'ARTAGNAN INC: Faces Class Suit Over Telemarketing Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven L. Rozenfeld of Troutman Amin, LLP, in an article for
National Law Review, reports that things are heating up as we're
less than two weeks away from one-to-one consent starting January
27, 2025.
With that being said, the TCPA complaint we're covering this week
includes a familiar name. D'Artagnan Inc., renowned for its gourmet
food, has recently become the target of a TCPA lawsuit. Ariane
Daguin, its CEO and founder, has revolutionized the culinary world
as a female chef and entrepreneur, championing high-quality and
ethically sourced ingredients since 1985. While its reputation for
quality endures, the gourmet food giant now finds its telemarketing
operations tested at the forefront of a TCPA dispute.
In MCGONIGLE v. D'ARTAGNAN, INC., No. 1:25-CV-00052 (E.D. Va. Jan.
11, 2025), McGonigle ("Plaintiff") alleges that even though
Plaintiff has been listed on the National Do-Not-Call Registry
("DNCR") for over 10 years, D'artagnan, Inc. ("Defendant")
delivered at least eight telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff's
residential number, on at least seven separate days in September
2024. One example reads:
D'Artagnan: Don't miss out! Enjoy $15 flat rate shipping + 10% OFF
on all orders. Sale ends tonight. Shop now:
https://dartagnan.attn.tv/agwvswGzqaA7
Due to these accusations, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the
Eastern District of Virginia alleging Defendant violated the DNC
provisions, 47 U.S.C. 227(c)(5) and 47 C.F.R. Sec. 64.1200(c), by
delivering telemarketing messages to Plaintiff, while Plaintiff was
listed on the DNCR.
Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of:
All persons throughout the United States (1) who did not provide
their telephone number to D'Artagnan, Inc., (2) to whom D'Artagnan,
Inc. delivered, or caused to be delivered, more than one voice
message or text message within a 12-month period, promoting
D'Artagnan, Inc. 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
D'Artagnan, Inc. 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. [GN]
DELOITTE CONSULTING: Pannozzi Files Personal Injury Suit in D.R.I.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Deloitte Consulting
LLP. The case is captioned as RONALD J. PANNOZZI, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DELOITTE CONSULTING
LLP, Case No. 1:24-cv-00524-JJM-LDA (D.R.I., December 15, 2024).
The Plaintiff brings personal injury claims against the Defendant.
Deloitte Consulting LLP is a management consulting company
headquartered in London, England. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK
1307 Chalkstone Avenue
Providence, RI 02908
Telephone: (401) 831-7730
Facsimile: (401) 861-6064
Email: pnwlaw@aol.com
DITCHEY GEIGER: Faces Cherrie Suit Over FDCPA Breach
----------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Ditchey Geiger LLC, et al.
The case is captioned as David Cherrie, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Ditchey Geiger LLC, et al.,
Case No. 3:24-cv-02921-B (N.D. Tex., November 20, 2024.)
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Act.
The class suit is assigned to Judge Jane J. Boyle.
Ditchey Geiger LLC is a subrogation collection firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick M. W. Arnold, Esq.
WALLS LANDRY BAKER & OLIVER PLLC
5910 N Central Expy., Suite 1560
Dallas, TX 75206
Telephone: (214) 265-1231
E-mail: parnold@wlbofirm.com
ECOATM LLC: Faces Rodriguez Suit Over Tiktok Software Installation
------------------------------------------------------------------
REBEKA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ECOATM, LLC, a Delaware entity, d/b/a
WWW.GAZELLE COM, Case No. 30-2024-01448540-CU-MT-CXC (Cal. Super.,
Dec. 26, 2024) contends that the Defendant aids a third party
(ByteDance) to surveil its interactions with visitors to its
Website, thereby allowing TikTok to create detailed portraits of
Website visitors' interests, needs, and desires, in violation of
the California Invasion of Privacy Act.
The suit says that the Defendant installed on its Website software
created by TikTok in order to identify website visitors. The TikTok
Software gathers device and browser information, geographic
information, referral tracking, and url tracking by running code or
"scripts" on the Website to send user details to TikTok.
Furthermore, the TikTok Software requests, validates, and transmits
other identifying information, including a website visitor's phone
numbers and email addresses.
In short, the Defendant secretly monetized visitors' personal
information by enabling TikTok to spy on those visitors, surveil
their journey across the web, track their location and lifestyle
habits, and bombard them with targeted advertising. The Defendant
did not obtain Plaintiff's express or implied consent to be
subjected to data sharing with TikTok for the purposes of
fingerprinting and de-anonymization, the Plaintiff asserts.
The Defendant is an entity that sells electronics to
consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
David W. Reid, Esq.
Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
5 II 4100NewportPlaceDrive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 706-6464
Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattomeys.com
dreid@pacifictrialattomeys.com
vknowles@pacifictrialattomeys.com
ELI LILLY: Sued Over Insulin Pricing Scheme
-------------------------------------------
Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY; NOVO
NORDISK INC.; SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC; EVERNORTH HEALTH, INC.
(FORMERLY EXPRESS SCRIPTS HOLDING COMPANY); EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC.;
EXPRESS SCRIPTS ADMINISTRATORS, LLC; MEDCO HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC.;
ESI MAIL PHARMACY SERVICES, INC.; EXPRESS SCRIPTS PHARMACY, INC.;
ASCENT HEALTH SERVICES L.L.C.; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; CVS
PHARMACY, INC.; CAREMARK RX, LLC; CAREMARK PCS HEALTH, LLC;
CAREMARK, LLC; ZINC HEALTH VENTURES, L.L.C., ZINC HEALTH SERVICES,
L.L.C., UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC.; OPTUM, INC.; OPTUMRX INC.;
OPTUMINSIGHT, INC., EMISAR PHARMA SERVICES L.L.C., Case No.
1:25-cv-00096-GLR (D. Md., Jan. 10, 2025), is brought seeking to
recover the losses it has suffered due to Defendants' Insulin
Pricing Scheme.
The price and availability of diabetes medications in this country
are substantially controlled by two groups of actors, drug
manufacturers and behemoth conglomerates usually called "pharmacy
benefit managers" ("PBMs"). The PBMs are middlemen charged with
overseeing prescription drug pricing, dispensing, and reimbursement
for more than 200 million Americans and with reducing healthcare
costs for health plan sponsors, but often they do the opposite.
Together, the drug manufacturers and PBMs have conspired and are
engaged in an ongoing conspiracy to rig the market for prescription
diabetes medications through a pattern of unfair and deceptive
trade practices and racketeering activity
During the Class Period, City Schools contracted directly with and
directly paid one or more Defendants (including through one or more
PBM Defendants' mail order pharmacies), one or more of the at-issue
diabetes medications, In connection with those direct purchases,
City Schools paid more for at-issue drugs than it otherwise would
have paid had Defendants not engaged in the conduct complained of
in this Complaint. City Schools will continue to purchase the
at-issue diabetes medications in the future, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners, which
operates a system of public schools in Baltimore City commonly
known as the Baltimore City Public School System or Baltimore City
Public Schools.
Eli Lilly manufactures, promotes, and distributes several at-issue
diabetes medications, including: Humulin N, Humulin R, Humalog,
Trulicity, and Basaglar.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sallie Gilbert, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
209 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Email: sgilbert@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Neil Henrichsen, Esq.
HENRICHSEN LAW GROUP, PLLC
655 15th Street, N.W. Suite 800
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 423-3649
Email: nhenrichsen@hslawyers.com
- and -
Cyrus Mehri, Esq.
Joshua Karsh, Esq.
MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC
2000 K Street NW, Suite 325
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 822-5100
Email: cmehri@findjustice.com
jkarsh@findjustice.com
- and -
Wayne Hogan, Esq.
TERRELL HOGAN YEGELWEL, P.A.
233 East Bay Street, 8th Floor
Jacksonville, FL 32202
Phone: (904) 722-2228
Email: hogan@terrellhogan.com
FCA US: Jeep Vehicles Prone to Underhood Fires, Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards of Top Class Actions reports that a Jeep driver is
suing FCA US LLC.
Why: The plaintiff claims the automaker knowingly sold Jeeps that
are prone to underhood fires.
Where: The class action was filed in a Michigan federal court.
A Jeep owner has filed a class action lawsuit against FCA US LLC
claiming the company knowingly sold Jeep vehicles that are prone to
underhood fires.
Jeep owner Stan Paris filed the class action complaint against FCA
on Jan. 7 in a Michigan federal court, alleging violations of state
and federal consumer laws.
The lawsuit targets 2020-2024 Jeep Wrangler, 2021-2023 Jeep
Gladiator, and 2022-2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee models. Paris, a
Pennsylvania resident, says he purchased a 2023 Jeep Wrangler
Unlimited 4XE in July 2024.
According to the complaint, Paris and other owners face ongoing
risks due to defects in the vehicles' power steering pump
electrical connector or high-voltage battery. These flaws allegedly
can result in spontaneous underhood fires, even when the vehicles
are parked or turned off.
Paris says his claims are backed up by federal watchdogs. In
September 2024, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
launched an investigation into over 781,000 affected Jeep models
following multiple complaints, including at least one incident that
caused injuries, he says.
The NHTSA's recall notices and consumer alerts underscore the
severity of the issue, Paris says, stating that he and other Jeep
owners are left with vehicles that "could catch fire at any
second."
Automaker failed to resolve fire risks despite investigation,
lawsuit alleges
Paris says a recall followed the investigation in late September,
with the automaker allegedly admitting that "the high voltage
battery may fail internally and lead to a vehicle fire while parked
or driving,"
Despite FCA's proposed fixes, Paris alleges the company has failed
to resolve the fire risks adequately. The lawsuit claims FCA "knew
or should have known" about the dangers well before the NHTSA
investigation, pointing to consumer complaints and a prior recall
issued in 2023 for similar fire hazards.
Paris says the defect has disrupted his life, forcing him to park
his Jeep in an outdoor airport lot at $26 per day to avoid
potential harm to people and property.
As a result, Paris is looking to represent anyone else who
purchased or leased one of the class vehicles. He is suing FCA for
breaching implied warranties violations of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act and state laws; he is seeking certifications of the
class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial.
Late last year, Stellantis recalled nearly 80,000 Jeep Grand
Cherokee and other Jeep vehicles as their rearview camera images
might not display, creating a crash risk.
Paris is represented by Kenneth R. Chadwell of Mantese Honigman PC;
Karin B. Swope, Thomas E. Loeser, Ellen J. Wen and Anne Marie
Murphy of Cotchett Pitre McCarthy LLP; and Gayle M. Blatt of Casey
Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield LLP.
The Jeep class action lawsuit is Paris v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
US LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-10045 in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan. [GN]
FLORIDA CREDIT: Refuses DACA Membership Due to Immigration Status
-----------------------------------------------------------------
maldef.org reports that a Latino civil rights organization is suing
a Florida credit union for unlawfully refusing to consider a DACA
(Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) recipient for membership
and for a loan because of his immigration status, according to
papers filed in federal court Wednesday, January 15, 2025.
MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund) and
Jeffrey Newsome, of Tampa-based Varnell & Warwick, PA, filed a
federal lawsuit against Florida Credit Union (FCU) challenging its
policy of refusing membership and loans to certain immigrants
because of their status. MALDEF is representing David Alberto
Fonseca, 30, of Tampa, who was told he did not qualify for an auto
loan because he is not a United States citizen or a legal permanent
resident. Fonseca came to the U.S. as a child from Portugal. He has
had DACA since 2012. Attorneys argue that FCU's policy violates
federal civil rights law prohibiting discrimination based on a
person's citizenship status.
"Irrational anti-immigrant discrimination distorts our economy,
with harms to an entire community," said Thomas A. Saenz, MALDEF
president and general counsel. "Such discrimination is not only
unlawful, but bad policy, especially for credit unions that purport
to be community institutions."
In December 2023, as a prerequisite for applying for an auto loan,
Fonseca applied for membership through FCU's website online. On
January 3, 2024, Fonseca spoke to a credit union representative who
requested additional documentation for his application. Fonseca
sent the documents including pay stubs and photographs of his
Florida driver's license. Fonseca also sent a copy of his
employment authorization card. As a DACA recipient, Fonseca is
protected from deportation and is authorized to work in the U.S.
When Fonseca followed up with the FCU representative, he was told
that he did not qualify for membership with the documents he
provided because his driver's license and work authorization were
"temporary". The representative told Fonseca he would need a
permanent driver's license and a permanent resident green card to
become a member.
"On more than one occasion, FCU communicated to Fonseca that it
does not accept DACA recipients because of their temporary
residency," said Luis Lozada, MALDEF staff attorney. "This shows
that FCU has a discriminatory policy that only targets immigrants,
regardless of their credit history or employment."
Fonseca appealed to the representative telling him he had never had
an issue getting loans or credit before as a DACA recipient. The
representative told him again that FCU required him to a be a legal
permanent resident to qualify.
FCU is a member-owned financial services institution based in
Gainesville, Florida, with $2.1 billion in assets. It provides
personal loans, home loans, business accounts, and checking/savings
accounts to more than 150,000 members in the North Central Florida
area.
In the complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida at Tampa, attorneys argue that FCU's policy
violates Section 1981 of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1866.
This is the 19th lawsuit filed by MALDEF since 2017 challenging the
policies of financial institutions that discriminate against DACA
recipients. [GN]
FULTON COUNTY, GA: Hambrick Seeks to Certify Rice Street Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nkengen Hambrick and
Shannon Jackson, On behalf of themselves, and Others similarly
situated, v. FULTON COUNTY SHERIFF PATRICK LABAT, in his official
capacity, JOHN JACKSON, in his official capacity, Case No.
1:24-cv-05658-SDG-CCB (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order certifying the Rice Street Class:
"A class consisting of all persons who have suffered injuries
or died while detained in Fulton County Jail, address 901
Rice St. NW, Atlanta, GA 30318, which injury and/or death
arose from the known unconstitutional hazardous conditions at
the jail, and which injury and/or death occurred no more than
two years prior to Dec. 10, 2024, the date of the initiation
of this class action case, and thereafter.
The Court should grant injunctive relief and declaratory relief,
and award compensatory damages for injuries and death that arose
from the unconstitutional jail conditions at Fulton County Jail.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 9, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e2oicq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael D. Harper, Esq.
Patrick W. Leed, Esq.
MICHAEL D. HARPER, P.C.
3017 Bolling Way, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (404) 271-6618
Facsimile: (404) 600-2146
E-mail: mharper@mharperlaw.com
pleed@mharperlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Sun S. Choy, Esq.
FREEMAN, MATHIS & GARY LLP
100 Galleria Parkway, Suite 1600
Atlanta, GA 30339
GILMORE SERVICES: Halton Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gilmore Services,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Michael Halton, on behalf of all
persons similarly situated v. Gilmore Services, LLC, Does 1-50,
Inclusive, Case No. 25CV000742 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty.,
Jan. 9, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Gilmore -- https://www.gilmoreservices.com/ -- is a full-service
paper shredding service provider serving Pensacola, Mobile,
Tallahassee, and surrounding areas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shani Zakay, Esq.
ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
5440 Morehouse Dr., Ste. 3600
San Diego, CA 92121-6720
Phone: 619-255-9047
Fax: 858-404-9203
Email: shani@zakaylaw.com
GLOBAL EXCHANGE: Bid to Seal Exhibit in Avery Class Suit OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN AVERY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GLOBAL EXCHANGE VACATION CLUB, et al, Case No.
8:23-cv-02071-JFW-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Walter
entered an order granting application to seal Exhibit "A" to
Jonathan Avery's declaration in support of his motion for class
certification.
The unredacted Exhibit "A" to Avery's declaration shall remain
under seal and the redacted document shall remain on the public
docket.
Global Exchange is in the vacation exchange club industry.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 3, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FfF4JE at no extra
charge.[CC]
GLOBAL EXCHANGE: Class Cert Hearing in Avery Extended to March 10
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN AVERY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GLOBAL EXCHANGE VACATION CLUB, et al, Case No.
8:23-cv-02071-JFW-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Walter
entered an order approving stipulation re continuance of hearing on
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and extension of ADR
deadline:
Event Former New date or
date/deadline deadline
Hearing on plaintiff's motion Feb. 3, 2025 March 10, 2025
for class certification:
Plaintiff's reply papers due Jan. 17, 2025 March 3, 2025
on plaintiff's motion for
class certification:
Defendants' opposition papers Jan. 13, 2025 Feb. 24, 2025
due on plaintiff's motion
for class certification:
ADR deadlines for settlement Feb. 3 and 7, Feb. 4 and 10,
conference/mediation, joint 2025, 2025,
report: respectively respectively
Global Exchange is in the vacation exchange club industry.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=imGP5p at no extra
charge.[CC]
GOLDEN KRUST: Trippett Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alfred Trippett, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Golden Krust Carribean Bakery, Inc., Case No.
1:25-cv-00249 (D.N.J., Jan. 10, 2025), is brought against the
Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to services Stadium
Enterprises provides to their non-disabled customers through
https://www.goldenkrust.com (hereinafter "Goldenkrust.com" or "the
website"). Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its
website, and therefore denial of its services offered, and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the
"ADA").
Because Defendant's website, Goldenkrust.com, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually- impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change
in Golden Krust's policies, practices, and procedures to that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
Stadiumgoods.com provides to the public a wide array of services,
price specials and other programs offered by Stadium
Enterprises.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: +1 347-941-4715
Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com
GRASS ROOTS NATURAL: McMahon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grass Roots Natural
Foods, Inc. The case is styled as Caitlin McMahon, an individual
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Grass Roots
Natural Foods, Inc., Case No. 24CV2610 (Cal. Super. Ct., El Dorado
Cty., Nov. 21, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Civil Unlimited."
Grass Roots Natural Foods -- https://grassrootstahoe.com/ -- is a
health, wellness and fitness company based out of 2040 Dunlap Dr,
South Lake Tahoe, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
Farzan Bijan Amir Mohseni, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
1460 Westwood Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: 310-438-5555
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
GREEN FARMS: Gomez-Badajoz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Green Farms
California, LLC. The case is styled as Edward Gomez-Badajoz, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Green Farms
California, LLC, Case No. 25STCV00833 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., Jan. 13, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Green Farms California, LLC --
https://ccof.org/directory-member/green-farms-california-llc-dba-worldwide-produce/
-- is one of the largest produce and dairy distributors in Southern
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gomez-Badajoz Edward, Esq.
GOMEZ EDWARDS LAW GROUP
2391 The Alameda, Suite 200
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Phone: (408) 413-1200
Fax: (408) 413-1201
Email: admin@gomezedwardslawgroup.com
GREY DOG INC: Reyes Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------
Nathalie Reyes, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. The Grey Dog, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00302 (S.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 13, 2025), is brought against the Defendants for their failure
to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Dr. Reddy's Laboratories provides to their non-disabled
customers through https://www.thegreydog.com (hereinafter
"Thegreydog.com" or "the website"). Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products
and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans
with Disabilities Act (the "ADA").
Because Defendant's website, Thegreydog.com, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change
in The Grey Dog's policies, practices, and procedures to that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.
The Grey Dog provides to the public a website known as
Thegreydog.com which provides consumers with access to an array of
services, including, the ability to view American comfort food,
including classic breakfast options, sandwiches, salads, burgers,
and dinner plates.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher Cohen, Esq.
ASHER COHEN LAW PLLC
2377 56th LY,
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Phone: +1 (718) 914-9694
Email: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com
GROW CARE: Doe Files Personal Injury Claims in N.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grow Care, Inc. The
case is captioned as JANE DOE 1, et al., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. GROW CARE, INC., Case No.
5:24-cv-09122-BLF (N.D. Cal., December 17, 2024).
The Plaintiffs bring personal injury claims against the Defendant.
Grow Care, Inc. is a provider of advisory services in California.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ines Diaz Villafana, Esq.
Brittany Skye Scott, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Email: idiaz@bursor.com
bscott@bursor.com
- and -
Scott Robert Drury, Esq.
DRURY LEGAL, LLC
6 Carriage Lane
Highwood, IL 60040
Telephone: (312) 358-8225
Email: scott@drurylegal.com
HEALTH TECH ACADEMY: Radvansky Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Health Tech Academy
LLC. The case is styled as Ethan Radvansky, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated v. Health Tech Academy LLC, Case No.
3:25-cv-00012-TCB (N.D. Ga., Jan. 10, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Health Tech Academy -- https://www.healthtechacademy.org/ --
connects diverse and engaged talent with healthcare employers to
address critical shortages, bridge skills gaps, and build
healthcare career paths.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Phone: (617) 485-0018
Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com
- and -
Steven Howard Koval, Esq.
THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC
Building 15, Suite 120
3575 Piedmont Rd.
Atlanta, GA 30305
Phone: (404) 513-6651
Fax: (404) 549-4654
Email: Steve@KovalFirm.com
HELLO KIDS: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Fluoride Mouthrinses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action lawsuit alleges the labeling on Hello Kids
Fluoride Rinse gives the false and misleading impression that the
product is safe for young children.
The 42-page case accuses defendant Hello Products of being
"deceptive and dangerous" by selling its fluoride mouthrinses in
two "kid-enticing" flavors, wild strawberry and unicorn splash.
According to the complaint, the scientific consensus remains that
fluoride mouthrinses are not safe for children under the age of
six, who have poorly developed swallowing reflexes and are at risk
of swallowing large amounts of the liquid inadvertently.
"Hello Rinse, which has the same fluoride concentration as adult
rinses, is actually more dangerous for young children than adult
rinses because it comes in candy and fruit flavors that entice
children to use and swallow more of the product," the suit says.
Per the filing, half a bottle of Hello Rinse contains enough
fluoride to be fatal to a toddler. Even ingesting a single dose can
cause a child to experience nausea, vomiting and other early
symptoms of acute fluoride toxicity, the lawsuit adds.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also states that
children who use fluoride mouthrinse are at risk of developing
dental fluorosis, a cosmetic condition caused by ingesting too much
fluoride during tooth formation, the case relays. Dental fluorosis,
the complaint explains, can result in permanent white lines or
streaks on the surface of the teeth.
Due to these risks, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires
that fluoride mouthrinses include packaging that "clearly instructs
consumers to read the directions" by prominently placing a notice
on the front label that reads: "IMPORTANT: Read directions for
proper use," the suit says. Hello Products is "flagrantly
violating" this regulation by failing to include this notice on its
kids fluoride rinses, the case contends.
The complaint claims that consumers would not have bought Hello
Rinse had they known the product was not safe for children.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in California, Illinois or
New York who purchased Hello Rinse for children under the age of
six during the applicable statute of limitations period and who did
so in the absence of direction from a dentist, doctor or health
care provider. [GN]
ICHIGO ICHIE: Zheng Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Restaurant Chefs
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ZULIN ZHENG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ICHIGO ICHIE FRANKLIN LLC D/B/A ICHIGO
ICHIE, JDJ ICHIGO ICHIE INC. D/B/A ICHIGO ICHIE, BRIAN K. CHENG,
JUDY T. CHENG, LINGYAO LI A/K/A DAVID, and LING XIN LI, Defendants,
Case No. 1:24-cv-13100 (D. Mass., December 17, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Massachusetts Wage
Act, and the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wage Act.
The Plaintiff was employed as a chef at Ichigo Ichie Japanese
teppanyaki grill restaurant from March 2016 until August 29, 2024.
Ichigo Ichie Franklin LLC, doing business as Ichigo Ichie, is a
restaurant owner and operator in Franklin, Massachusetts.
JDJ Ichigo Ichie Inc., doing business as Ichigo Ichie, is a
restaurant owner and operator in Franklin, Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Howard M. Brown, Esq.
BOSTON EMPLOYMENT LAW, PC
202 Washington Street, Suite 128
Brookline, MA 02445
Telephone: (617) 566-8090
Email: hmb@employmentlaw.com
- and -
Jian Hang, Esq.
Ge Qu, Esq.
HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
136-20 38th Ave., Suite 10G
Flushing, NY 11354
Telephone: (718) 353-8588
Email: jhang@hanglaw.com
rqu@hanglaw.com
INDIANA UNIVERSITY: Ex-IU Basketball Player Joins Abuse Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arianna Sergio and Samantha Johnson, writing for WTHR, reports that
another former Indiana University basketball player has come
forward saying an athletic doctor gave him inappropriate and
unnecessary prostate and rectal exams during his annual physicals
and the school did nothing to protect him.
John Flowers joins players Haris Mujezinovic and Charlie Miller in
an amended class-action lawsuit against the Indiana University
Trustees and longtime IU head men's basketball trainer Tim Garl.
Flowers played for IU from 1981-1982, Haris Mujezinovic played from
1995-1997 and Charlie Miller played from 1994-1998. While all of
them were at IU, they allege they were sexually abused by former
team physician Dr. Brad Bomba Sr. during their medical
examinations.
"We're hopeful that other formers players will also come forward
and share their stories, either through the anonymous hotline that
the university's investigators have set up or by hiring an attorney
of their own," said attorney Kathleen DeLaney, who is representing
the players. "We believe that as many as 100 or more players were
victimized over a span, literally, of decades. So far, we believe
that dozens of people have come forward to share their stories with
the university's outside investigators."
Bomba Sr. served as the IU men's basketball team physician for
nearly 30 years and the U.S. Olympic men's basketball team
physician under former IU head men's basketball coach Bob Knight.
Bomba Sr.'s work with the team ended in the late 1990s.
Flowers, Mujezinovic and Miller are suing Garl for his alleged
involvement in Bomba Sr.'s "wrongful conduct."
In the complaint, the three state that the sexual abuse they
endured by Bomba Sr. violated their equal protection rights under
the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution and their
rights under Title IX.
"Title IX was designed to protect students -- such as the
Plaintiffs and the Class -- from being preyed on by known sexual
assailants, and the United States Constitution guarantees all
American citizens equal protection of the law," the complaint
states. "Instead of receiving the benefit of these federal
protections, Mujezinovic, Miller, Flowers, their former teammates,
and other IU men's basketball players were forced to choose between
enduring the sexual abuse Dr. Bomba, Sr. inflicted or abandoning
their chance to play for a highly prestigious basketball program
and complete their education at IU."
In addition, they are alleging that IU "has actual knowledge" of
Bomba Sr.'s sexual assaults, sex-based harassment and
discrimination and that the university acted with "deliberate
indifference."
The lawsuit seeks unspecified money damages on behalf of all former
IU men's basketball players who were allegedly sexually assaulted
by Bomba Sr. during their participation in IU's programs.
13News reached out to IU for comment on the amended allegations
filed this week. A spokesperson for the university said, "IU does
not comment on litigation" and instead referred to IU's statement
on the independent review from September 2024.
"It's a real tragedy. It really is. Every person I've talked to
tells exactly the same story," DeLaney said. "We really hope that
this case will prompt an examination of their internal policies,
procedures, processes and personnel."
Those who want to report incidents can reach out to the Jones Day
hotline by phone at 888-392-2296 or email
IUinvestigations@JonesDay.com. People reaching out can remain
anonymous.
Flower's, Mujezinovic's and Miller's experience with Bomba Sr.
According to the complaint, IU men's basketball players were
required to submit to annual physicals with doctors chosen and
provided by IU. When Flowers, Mujezinovic and Miller enrolled at IU
and joined the basketball team, they were required to submit to a
physical examination with Bomba Sr., or the other doctor, for their
exam.
The complaint states that Garl assigned each player to Bomba Sr.,
or the other doctor, for the player's annual physical and that IU
didn't allow a player to choose which physician they saw for their
physical.
Prostate exams are typically recommended, at the earliest, for men
who are 40 years old or older, according to the American Cancer
Society.
Court documents say Flowers first learned of his appointment with
Bomba Sr. when he reported for the men's basketball training season
as a freshman.
Garl allegedly assigned Flowers, who was 19 years old at the time,
to see Bomba Sr. for his annual physical each of the two years
Flowers was on the team.
At each physical, the complaint states Flowers was subjected to
"medically unnecessary, invasive, harassing, and demeaning digital
rectal examinations" from Bomba Sr.
After his first physical, court documents say Flowers's teammates
told him he had "passed" Bomba Sr.'s "test," and that he would not
have to undergo a digital rectal examination again. Garl then
allegedly "laughed at Flowers and his freshman teammates and made
jokes at their expense" regarding the rectal examinations they had
to go through.
Court documents say Mujezinovic, who was 20 years old at the time,
found out he has an appointment with Bomba Sr. when he saw his name
on a board listing the dates and what doctor each player was
scheduled to see.
According to court documents, when Mujezinovic's teammates saw that
he was assigned to Bomba Sr., they warned Mujezinovic to prepare
for "the finger." Players also commented on the size of Bomba Sr.'s
hands and fingers. Mujezinovic didn't understand his teammates'
warnings and still planned to go to his first appointment.
According to the complaint, Bomba Sr. was performing a routine
physical exam until, without warning, he started to sexually abuse
Mujezinovic during the medical exam. Based on blood tests from the
first physical, court documents say Mujezinovic was told to return
to Bomba Sr. for a "follow-up appointment," where he was sexually
abused again.
Documents say Mujezinovic was called back the following year to see
Bomba Sr. for his annual physical. While he waited for the doctor
to arrive, he allegedly saw saw a bottle of KY lubricant on Bomba
Sr.'s counter.
According to the complaint, in an effort to "avoid the shame and
discomfort of another abusive, medically unnecessary digital rectal
examination," Mujezinovic hid the bottle of lubrication on a high
shelf inside a closed cabinet. When Bomba Sr. arrived, court
documents say he noticed the bottle of lubricant was missing and
said to Mujezinovic, "if you'd like, we can do it without the
(lubrication)." When Mujezinovic declined, Bomba Sr. allegedly told
him they could "skip" the rectal examination for that year.
Court documents show Miller had his first appointment with Bomba
Sr. when he was just 17 years old. The complaint says he was
assigned to see Bomba Sr. four times over the course of his four
years at IU. In each instance, the complaint says Bomba Sr.
subjected Miller to the same rectal examinations.
According to the complaint, Bomba Sr.'s "routine sexual assaults"
were "openly discussed" by the IU men's basketball players in the
locker room in front of IU employees, including assistant coaches,
athletic trainers and other Hoosier men's basketball staff. So much
so, the complaint alleges, the team and staff allegedly referred to
Bomba Sr. as "Frankenstein" due to the large size of his hands and
fingers.
"IU and Garl, by contracting Dr. Bomba, Sr. to act as a team
physician and by continuing to assign student athletes to receive
their required annual physical examinations from Dr. Bomba, Sr.,
provided their 'stamp of approval' for Dr. Bomba, Sr.'s conduct,"
The complaint states. "IU and Garl's implicit and explicit approval
of Dr. Bomba, Sr.'s conduct bolstered Plaintiffs' belief that Dr.
Bomba, Sr.'s conduct was normal and medically necessary."
The complaint also alleges that, "IU failed at all times, both
before and after Plaintiffs and the Class suffered Dr. Bomba, Sr.'s
sexual misconduct, to take appropriate action to address, correct,
or ensure its students were safe from Dr. Bomba, Sr.'s routine
sexual assaults of IU student athletes, including Plaintiffs and
members of the Class."
At a recent deposition for Bomba Sr., he refused to answer
questions, according to a federal court filing from Dec. 12.
Bomba Sr. was disposed in December. The court filing says Bomba Sr.
reportedly exercised his Fifth Amendment right 45 times during the
deposition. The Fifth Amendment protects accused individuals from
self-incrimination during lawsuits.
A recent filing has asked the court to compel Bomba Sr. to answer
the questions.
"I am proud to stand up on behalf of my former teammates and other
IU basketball players to seek justice for the sexual abuse we
endured as members of the Hoosiers," Flowers said. [GN]
JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Boduch Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Janet C. Boduch, on behalf of themselves, and
all others similarly situated, and the general public v. Johnson &
Johnson Company; Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. formerly known
as: Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-00397 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Hampshire, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey on Jan. 13, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00369 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Johnson & Johnson (J&J) -- https://www.jnj.com/ -- is an American
multinational pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical
technologies corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Coyne, Esq.
500 Federal St
Andover, MA 01810
Phone: (978) 681-0790
Fax: (978) 681-6330
JORIKI USA INC: Gretano Files Suit in Del. Bankruptcy Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Joriki USA Inc. The
case is styled as Keanan Gretano, Plaintiff in AP Case on Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly-Situated v. Joriki USA Inc., Case
No. 25-50005-LSS (Del. Bankruptcy Ct., Jan. 13, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Recovery of Money/Property -
Other.
Joriki -- https://www.jorikiinc.com/ -- is a leading Canadian
contract manufacturer of beverages for several major brands and
private label retail customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Huggett, Esq.
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: 302-888-1112
Fax: (302) 888-1119
Email: jhuggett@margolisedelstein.com
JUMPSTARTMD INC: Andrighetto Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JumpStartMD, Inc. The
case is captioned as MARIO ANDRIGHETTO, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. JUMPSTARTMD, INC., Case No.
3:24-cv-09119-VC (N.D. Cal., December 17, 2024).
The suit is brought over the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
JumpStartMD, Inc. is a healthcare program provider in California.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (754) 444-7539
Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com
KIEF'S REEF: Leon Sues Over Failure to Compensate Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
Marino Esquivel Leon, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. KIEF'S
REEF, INC., an Illinois corporation, and RANDALL O. KIEF, an
individual, Case No. 1:25-cv-00330 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 13, 2025), is
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), for Defendants' failure to pay
Plaintiff, and other similarly situated employees, overtime
compensation for hours worked over 40 in a workweek.
The Defendants paid Plaintiff Esquivel on an hourly basis at rates
ranging from $19.00 to $21.00 per hour. However, Defendants imposed
a dual wage payment scheme on Plaintiff Esquivel whereby Defendants
paid only a portion of Plaintiff's work hours, typically 80 hours
over a two pay period, and paid the remainder of Plaintiff's work
hours with unreported cash "under the table" at his straight-time
hourly rate of pay. The Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff and
other non-exempt cooks, food preparers and kitchen staff employees
at one and one-half times their regular hourly rate of pay for
hours worked in excess of 40 in individual work weeks, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff worked as a cook and food preparer at Defendants'
Kief's Reef restaurant from May, 2023 through January, 2024.
Kief's Reef, Inc. operates the Kief's Reef restaurant located on
South Wright Road in McHenry, Illinois and is engaged in selling
and serving prepared food and beverages, including alcoholic
beverages, to customers for consumption on and off its
premises.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy M. Nolan, Esq.
NOLAN LAW OFFICE
53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 322-1100
Email: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com
LATCH INC: Settlement in Schwartz Suit for Court OK
---------------------------------------------------
Latch, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on December 21, 2024, that on January 11, 2023, an
alleged stockholder of Latch stock filed a purported securities
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware captioned "Schwartz v. Latch, Inc, et al.,"
Case No. 1:23-cv-00027.
In December 2024, the parties agreed in principle to a settlement
and entered into a binding memorandum of understanding pursuant to
which the company agreed to pay the settlement class in the amount
of $1.95 million in exchange for the dismissal of all claims
against the defendants. The settlement remains subject to a final
stipulation of settlement and approval by the court.
The complaint alleges that the company and certain of its current
and former directors violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act by making false or misleading statements regarding the
company's business, operations and prospects. It includes claims
for damages, including interest, and an award of reasonable costs
and attorneys' fees and expert fees to the putative class.
On April 24, 2023, the court appointed Scott Schwartz as lead
plaintiff. In May 2023, the parties agreed to stay the action and
to allow the lead plaintiff a period of 21 days in which to file an
amended complaint.
On September 27, 2024, the company filed a motion to transfer the
complaint to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The motion was denied on November 13, 2024.
Latch is a technology company primarily serving the multifamily
rental home market segment of the smart building industry deploying
hardware and software technology to digitize otherwise manual
processes, including building and unit access and in-unit device
control.
LATCH INC: To Settle Brennan Securities Suit in New York Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Latch, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on December 21, 2024, that on August 31, 2022, an
alleged stockholder of Latch stock filed a purported securities
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York captioned "Brennan v. Latch, Inc, et
al.," Case No. 1:22-cv-07473.
On November 12, 2024, the company and lead plaintiff filed with the
court a settlement agreement pursuant to which the company agreed
to pay the settlement class in the amount of $1.95 million in
exchange for the dismissal of all claims against the defendants.
The settlement remains subject to approval by the court, and a
preliminary hearing has been set for January 16, 2025.
The complaint alleges that the company and certain of its former
officers violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by
making false or misleading statements regarding its business,
operations and prospects. The complaint includes claims for
damages, including interest, and an award of reasonable costs and
attorneys' fees and expert fees to the putative class.
Latch is a technology company primarily serving the multifamily
rental home market segment of the smart building industry deploying
hardware and software technology to digitize otherwise manual
processes, including building and unit access and in-unit device
control.
LCPTRACKER INC: Mazmanian Files Personal Injury Suit in C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LCPTracker, Inc. The
case is captioned as GARY MAZMANIAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. LCPTRACKER, INC., Case No.
8:24-cv-02701-JAK-DFM (C.D. Cal., December 14, 2024).
The Plaintiff brings personal injury claims against the Defendant.
LCPTracker, Inc. is an accounting software company in New
Braunfels, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, APLC
12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (747) 777-7748
Email: gharoutunian@justice4you.com
- and -
Grayson Wells, Esq.
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
STRANCH JENNINGS AND GARVEY PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Email: gwells@stranchlaw.com
gstranch@stranchlaw.com
- and -
M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, APLC
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: (916) 777-7777
Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
Email: aberry@justice4you.com
LIFECARE AMBULETTE: Lee Sues Over Unlawful Employment Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yoo Suk Lee, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Lifecare Ambulette Inc., John Doe 1 aka Sam, and John Doe 2 aka
Alex, Case No. 1:25-cv-00206 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2025), is brought
against Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") arising
from Defendants' various willful, malicious, and unlawful
employment policies, patterns, and practices.
The Defendants have willfully, maliciously, and intentionally
committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL against
Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees by failing to
pay their applicable minimum wages, overtime compensation, and
spread-of-hours pay and failing to comply with notice requirements
that the law mandates, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked as an ambulette driver for Defendants during
his employment period.
Lifecare provides non-emergency medical transportation services,
facilitating patient mobility to and from healthcare
facilities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Kim, Esq.
RYAN KIM LAW, P.C.
222 Bruce Reynolds Blvd. Suite 490
Fort Lee, NJ 07024
Email: ryan@RyanKimLaw.com
LINENS AND HUTCH: Schulman Files TCPA Suit in C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Linens and Hutch LLC.
The case is captioned as MARINE SCHULMAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LINENS AND HUTCH LLC,
Case No. 2:24-cv-10770-SPG-JPR (C.D. Cal., December 13, 2024).
The suit is brought over the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Linens and Hutch LLC is a provider of bedding products in
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL HINDI, PLLC
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (754) 444-7539
Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com
LISA WOLFE: Bid for Class Cert Hearing in Weinberg Suit OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Weinberg, et al., v. Lisa
Wolfe, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-13035 (D. Mass., Filed Dec. 9,
2024), the Court entered an order granting motion for Hearing on
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.
The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC]
M&V MEXICAN FOOD: Moshan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against M&V Mexican Food,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Abelino Moshan, on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public v. M&V Mexican Food, Inc. dba Taqueria La Mexicana
#2, a California Corporation, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0000472
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Jan. 13, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
M&V Mexican Food, Inc. doing business as Taqueria La Mexicana #2
offers fresh and authentic Mexican food.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter J. Horton, Esq.
LAWYERS FOR EMPLOYEE AND CONSUMER RIGHTS
3500 W Olive Ave, Fl 3
Burbank, CA 91505
Phone: 323-375-5101
Fax: 323-306-5571
Email: phorton@lfecr.com
MAC PROPERTY: Faces Moore Suit Over Voucher Discrimination in Ill.
------------------------------------------------------------------
RYSHEENA MOORE, CADEIDGA COLEMAN, JANISHIA FLEMING, and SHELIAH
AYANWALE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. MAC PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, D/B/A MAC
PROPERTIES, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-12912 (N.D. Ill., December
17, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
the Illinois Human Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, and the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's policies and practices of
discrimination against women and tenants who use Housing Choice
Vouchers, a federal housing subsidy, to pay rent, especially at its
newly-built or renovated, high-rise amenity buildings near Lake
Michigan. According to the complaint, the Defendant refused to rent
specific apartments to these women and other tenants in violation
of federal, state, and local law. As a result of the Defendant's
unlawful conduct, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated women and
tenants suffered damages, the suit alleges.
Mac Property Management, LLC, doing business as Mac Properties, is
an owner and manager of residential buildings and apartments in
Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Emily Coffey, Esq.
MacKenzie Speer, Esq.
Jacob Cantor, Esq.
Aneel L. Chablani, Esq.
CHICAGO LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
100 N. LaSalle St., Ste. 600
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 630-9744
Email: ecoffey@clccrul.org
mspeer@clccrul.org
jcantor@clccrul.org
achablani@clccrul.org
- and -
Charles D. Wysong, Esq.
Tory Tilton, Esq.
HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM, LTD.
70 W. Madison St., Ste. 4000
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 580-0100
Email: cwysong@hsplegal.com
ttilton@hsplegal.com
MARTECH STACK: Faces Keshishyan TCPA Suit in C.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MarTech Stack LLC.
The case is captioned as Arman Keshishyan individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. MarTech Stack LLC, Case
No. 2:24-cv-11099-CBM-AJR (C.D. Cal., Dec. 26, 2024).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Consuelo B. Marshall.
The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.
MartechStack works with financial services clients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL HINDI, PLLC
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (754) 444-7539
E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com
MCLAUGHLIN BODY: Scheduling Order Deadlines Entered in Hagerman
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hagerman v. McLaughlin
Body Company, Case No. 1:24-cv-01372 (C.D. Ill., Filed Oct. 7,
2024), the Hon. Judge Sara Darrow entered an order setting
Scheduling Order Deadlines:
If a party desires to alter this scheduling order, which is derived
from the parties' agreed upon dates, to limit discovery prior to
filing a motion for conditional class certification, such party may
move for that or any other relief.
The suit alleges violation of the Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
McLaughlin is a vertically integrated manufacturer.[CC]
MDL 2873: AFFF Products "Defective," Thompson Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
HAROLD THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.;
BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.;
MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC,
MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN
MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC.; and
3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-07288-RMG (D.S.C., December 13, 2024)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery,
inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent
concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, wantonness,
and fraudulent transfer.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with kidney cancer and other
injuries, says the suit.
The Thompson case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Allstar Fire Equipment is a fire equipment manufacturer in
California.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
BASF Corporation is a chemicals company based in New Jersey.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Fire-Dex, LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment
in Ohio.
Globe Manufacturing Company LLC is a provider of fire safety
services and equipment in New Hampshire.
Honeywell Safety Product USA, Inc. is a provider of fire safety
services and equipment in Rhode Island.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Lion Group, Inc. is a protective clothing supplier in Vandalia,
Ohio.
Mallory Safety and Supply LLC is a safety equipment supplier in
Portland, Oregon.
Mine Safety Appliances Co., LLC is a manufacturer of fire safety
products in Pennsylvania.
Municipal Emergency Services, Inc. is a public safety company
offering fire equipment services based in Utah.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West
Chester, Pennsylvania.
PBI Performance Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting
equipment in North Carolina.
Southern Mills, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective clothing
fabric for industrial and military use in Georgia.
Stedfast USA, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective barrier
technologies in Tennessee.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida.
W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. is an American multinational
manufacturing company in Delaware.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric W. Cracken, Esq.
Steven D. Davis, Esq.
TORHOERMAN LAW LLC
210 S. Main Street
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Telephone: (618) 656-4400
Facsimile: (618) 656-4401
MDL 2873: DiPietro Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID G. DIPIETRO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-07289-RMG
(D.S.C., December 13, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with thyroid cancer and high
cholesterol.
The DiPietro case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection and
ignition/temperature control products, headquartered in Ashland,
Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West
Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Hochman, Esq.
THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC
5411 McPherson Rd., Ste. 110
Laredo, TX 78041
Telephone: (956) 704-5187
Facsimile: (956) 368-1343
MDL 2873: Faces Hall Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Elements
------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC DANIEL HALL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff 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.; 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.; 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; 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., Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-07279-RMG (D.S.C., December 13, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning,
design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of
express and implied warranties, wantonness, and fraudulent
transfer.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with thyroid disease, the suit
alleges.
The Hall case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Allstar Fire Equipment is a fire equipment manufacturer in
California.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
CB Garment, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Eugene, Oregon.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Daikin America, Inc. is a manufacturer of fluorochemical products
based in New York.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Fire-Dex, LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment
in Ohio.
Fire Service Plus, Inc. is a fire system services, maintenance, and
equipment in Georgia.
Globe Manufacturing Company LLC is a provider of fire safety
services and equipment in New Hampshire.
Honeywell Safety Product USA, Inc. is a provider of fire safety
services and equipment in Rhode Island.
Innotex Corp. is a provider of fire safety services and equipment
in British Columbia.
Johnson Controls, Inc. is a global diversified technology and
industrial business company based in Wisconsin.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
L.N. Curtis & Sons is a manufacturer of fire safety products in
California.
Lion Group, Inc. is a protective clothing supplier in Vandalia,
Ohio.
Milliken & Company is a chemical manufacturer in South Carolina.
Mine Safety Appliances Co., LLC is a manufacturer of fire safety
products in Pennsylvania.
Municipal Emergency Services, Inc. is a public safety company
offering fire equipment services based in Utah.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West
Chester, Pennsylvania.
PBI Performance Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting
equipment in North Carolina.
Perimeter Solutions, LP is a chemicals company in Missouri.
Ricochet Manufacturing Company, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire
safety products in Pennsylvania.
Safety Components Fabric Technologies, Inc. is a manufacturer of
firefighting equipment in South Carolina.
Southern Mills, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective clothing
fabric for industrial and military use in Georgia.
Stedfast USA, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective barrier
technologies in Tennessee.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida.
Veridian Limited is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in
England.
W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. is an American multinational
manufacturing company in Delaware.
Witmer Public Safety Group, Inc. is a distributor of public safety
equipment and supplies in Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Ryan Ziminskas, Esq.
THEMIS LAW, PLLC
7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 105
Austin, TX 78731
Telephone: (737) 208-1636
Email: rziminskas@themislawpllc.com
MDL 2873: Kennelly Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY KENNELLY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.;
ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.;
ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY;
CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT
DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING
COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION
GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES
CO., LLC, MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.;
SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); W.L. GORE &
ASSOCIATES, INC.; and 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-07287-RMG
(D.S.C., December 13, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, wantonness, and fraudulent transfer.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis, thyroid
disease, and other injuries, the suit says.
The Kennelly case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Allstar Fire Equipment is a fire equipment manufacturer in
California.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
BASF Corporation is a chemicals company based in New Jersey.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Fire-Dex, LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment
in Ohio.
Globe Manufacturing Company LLC is a provider of fire safety
services and equipment in New Hampshire.
Honeywell Safety Product USA, Inc. is a provider of fire safety
services and equipment in Rhode Island.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Lion Group, Inc. is a protective clothing supplier in Vandalia,
Ohio.
Mallory Safety and Supply LLC is a safety equipment supplier in
Portland, Oregon.
Mine Safety Appliances Co., LLC is a manufacturer of fire safety
products in Pennsylvania.
Municipal Emergency Services, Inc. is a public safety company
offering fire equipment services based in Utah.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West
Chester, Pennsylvania.
PBI Performance Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting
equipment in North Carolina.
Southern Mills, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective clothing
fabric for industrial and military use in Georgia.
Stedfast USA, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective barrier
technologies in Tennessee.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida.
W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. is an American multinational
manufacturing company in Delaware.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric W. Cracken, Esq.
Steven D. Davis, Esq.
TORHOERMAN LAW LLC
210 S. Main Street
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Telephone: (618) 656-4400
Facsimile: (618) 656-4401
MDL 2873: Two Suits Consolidated in AFFF Liability Row
------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district action captioned "In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming
Foams Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 2873, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, transfers two cases from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama to the District of South Carolina
and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Richard M.
Gergel for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Plaintiffs in the two actions moved to vacate order that
conditionally transferred their actions to the District of South
Carolina for inclusion in MDL No. 2873 while Defendants BFI Waste
Systems of Alabama, LLC, BFI Waste Systems of North America, LLC,
and 3M Company opposed the motion.
The plaintiffs in MDL No. 2873 allege that aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFFs) used at airports, military bases, or certain
industrial locations caused the release of per- or polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS) into local groundwater and contaminated drinking
water supplies. The actions in the MDL share factual questions
concerning the use and storage of AFFFs; the toxicity of PFAS and
the effects of these substances on human health; and these
substances' chemical properties and propensity to migrate in
groundwater supplies.
Plaintiffs in these two actions allege that their water supplies
have been contaminated by PFAS discharged from, inter alia,
manufacturing facilities in Decatur, Alabama, operated by
defendants 3M, Toray Fluorofibers (America), Inc., and Daikin
America, Inc.
The panel cites that in June 2024, it transferred four Alabama
actions that involved personal injury claims stemming from the
alleged discharge of PFAS into the Tennessee River by 3M's
manufacturing facility in Decatur, Alabama, upon being persuaded
that 3M manufactured AFFF there. Thus, the two actions will share
common questions of fact with the AFFF actions in the MDL and will
benefit from inclusion in the centralized proceedings.
Plaintiffs have argued that the advanced procedural posture of
these actions weighs against transfer. They emphasize the amount of
factual discovery, including depositions, that was completed before
the action was removed to federal court.
"Even so, significant discovery remains, including all expert
discovery and dispositive motions," rules the panel. "There is
ample scope for coordination of discovery and pretrial motion
practice with the other actions pending in the MDL, particularly
the other actions alleging PFAS discharges stemming from 3M’s
Decatur Facility. Transfer therefore remains appropriate."
Plaintiffs next contest the panel's holding in the June 2024 Order
that 3M manufactured AFFF at its Decatur Facility. They suggest
that 3M made only "building block" chemicals at the Decatur
Facility that could be incorporated into myriad products, the vast
majority of which were not AFFF.
"We are not well positioned to resolve this factual dispute, but we
do not need to do so. It is sufficient for purposes of Section 1407
transfer that 3M has demonstrated that AFFF is at issue in these
actions," the panel concludes.
A full-text copy of the court's December 12, 2024 order is
available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2873-Transfer_Order-12-24.pdf
MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Fisher Sues Over Defective Wound Dressing
-------------------------------------------------------------
GARY FISHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MEDLINE INDUSTRIES, LP; ADVANCED MEDICAL
SOLUTIONS LTD.; ADVANCED MEDICAL SOLUTIONS GROUP, PLC; and
SOLVENTUM CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-02174 (N.D.
Ohio, December 14, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants
for strict liability, negligence, breach of warranties, and medical
monitoring.
The case arises from the Defendants' design, manufacturing, and
distribution of Maxorb Extra CMC/Alginate Wound Dressing. According
to the complaint, the dressing contained defects rendering it
incapable of maintaining a sterile barrier and making it
susceptible to causing and inducing patient infections. As a result
of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals suffered a serious and life-threatening infection after
using the product, says the suit.
Medline Industries, LP is a healthcare company based in Illinois.
Advanced Medical Solutions Ltd. is a medical solutions provider
doing business in Ohio.
Advanced Medical Solutions Group, PLC is a developer and
manufacturer of innovative tissue-healing technologies in United
Kingdom.
Solventum Corporation is a healthcare company doing business in
Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Rankin, Esq.
Richard Shenkan, Esq.
SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC
6550 Lakeshore St.
West Bloomfield, MI 48323
Telephone: (248) 562-1320
Facsimile: (888) 769-1774
- and -
Paul J. Komyatte, Esq.
THE KOMYATTE LAW FIRM LLC
722 Washington Ave., Unit 202
Golden, CO 80401
Telephone: (303) 489-6554
Facsimile: (720) 528-8072
MIDLAND CREDIT: Filing for Class Certification Bids Due Nov. 14
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA STEVENS, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. MIDLAND CREDIT
MANAGEMENT, INC., and MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00501
(S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert Chambers entered a scheduling
order:
-- Motions to join other parties or to Jan. 21, 2025
amend the pleadings shall be filed by:
-- Class Certification Motions: Nov. 14, 2025
-- Discovery: Aug. 15, 2025
-- Expert Witnesses: July 17, 2025
-- Mediation: Oct. 26, 2025
The Court defers further scheduling concerning post-certification
discovery until ruling is made on class certification.
The Court further cancels the scheduling conference set for Jan.
21, 2025. The Court directs the Clerk to send a copy of this Order
to counsel of record and any unrepresented parties.
Midland is an American debt buyer and debt collection company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IJja2v at no extra
charge.[CC]
NATIONAL MENTOR: Hagans Wins Class Cert Bid
-------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAGANS, et al., v.
NATIONAL MENTOR HEALTHCARE, INC., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00128
(D.N.J., Filed Jan. 11, 2022), the Hon. Judge Karen M. Williams
entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).[CC]
NAVY FEDERAL: Buckholts State Sues Over Check Fraud
---------------------------------------------------
Buckholts State Bank, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 1:25-cv-00052-DII
(W.D. Tex., Jan. 10, 2025), is brought on behalf of all others
similarly situated have suffered losses arising out of check fraud
facilitated through ("Class Members") who Defendant.
The Plaintiff became a victim of NFCU and its inadequate "Know Your
customer wrote a check that was then stolen in the US Customer"
procedures after a The Plaintiff Mail. NFCU then allowed the check
thieves to open a business account at NFCU in the name of the payee
on the stolen check. NFCU facilitated the creation of the
fraudulent account, then immediately cleared the stolen check via
deposit into the fraudulent account on January 10, 2023. NFCU
allowed the fraudulent account holder immediate access to the funds
for transfer and withdrawal. Neither NFCU nor its customer were
entitled to enforce the check because the endorsement on the check
was not authorized. The Plaintiff timely notified NFCU of its error
in allowing the fraudulent account to be created, claiming a forged
endorsement, and requesting a credit be issued by NFCU to The
Plaintiff. NFCU responded on May 15, 2023 that it had "completed
our research for the claim" and was denying the claim.
The Plaintiff, in order to properly investigate whether it could
make any claims against NFCU to recover the funds and to determine
the veracity of NFCU's representations to The Plaintiff in denying
the claim, filed a petition under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202
to depose NFCU. NFCU fought, obstructed, and delayed the deposition
as well as production of documents. In fact, as of the date of this
filing, NFCU has not produced all of the documents it was ordered
to produce by the State District Court Judge. Nevertheless, The
Plaintiff was able to learn enough about the significant amount of
check fraud occurring through NFCU, and how NFCU deflects the
losses to others, to bring this lawsuit.
Notably, one fact learned from the Rule 202 deposition of NFCU's
corporate representative is that when NFCU declined to return the
fraudulently obtained funds to The Plaintiff, NFCU had already
determined through its own internal investigation that the NFCU
account into which the stolen check was deposited was fraudulent
and had closed it. The Plaintiff also learned that during the
relevant period, hundreds of millions of dollars in fraud were
occurring through NFCU via hundreds of fraudulent accounts.
Notably, NFCU has been able to limit its own losses to
approximately 1% of the total fraud exposure stemming from its
fraudulent accounts, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a financial institution organized and authorized
to do business under the laws of the State of Texas.
NFCU is a global banking institution headquartered in
Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John R. Fabry, Esq.
Morgan R. Ferrell, Esq.
THE CARLSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
559 S. Interstate Hwy 35, Suite 250
Round Rock, TX 78664
Phone: (512) 671-7277
Email: jfabry@carlsonattorneys.com
mferrell@carlsonattorneys.com
- and -
Amos L. Barton, Esq.
THE CARLSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
301 Junction Highway, Suite 100
Kerrville, Texas 78028
Phone: (830) 257-7575
Fax: (830) 257-7580
Email: Abarton@carlsonattorneys.com
- and -
William P. Huttenbach, Esq.
CRAIN CATON & JAMES
1401 McKinney, Suite 1700
Houston, Texas 77010
Phone: (713) 658-2323
Fax: (713) 658-1921 Fax
Email: whuttenbach@craincaton.com
NEW FIELD HONOLULU: Heard Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Heard, Devin Campbell, Dominick Pisciotta, and Henry Oh,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NEW
FIELD HONOLULU INC. d/b/a MARGOTTO, Case No. 1:25-cv-00016-SASP-WRP
(D. Haw., Jan. 13, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid wages,
including improperly withheld tips and service charges, unpaid
overtime, damages for breach of implied contract and unjust
enrichment, statutory penalties for recordkeeping violations, as
well as attorneys' fees and costs in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), and Hawaii's wage and hour laws, as well as
for breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, failure to
maintain and provide accurate records, and wrongful retention of
service charges.
When the restaurant first opened, Defendant implemented a policy
where a service charge was added to customers' checks. This service
charge was initially divided so that 50% of the service charge went
to the restaurant to cover "administration fees," and the remaining
50% was distributed among the staff, including both tipped and
non-tipped employees.
The Defendant failed to ensure that the tips and service charges
were properly distributed. Non-tipped employees, including
management, the owner, and kitchen staff, were improperly included
in the tip pool. Federal law (FLSA) and Hawaii state law both
prohibit non-tipped employees, managers, and supervisors from
participating in tip pools when a tip credit is taken by the
employer.
The Defendant often failed to maintain accurate records of the
hours worked by Plaintiffs and other employees. On multiple
occasions, Plaintiffs noticed discrepancies in their tip
allocation, including instances where tips were allocated to
employees who were not working or clocked in on certain nights.
The Plaintiffs and other employees were not consistently provided
with records or breakdowns of how their tips and service charges
were calculated and distributed. Spreadsheets detailing the tip
distribution were often delayed or never provided, and employees
were discouraged from questioning the accuracy of these records,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as servers.
The Defendant operates a restaurant where Plaintiffs and others
similarly situated were employed.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James D. DiPasquale, Esq.
DIPASQUALE & SUMMERS, LLP
737 Bishop Street, Suite 1460
Honolulu, HI 96813
Phone: (808) 240-4771
Facsimile: (808) 240-4765
Email: james@ds-lawoffices.com
NEXA MORTGAGE: Raslavich TCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as Anna Raslavich, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. NEXA Mortgage LLC, Case No.
24-CA-009601 was removed from the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of
Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida on Jan. 10, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-00077-WFJ-TGW to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
NEXA Mortgage LLC -- https://nexamortgage.com/ -- are a
full-service mortgage company headquartered in Chandler,
Arizona.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq.
KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A.
2110 West Platt Street
Tampa, FL 33606
Phone: (813) 422-7782
Fax: (813) 422-7783
Email: ben@thekrfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Yaniv Adar, Esq.
MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN
80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 1999
Miami, FL 33130
Phone: (305) 374-0440
Email: yaniv@markmigdal.com
NEXSTAR BROADCASTING: Radford Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Steven Radford, on behalf of the State of
California, as a private attorney general v. NEXSTAR BROADCASTING,
INC., a Corporation; NEXSTAR BROADCASTING GROUP, INC., a
Corporation; NEXSTAR MEDIA INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-24-619914 was removed from the Superior
Court of California for the County of San Francisco, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 10,
2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00389.
The Plaintiff asserts one cause of action in his Complaint under
the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004
("PAGA"). The Complaint seeks civil penalties and attorney's fees,
expenses, and costs for alleged violations of California Labor Code
Sections 201,
202, 203, 204, 210, 218, 221, 226(a), 226.7, 227.3, 246, 510, 512,
558(a)(1)(2), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2100, and 2802, violation
of California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 11040,
Subdivision 5(A)-(B), California Code of Regulations, Title 8,
Section 11070(14), and the applicable Wage Order.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Geoffrey C. Westbrook, Esq.
Natalie C. Kreeger, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2300
Sacramento, CA 95814-4428
Phone: (916) 448-0159
Facsimile: (916) 558-4839
Email: gwestbrook@seyfarth.com
nkreeger@seyfarth.com
NEXUSCW INC: Haws Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------
Max Haws and Marcus Frederick, Individually and for Others
Similarly Situated v. NEXUSCW, INC., Case No. 24CV099876 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Nov. 15, 2024), is brought to recover
unpaid wages and other damages from NexusCW ("NCW").
NCW pays Plaintiffs and the other Hourly Recruiters by the hour.
The Plaintiffs and the other Hourly Recruiters regularly work more
than 8 hours a day and 40 hours a week. But NCW does not pay
Plaintiffs and the other Hourly Recruiters for all their hours
worked. Instead, NCW only paid Plaintiffs and its other Hourly
Recruiters for the overtime hours that NCW pre-approved. If NCW did
not pre-approve the overtime hours Plaintiffs and the other Hourly
Recruiters worked, NCW did not pay them for those "unapproved"
overtime hours worked.
Due to the nature of the recruiting industry, however, Plaintiffs
and the other Hourly Recruiters were routinely forced to work
"unapproved" overtime while "off the clock" to complete their job
duties and assignments. But NCW did not pay Plaintiffs and its
other Hourly Recruiters for the "unapproved" overtime they worked
while "off the clock." NCW's uniform overtime approval
policies/practices violate various provisions of the California
Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC")
Wage Orders by depriving the Hourly Recruiters of "time and a half"
overtime pay they are owed for all hours worked after 8 in a day
and 40 in a week, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by NCW as its Hourly Recruiters.
NCW is a staffing agency that "manages contingent workers,
including recruiting, payrolling, and HR partnership."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William M. Hogg, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
Email: whogg@mybackwages.com
NORTHERN TRUST: $6.9MM Class Settlement Reached in Retirement Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a $6.9 million
settlement has been reached that, if approved by the court, will
resolve a proposed class action lawsuit that claimed the Northern
Trust Company breached its fiduciary duties by retaining an
underperforming proprietary funds series as one of its employee
retirement plan's investment options.
The lawsuit against Northern Trust, originally filed in June 2021,
contended that the company put its own interests above those of
plan participants when it decided to retain its own target date
funds suite for the retirement plan. According to the class action
suit, the alleged mismanagement of investment options violated the
federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and cost
the plan millions in damages.
The proposed class action settlement aims to cover a class of
roughly 14,000 participants and beneficiaries of the Northern Trust
Thrift-Incentive Plan who were invested in the funds series at
issue—namely, the Northern Trust Focus Funds—at any time
between June 1, 2015 and the date the deal receives preliminary
approval from the court.
The plaintiffs notified the court of the agreement with Northern
Trust, and filed an unopposed motion and memo detailing the terms
of the proposed deal, on January 6, 2025. It is now up to the court
to decide whether to grant initial approval to the Northern Trust
settlement terms.
If the $6,900,000 deal is approved by the court, class members will
not need to do anything to receive a Northern Trust settlement
rebate, the agreement says.
The document shares that Northern Trust payouts will be distributed
to current and former participants on a pro rata basis, with
individual payment amounts determined by a class member's average
qualifying account balance for the period from June 1, 2015 to
September 22, 2021. Cash recovery amounts may be subject to
decrease as necessary, the agreement adds.
Per the settlement agreement, payments to current participants will
be made into their existing Northern Trust account in the plan.
Former participants entitled to a settlement rebate can choose to
receive their payout in the form of a check or as a rollover to a
qualified retirement account, the document relays.
If the deal is approved, notice of the settlement will be issued to
eligible class members within 40 days of the approval date, the
agreement states. [GN]
NOVUS CREATUS: Fagnani Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mykayla Fagnani, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons v. NOVUS CREATUS LLC, Case No.
1:25-cv-00335 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2025), is brought this civil
rights action against the Defendant for their failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website,
https://vitruline.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed
thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is
not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures
so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.
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
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen reading software to read website content using the
computer.
NOVUS CREATUS LLC, operates the Vitruline online retail store, as
well as the Vitruline 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.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
dana@gottlieb.legal
NURTURE INC: Bid to Continue Class Certification Briefing OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA SANCHEZ and
BEVERLY CASSEL, on behalf of themselves, the general public and
those similarly situated, v. NURTURE, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
Case No. 5:21-cv-08566-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward
Davila entered an order granting the Parties' stipulation to
continue class certification briefing.
-- The Defendants' deadline to file its opposition to Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification and any expert report(s) in
support is continued to Jan. 17, 2025.
On Oct. 25, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification.
The current deadline for Defendant to file its Opposition to
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Cert. is Jan. 10, 2025.
On or around Jan. 7, 2025, the Palisades Fire began in Los Angeles,
California. The fire has burned 11,000 acres and numerous homes,
businesses and landmarks in Pacific Palisades and westward. The
region is currently under mandatory evacuation orders.
Nurture is an organic baby food company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wa89J8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Seth Safier, Esq.
Marie A. McCray, Esq.
Hayley Reynolds, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 639-9090
Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
marie@gutridesafier.com
hayley@gutridesafier.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Angela C. Agrusa, Esq.
Shannon E. Dudic, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
2000 Avenue of the Stars
Suite 400 North Tower
Los Angeles, CA 90067-4704
Telephone: (310) 595-3000
Facsimile: (310) 595-3300
E-mail: angela.agrusa@us.dlapiper.com
shannon.dudic@us.dlapiper.com
OAKLAND COUNTY, MI: Sinclair Loses Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARION SINCLAIR, et al.,
v. COUNTY OF OAKLAND, Case No. 2:18-cv-14042-TGB-APP (E.D. Mich.),
the Hon. Judge Terrence Berg entered an order denying Plaintiff's
motion for class certification:
"All persons and entities that owned real property in Oakland
County whose real property, during the relevant time period,
was seized through a real property tax foreclosure and
subsequently purchased via a local municipality's right of
first refusal program (MCL 211.78m), which was worth more
than the total tax delinquency taxes owed and were not
refunded the surplus equity in excess of the delinquent tax
amount."
The Court says that all in all, because Sinclair failed to develop
a "cognizable common theory for measuring the value in each
property at the time of transfer," the proposed class definition
failed to meet Rule 23(a) requirement of numerosity, Rule 23(b)(3)
requirements of predominance and superiority, and the implied
requirement of ascertainability.
Sinclair owned a home in Southfield, Michigan. After she fell
behind on her property taxes—by $22,047.46—the Oakland County
Treasurer initiated forfeiture and foreclosure proceedings against
her under Michigan's General Property Tax Act.
Oakland County is a county in the U.S. state of Michigan. It is a
principal county of the Detroit metropolitan area.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e6MzXg at no extra
charge.[CC]
ONTARIO TEACHERS': Members Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael McKiernan, writing for Investment Executive, reports that
the board of the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan (OTPP) is facing a
US$95-million class action from its own members over the fund's
investments in the notorious collapsed cryptocurrency exchange FTX.
In a statement of claim filed with the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice in Toronto, a representative plaintiff proposing to act on
behalf of the plan's 340,000 active and retired teachers asked the
plan board to reimburse the fund for the full US$95-million loss it
took when FTX went under, alleging that the board breached its
fiduciary duty to members by failing to meet its obligations under
Ontario's Pension Benefits Act when pursuing the transaction.
Had it acted in accordance with its own statement of investment
policies and procedures and followed a "prudent due diligence and
investment approval process," the board would not have gone through
with the deal, the claim continues.
None of the allegations in the statement of claim, which lists John
Archibald of Toronto law firm Investigation Counsel P.C. as counsel
to the plaintiffs, have been proven in court. The lawyer did not
respond to a request for comment.
In an emailed statement to Investment Executive, an OTPP
spokesperson said that they were aware of the claim against the
board.
"We believe that the claim is without merit and intend to defend
ourselves," the statement reads. "We take our responsibility for
the investment of plan assets seriously and have strong investment
risk management processes, including robust due diligence on all
private investments."
OTPP made its initial US$75-million investment in FTX International
in October 2021, taking an ownership interest of around 0.4%. It
followed up in January 2022 by injecting a further US$20 million
for a 0.5% stake in the exchange's U.S. entity FTX.US as part of a
funding round that valued the entire FTX operation at around US$32
billion. Both investments were made through the Teachers' Venture
Growth (TVG) platform, a subsidiary created to invest in emerging
technology companies.
However, by November 2022, the pension fund was forced to write
down its investment to zero after the exchange filed for bankruptcy
amid allegations of fraud and misappropriation of customer funds.
Several senior FTX executives have since been jailed over the
collapse, including founder and CEO Sam Bankman-Fried, who received
a 25-year prison sentence following his conviction on counts of
fraud and conspiracy.
In the class-action claim, the plaintiff focuses on alleged
inadequacies in the OTPP board's due diligence and investment
approval process.
"The Board failed to obtain adequate and reliable information about
the FTX Entities' internal controls in the critical areas of
management and governance, finance and accounting, as well as
digital asset management, information security and cybersecurity,"
the statement says. "The Board also ignored, or otherwise failed to
recognize and appropriately investigate and consider, red flags in
respect of those internal controls."
In addition, the claim alleges that developments in the Canadian
cryptocurrency sector -- including the regulatory fallout from the
collapse of local exchange QuadrigaCX -- should have put OTPP on
high alert about such investments prior to its FTX involvement.
"The collapse of Quadriga, the [Ontario Securities Commission's]
report addressing that collapse and the subsequent Canadian
regulatory developments in respect of cryptocurrency exchanges
constituted special circumstances that raised the level of due
diligence required of the Board to fulfill its obligation of
prudence in respect of the Plan's investments in the FTX Entities,"
the claim states.
In an earlier statement issued around the time of the FTX
bankruptcy, OTPP defended its due diligence process. "In FTX's
case, our underwriting process included working closely with
third-party advisors and FTX to explore commercial, regulatory,
tax, financial, technical and other matters," it
said. "Recognizing that no due diligence process can uncover all
risks especially in the context of an emerging technology business,
the investment in FTX was sized moderately in relation to TVG and
the overall portfolio of the Plan."
Despite its disappointment in the outcome, OTPP's statement added
that the US$95-million loss would have "limited impact" on the
plan, noting that the investment represented less than 0.05% of its
total net assets.
David Milosevic, a lawyer with experience in securities litigation
and class actions, said the fiduciary relationship between pension
administrators and their members adds a level of complexity to the
case compared with the typical investment losses lawsuit. Still, he
said that any trial could provide useful guidance to investors or
all stripes regarding due diligence requirements.
"Professionals in this area should be following the case closely,
to keep abreast of the level of obligation that the court is going
to find for pension advisors or any kind of investment advisors in
a case like this," said Milosevic, who has no involvement in the
FTX case. [GN]
ORTHOPEDICSNY: Glassman Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marsha Glassman, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated v. ORTHOPEDICSNY, LLP, Case No. 1:24-cv-01401-LEK-ML
(N.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its
failure to safeguard and secure the personally identifiable
information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI", and
together with the PII, the "Private Information") of its former,
present, prospective patients, their family members, and other
individuals associated, including Plaintiff, around the nation.
At Defendant's request, Plaintiff provided her PII and PHI to
Defendant, which maintained Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and
PHI but failed to sufficiently secure them. As a result of
Defendant's negligence, cybercriminals were able to gain access to
Defendant's corporate systems, which contain data records and
sensitive and valuable PII and PHI (the "Data Breach").
On December 28, 2023, Defendant became aware of suspicious activity
on its network and discovered that an unauthorized third party has
accessed certain systems. The Defendant notified affected
individuals, including Plaintiff, of the breach in a letter dated
October 30, 2024 (the "Notice Letter"). In the Notice Letter,
Defendant confirmed that files containing Plaintiff's and Class
Members' Private Information, including first and last name,
mailing address, date of birth, social security number, driver's
license number, passport number, financial account information,
health insurance information, and/or protected health information,
had been accessed or copied during the Data Breach.
The Plaintiff has significant concerns about the security of her
personal data. Since the breach, Plaintiff received an increasing
number of spam calls and messages, and lost over one thousand
dollars due to fraudulent activities. As a result of Defendant's
inadequate security and breach of its duties and obligations, the
Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and
PHI was accessed and disclosed. This action seeks to remedy these
failings and the harm caused to Plaintiff and Class Members as a
result. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all
persons whose PII and PHI was exposed because of the Data Breach,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff provided her PII and PHI to Defendant upon
Defendant's request as a patient at Defendant's facility.
OrthoNY is a 70-provider orthopedic group serving upstate New York,
including the Albany, Schenectady, and Saratoga regions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth Fromson, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN & PARTNERS, LLP
236 Clinton Avenue
Kingston, NY 12401
Phone: 845-943-2331
Email: kfromson@lawampm.com
- and -
Todd S. Garber, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
One North Broadway, Suite 900
White Plains, NY 10601
Phone: (914) 298-3281
Email: tgarber@fbfglaw.com
PACIRA BIOSCIENCES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
If you suffered a loss on your Pacira BioSciences, Inc.
(NASDAQ:PCRX) investment and want to learn about a potential
recovery under the federal securities laws, follow the link for
more information:
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/pacira-biosciences-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=122985&wire=1
THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against
Pacira BioSciences, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of
shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities
fraud between August 2, 2023 and August 8, 2024.
CASE DETAILS: According to the complaint, on August 9, 2024, Pacira
issued a press release announcing the results of its lawsuit
against eVenus for patent infringement. Pacira disclosed that the
court "found that the company's U.S. Patent No. 11,033,495 (the
'495 patent) is not valid," and, thus, eVenus is not infringing on
anything. Pacira's '495 patent is for Exparel, which is the main
source of growth for the Company, encapsulating roughly 80% of its
revenue. Analysts have noted that the invalidity of the '495 patent
calls into question the validity of the Company's other patents,
potentially resulting in more generic entrants into the market and
increased litigation expenses moving forward.
Following this news, Pacira's common stock declined dramatically.
From a closing market price of $22.36 per share on August 8, 2024,
Pacira's stock price fell to a low of $11.70 per share on August 9,
2024, a decline of over 47% in a single day.
WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Pacira stock during the
relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares - go to
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/pacira-biosciences-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=122985&wire=1
to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or
obligation to participate.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP
has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities
litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars
for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning
high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing
investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70
employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi &
Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top
50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the
United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
https://zlk.com/ [GN]
PETSMART LLC: Oaks Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------
Mark Oaks, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. PETSMART, LLC, Case No. ESX-L-007989-24 (N.J. Sup. Ct., Essex
Cty., Nov. 15, 2024), is brought for its violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the
Defendants blind-inaccessible website.
Upon visiting Defendant's website, https://www.petsmart.com/
(hereinafter referred to as "Website"), Plaintiff quickly became
aware of Defendant's failure to maintain and operate its website in
a way to make it fully accessible for himself and for other blind
or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and
services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("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, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person.
The Defendant is and was at all relevant times a company doing
business and marketing to New Jersey customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Zemel, Esq.
ZEMEL LAW LLC
400 Sylvan Ave, Suite 200
Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
Phone: (862) 227-3106
Email: dz@zemellawllc.com
PIH HEALTH: Bottoms Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Personal Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALEAH BOTTOMS and BRYAN LORDEN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PIH HEALTH, INC., PIH
HEALTH DOWNEY MEDICAL GROUP, INC., PIH HEALTH COMMUNITY PHARMACY,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV33333 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., December 17, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the
California Consumer Privacy Act, and the Confidentiality in Medical
Information Act, deceit by concealment, negligence, breach of
express warranty, unjust enrichment, and invasion of privacy.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected
health information of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated
individuals stored within PIH's systems following a data breach on
or about December 1, 2024. The Defendants also failed to timely
notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals about the
data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiffs
and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and
disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the
suit.
PIH Health, Inc. is a regional healthcare network in California.
PIH Health Downey Medical Group, Inc. is a subsidiary of PIH
Health, Inc. doing business in California.
PIH Health Community Pharmacy, LLC is a subsidiary of PIH Health,
Inc. doing business in California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Yana Hart, Esq.
Mark Richards, Esq.
Adam L. Rosen, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
Email: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com
mrichards@clarksonlawfirm.com
arosen@clarksonlawfirm.com
PIH HEALTH: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Estrada Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL ESTRADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PIH HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No.
24STCV32875 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., December 13, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per
se, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment, invasion of privacy, violations of the California
Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer Privacy Act, and
the Confidentiality in Medical Information Act, and declaratory
judgement.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected
health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals stored within its systems following a data breach on or
about December 1, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify
the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data
breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and
Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and
disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the
suit.
PIH Health, Inc. is a regional healthcare network in California.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
1925 Century Park E, #1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
PIH HEALTH: Fails to Protect Patients' Personal Info, Walsh Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL WALSH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PIH HEALTH, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-10955-CAS-MAR (C.D.
Cal., Dec. 19, 2024) sues the Defendant for its inadequate data
security policies and practices, which allowed unidentified third
parties to gain unauthorized access and exfiltrate highly sensitive
and personally identifiable information and personal health
information stored on Defendant's servers.
PIH reported that on "Dec. 1, 2024, PIH Health was the victim of a
ransomware attack. This attack caused significant disruptions to
operations: requiring patients to bring paper copies of physician
orders, shutting down phone systems, and resulting in some
surgeries being cancelled. Reportedly, the Data Breach affected all
three hospitals, PIH Health Downey Hospital, PIH Health Whittier
Hospital, and PIH Health Good Samaritan Hospital, the suit claims.
The compromised personal and medical information included
Personally Identifiable Information, i.e., patient names, home
addresses, phone numbers, places of employment, Social Security
numbers, dates of birth, along with Protected Health Information,
i.e., medical expenses and amounts paid for medical episodes,
confidential diagnoses, laboratory and other test results, patient
photos and scans, treatment plans, private emails with patients and
internal confidential discussions, and other clinical and/or health
information.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members
suffered injury and ascertainable losses in the form of the present
and imminent threat of fraud and identity theft, loss of the
benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of value of
their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of
the attack, and the loss of, and diminution in, value of their PHI
and PII, the suit asserts.
Plaintiff Michael Walsh is a citizen of California, residing in the
City of Whittier, and was a healthcare patient of PIH.
PIH is a nonprofit, regional healthcare network in the State of
California with three hospitals, over thirty outpatient medical
offices, a multispecialty medical (physician) group, home
healthcare services and hospice care, as well as heart, cancer, and
emergency services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David S. Casey, Jr., Esq.
Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
P. Camille Guerra, Esq.
Jennifer L. Connor, Esq.
CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA
BLATT & PENFIELD LLP
110 Laurel Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 238-1811
Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com
gmb@cglaw.com
camille@cglaw.com
jconnor@cglaw.com
- and -
Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino Del Rio S., Suite 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (866) 219-3343
Facsimile: (866) 219-8344
E-mail: josh@swigartlawgroup.com
POLYGLASS USA: Conditional Cert. Bid Filing Extended to March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANILKA CASTRO, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. POLYGLASS USA INC.,
Case No. 3:24-cv-01059-KM (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Karoline
Mehalchick entered an order granting the parties' joint motion for
extension of time.
The deadline for submitting motions for Rule 23 Class Certification
and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) conditional certification is
extended until Mar. 31, 2025.
Polyglass is a manufacturer of innovative roofing products such as
modified bitumen membranes and roof coatings for low- and
steep-slope applications.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BTXzGa at no extra
charge.[CC]
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Rivera Files Debt Collection Suit in M.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is captioned as JOSE RIVERA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PORTFOLIO
RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-02296-WWB-RMN (M.D.
Fla., December 17, 2024).
The suit is brought over the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Fair Debt Collection Act.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC is a subsidiary of PRA Group,
Inc., doing business in Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Benjamin, Esq.
BENJAMIN LAW PRACTICE, PLLC
2645 Executive Park Drive, Suite 438
Weston, FL 33331
Telephone: (954) 716-8362
Facsimile: (954) 477-8020
Email: jon@benjaminlawpractice.com
POSITEC TOOL: Figueroa Sues Over Unlawful Telephonic Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Figueroa, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. POSITEC TOOL CORPORATION, Case No.
CACE-24-016529 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Nov. 15,
2024), is brought for injunctive and declaratory relief, and
damages for violations Of the Caller ID Rules, Fla. Stat. Of the
Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA").
In direct contravention of the Caller ID Rules, however, many
callers, such as Defendant, make Telephonic Sales Calls a central
part of their marketing strategy, and in doing so, intentionally
transmit telephone numbers to recipient's Caller ID services that
are not capable of receiving telephone calls.
As such, Plaintiff, brings this action alleging that Defendant
violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number
that was not capable of receiving phone calls when it made
Telephonic Sales Calls by text message ("Text Message Sales
Calls").
Specifically, Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that promoted
WORX ("WORX Text Message Sales Calls") and violated the Caller ID
Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification
services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving
telephone calls, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is the regular user of a cellular telephone number
that receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls.
The Defendant sells various goods to persons throughout the country
through its online store.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Phone: (202) 709-5744
Fax: (866) 893-0416
Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com
shawn@sjlawcollective.com
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: E.H. Sues Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------
E.H., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
by her parent and guardian Elizabeth Spence v. POWERSCHOOL
HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00152-DC-SCR (E.D. Cal., Jan. 13,
2025), is brought on behalf of all person who entrusted the
Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information
("PII") and protected health information ("PHI" and collectively,
"Private Information") that was impacted in a data breach that
Defendant publicly disclosed in January 2025 (the "Data Breach" or
the "Breach").
The Plaintiff's claims arise from 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 Defendant had numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and
common law duties and obligations, including those based on its
affirmative representations to Plaintiff and Class Members, to keep
their Private Information confidential, safe, secure, and protected
from unauthorized disclosure or access. On December 28, 2024,
Defendant became aware of a security incident on its IT Network.
Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and
scope of the incident.
The Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep
individuals' Private Information secure. The Defendant owed
Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and
necessary measures to keep the Private Information it collected
safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited,
collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private
Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or
maintain adequate security practices. The Defendant admits that
information in its system was accessed by unauthorized individuals,
though it provided little information regarding how the Data Breach
occurred, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a student at Henry County Public School District,
which uses PowerSchool products.
The Defendant is a cloud-based software solutions provider for K-12
schools and districts that supports over 60 million students and
over 18,000 customers worldwide, and is headquartered in Folsom,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
280 S. Beverly Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (858) 209-6941
Email: jnelson@milberg.com
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Vargha Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
------------------------------------------------------------
Krystal Vargha, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., D/B/A POWERSCHOOL, Case No.
2:25-at-00052 (E.D. Cal., Jan. 10, 2025), is brought against
Defendant for its unauthorized disclosure of and failure to
properly secure the personally identifiable information ("PII") of
numerous students, teachers, parents and guardians, including, but
not limited to: names, addresses, phone numbers, emails, Social
Security numbers, medical information, and academic information.
On December 28, 2024, Defendant become aware of a cybersecurity
incident involving an unauthorized party using a compromised
credential to gain access to "PowerSource," its customer support
portal, which allowed further unauthorized access to, and
acquisition of, certain personal information stored within
Defendant's Student Information System (SIS) (hereafter, the "Data
Breach").
The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to
implement reasonable safeguards to protect PII from a foreseeable
and preventable risk of unauthorized disclosure. Had Defendant
implemented administrative, technical, and physical controls
consistent with industry standards and best practices, it could
have prevented the Data Breach.
The Defendant's conduct resulted in the unauthorized disclosure of
Plaintiff's private information to cybercriminals. The unauthorized
disclosure of Plaintiff's PII constitutes an invasion of a legally
protected privacy interest, that is traceable to the Defendant's
failure to adequately secure the PII in its custody, and has
resulted in actual, particularized, and concrete harm to the
Plaintiff. Through this Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to remedy these
harms individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals whose PII was accessed during the Data Breach, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is/was the parent or guardian of a minor-student in
the Charleston County School District.
PowerSchool is the largest provider of cloud-based education
software for K-12 education in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (803) 222-2222
Fax: (843) 494-5536
Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
cmad@poulinwilley.com
- and -
John C. Bohren, Esq.
BOHREN LAW
8560 West Sunset Boulevard, 4th Floor
West Hollywood, CA 90069
Phone: (619) 433-2803
Fax: (800) 867-6779
PRESSLER FELT: Carrasco Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PRESSLER, FELT &
WARSHAW, LLP, et al. The case is styled as Jonathan Carrasco, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PRESSLER,
FELT & WARSHAW, LLP, LVNV FUNDING LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-10526-SDW-SDA (D.N.J., Nov. 15, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Pressler, Felt, & Warshaw LLP -- https://pfwattorneys.com/ -- is a
New Jersey based debt collection law firm that operates in multiple
states, including New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102b
Rutherford, NJ 07070
Phone: (201) 507-6300
Email: lh@hershlegal.com
PRINX CHENGSHAN: Smith Sues Over Unlawful Manufacturing
-------------------------------------------------------
Garry Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PRINX CHENGSHAN TIRE NORTH AMERICA INC., Case No.
2:25-cv-00194 (E.D. Pa., Jan. 13, 2025), is brought to remedy
various violations of law in connection with Defendant's
manufacture, marketing, advertising, selling, and certification of
the Class Tires.
The Plaintiff brings this action on all similarly situated persons
who purchased or used the following models of tires sold between
August 24, 2020, to December 7, 2024 ("Class Tires"): Fortune
Tormenta R/T FSR309; Fortune Tormenta M/T FSR310; Prinx HiCountry
R/T HR1; Prinx HiCountry M/T HM1.
Specifically, the Class Tires are defective in that they fail to
meet the required North American snow traction standards despite
being marked with the three-peak mountain snowflake symbol, a
certification intended to signify compliance with the snow traction
safety standards. This defect exposes users to increased risks of
accidents, injuries, and fatalities in winter conditions ("Snow
Traction Defect"). On December 20, 2024, Defendant recalled over
541,000 of the above referenced Class Tires ("Recall"), says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the Class Tires during the recall period
and suffered economic losses as a result of the defect.
The Defendant designs, manufactures, markets, distributes,
services, repairs, sells, and leases Tires, including the Class
Tires, nationwide and in Alabama.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stuart A. Carpey, Esq.
CARPEY LAW, PC
600 W. Germantown Pike, Suite 400
Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462
Phone: 610-834-6030
Fax: 610-825-7579
Email: scarpey@carpeylaw.com
- and -
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (803) 222-2222
Fax: (843) 494-5536
Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
cmad@poulinwilley.com
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Amendment of Class Cert Dates Sought in CIS
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CIS COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00359-JAR
(E.D. Mo.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting
joint motion for extension of time and to amend certain items and
deadlines in case management order:
a. The Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion and Memorandum In
Support, and Plaintiff's Expert Disclosure and Report, shall
be due on or before Jan. 10, 2025.
b. The Defendants' Opposition to Class Certification, and
Defendants' Expert Disclosure and Report, shall be due on or
before March 7, 2025.
c. The Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum in Support of Class
Certification shall be due on or before Apr. 4, 2025.
Republic Services is a provider of recycling processes and
non-hazardous solid waste management services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 8, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PGCJyO at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan A. Keane, Esq.
Tanner A. Kirksey, Esq.
KEANE LAW LLC
7711 Bonhomme Ave, Suite 600
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 391-4700
Facsimile: (314) 244-3778
E-mail: ryan@keanelawllc.com
tanner@keanelawllc.com
- and -
Michael C. Seamands, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL C. SEAMANDS, LLC
1401 S. Brentwood Blvd, Suite 825
St. Louis, MO 63144
Telephone: (314) 802-7730
Facsimile: (314) 260-9645
E-mail: mcs@mcs-legal.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jonathan B. Potts, Esq.
Meridyth Andresen, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE
LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 259-2403
E-mail: jonathan.potts@bclplaw.com
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Amendment of Class Cert Dates Sought in Pietoso
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PIETOSO, INC. D/B/A CAFE
NAPOLI, v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No.
4:19-cv-00397-JAR (E.D. Mo.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an
order granting joint motion for extension of time and to amend
certain items and deadlines in case management order:
a. The Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion and Memorandum In
Support, and Plaintiff's Expert Disclosure and Report, shall
be due on or before Jan. 10, 2025.
b. The Defendants' Opposition to Class Certification, and
Defendants' Expert Disclosure and Report, shall be due on or
before March 7, 2025.
c. The Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum in Support of Class
Certification shall be due on or before Apr. 4, 2025.
Republic Services is a provider of recycling processes and
non-hazardous solid waste management services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 8, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8VTbJi at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan A. Keane, Esq.
Tanner A. Kirksey, Esq.
KEANE LAW LLC
7711 Bonhomme Ave, Suite 600
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 391-4700
Facsimile: (314) 244-3778
E-mail: ryan@keanelawllc.com
tanner@keanelawllc.com
- and -
Michael C. Seamands, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL C. SEAMANDS, LLC
1401 S. Brentwood Blvd, Suite 825
St. Louis, MO 63144
Telephone: (314) 802-7730
Facsimile: (314) 260-9645
E-mail: mcs@mcs-legal.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jonathan B. Potts, Esq.
Meridyth Andresen, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE
LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 259-2403
E-mail: jonathan.potts@bclplaw.com
RESTORE IT ALL: Arteaga Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dreys E. Arteaga, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Restore It All, Inc., Strike Electric LLC, Constantin Dobrea, and
Silvia Svera, individually, Case No. 2:25-cv-00023 (M.D. Fla., Jan.
10, 2025), is brought to recover monetary damages for unpaid
overtime wages and retaliation under United States laws and the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("the FLSA").
The Plaintiff worked regularly and consistently more than 40 hours
every week, and he was paid for all his hours, but at his regular
rate. Plaintiff was not paid for overtime hours, as required by
law. Plaintiff did not clock in and out, but Defendants could track
the number of days and hours worked by Plaintiff and other
similarly situated individuals. Therefore, Defendants willfully
failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages at the rate of time and a
half his regular rate for every hour that he worked in excess of
40, in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt,
full-time employee from July 7, 2020, to January 25, 2024, or more
than three years.
Restore It All, Inc. and Strike Electric LLC provide construction,
restoration, and electrical installation services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
RICARDO LLC: Agostini Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
Lunique Agostini, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Ricardo, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00247 (E.D.N.Y., Jan.
10, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for their failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to services Stadium
Enterprises provides to their non-disabled customers through
https://www.ricardosteakhouse.com (hereinafter
"Ricardosteakhouse.com" or "the website"). Defendant's denial of
full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its
services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations,
is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (the "ADA").
Because Defendant's website, Ricardosteakhouse.com, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change
in Ricardo's policies, practices, and procedures to that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
Ricardosteakhouse.com is an online platform that provides a diverse
selection of traditional American dishes and restaurant services,
offered by Defendant in connection with its physical location.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: +1 347-941-4715
Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com
RICHLAND COUNTY, SC: Parties Must File Additional Briefings
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Disability Rights South
Carolina v. Richland County, Case No. 8:22-cv-01358 (D.S.C., Filed
April 28, 2022), the Hon. Judge Mary Geiger Lewis entered an order
directing the parties to file additional briefing as to Plaintiffs'
Motion to Certify Class to address only the applicability of Kadel
v. Folwell, 100 F.4th 122 (4th Cir. 2024).
The nature of suit states Prisoner Civil Rights.
Richland County is a county located in the U.S. state of South
Carolina.[CC]
RITTER LAW: Class Settlement in Church Suit Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUNTER J. CHURCH, on
behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. J RITTER LAW
P.C., FEDCHEX RECOVERY, LLC, JONATHAN RITTER, ESQ., and JOHN DOES
1-10, Case No. 3:23-cv-01709-RLS (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Rukhsanah
Singh entered an order granting preliminary approval to class
action settlement agreement:
-- Hearing: March 20, 2025
-- Submission deadline: March 14, 2025
-- Exclusion Deadline: Feb. 18, 2025
-- Objection Deadline: Feb. 18, 2025
-- Class notice mailing deadline: Jan. 21, 2025
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ptGSu0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
ROCHE BROTHERS INC: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roche Brothers Inc.
The case is styled as Gilbert Martinez, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Roche Brothers Inc.,
Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0000351 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin
Cty., Jan. 9, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Roche Brothers, Inc. -- https://rochebrothersinc.com/ -- is a
construction company that manages all aspects of your project to
fulfill your needs with a quality installation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
KOUL LAW FIRM
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010-2003
Phone: 213-761-5484
Fax: 818-561-3938
Email: nazo@koullaw.com
SAG-AFTRA HEALTH: Furlan Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MASSIMILIANO FURLAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAG-AFTRA HEALTH PLAN, Defendant,
Case No. 2:24-cv-10791-MRA-JC (C.D. Cal., December 13, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of
implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the
California's Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumer
Privacy Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected
health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals stored within its systems following a data breach
discovered on September 18, 2024. The Defendant also failed to
timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals
about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the
Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through
access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties,
says the suit.
Screen Actors Guild - American Federation of Television and Radio
Artists (SAG-AFTRA) Health Plan is a provider of comprehensive
healthcare benefits to SAG-AFTRA members in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
Michelle Zhu, Esq.
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (916) 777-7777
Email: aberry@justice4you.com
gharoutunian@justice4you.com
mzhu@justice4you.com
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Parties Seek to Re-set Class Cert Deadlines
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEVON ANDERSON and BEVERLY
L. SWEENEY on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, and SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL Case No.
4:20-cv-01149-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order granting joint request that the Court re-set the deadlines
listed in the Court's Dec. 12, 2024, Minute Order, as follows:
1. The Parties shall submit revised versions of their Proposed
Order for Preliminary Approval and any affected settlement
documents by Jan. 31, 2024 to address the issues identified
at the hearing on Dec. 12, 2024.
2. If the Parties have a dispute about the Buyback Form and
FAQ, the parties shall submit their competing proposals to
the Court by Jan. 24, 2024.
The additional time is necessary as the Parties were unable to meet
and confer over the holidays due to conflicting travel
schedules, and counsel for the City was thereafter ill and
unavailable to meet and confer.
On Dec. 16, 2024, counsel for Plaintiffs sent counsel for the City
a draft of a proposed Order on Preliminary Approval that modified
the Class Definition and other items that Plaintiff’s counsel
believed were consistent with the Court’s comments at the
December 12, 2024, hearing.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 9, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NgcHep at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
BARTON & DOWNES LLP
1633 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 200
Washington DC 20009
Telephone: (202) 734-7046
E-mail: jbarton@bartondownes.com
- and -
Michael J. Scimone, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 245-1000
E-mail: mscimone@outtengolden.com
The Defendants are represented by:
David Chiu, Esq.
Rose Darling, Esq.
Matthew K. Yan, Esq.
Dante R. Taylor, Esq.
SAN FRANCISCO CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
1390 Market Street, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 554-4267
Facsimile: (415) 554-4248
E-mail: Matthew.Yan@sfcityatty.org
Dante.Taylor@sfcityatty.org
SET FORTH INC: Meza Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Set Forth, Inc. The
case is styled as Bertha Meza, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Set Forth, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-11987 (N.D.
Ill., Nov. 21, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Contract Default.
SET FORTH, INC. has been serving consumers who are exiting
debt.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary P. Arbitman, Esq.
FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER TANNER WEINSTOCK DODIG
LLP
1845 Walnut St., 21st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 567-8300
Fax: (215) 567-8333
Email: zarbitman@feldmanshepherd.com
SET FORTH: Faces $9.9M Jones Class Action Suit in N.D. Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Set Forth, Inc. The
case is captioned as Jasper Jones individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Set Forth, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-13069 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 19, 2024).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Virginia M. Kendall.
The nature of suit states Diversity-Personal Injury demanding
$9,999,000 in damages.
Set Forth provides online account management services for
individuals in debt relief programs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bret Koch Pufahl, Esq.
Elizabeth Christine Chavez, Esq.
Kathleen Currie Chavez, Esq.
Robert M. Foote, Esq.
FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ, & O'NEIL, LLC
1541 East Fabyan Parkway, Suite 101
Geneva, IL 60134
Telephone: (630) 232-7450
Facsimile: (630) 232-7452
E-mail: bkp@fmcolaw.com
ecc@fmcolaw.com
kcc@fmcolaw.com
rmf@fmcolaw.com
SET FORTH: Moses Sues Over Failure to Protect Information
---------------------------------------------------------
Mary Moses, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SET FORTH, INC. and CENTREX SOFTWARE, INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-11808 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 15, 2024), is brought against the
Defendants failure to protect the Plaintiff's information.
On November 8, 2024, Centrex and Forth announced publicly that in
May 2024, one or both had been the recipient of a hack and
exfiltration of sensitive personal information ("SPI") involving
approximately 1.5 million individuals (the "Data Breach"). Forth
and Centrex have stated that the information obtained in the hack
included at least names, addresses, dates of birth, and Social
Security numbers. The Plaintiff and Class members now face a
present and imminent lifetime risk of identity theft, which is
heightened here by the loss of Social Security numbers. Plaintiff s
and Class members' SPI was compromised due to Defendant's negligent
and/or careless acts and omissions and the failure to protect the
SPI of Plaintiff and Class members, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was informed via letter dated November 8, 2024 that
she had been a victim of the Data Breach.
Forth is a self-described company which offers "online account
administration services to consumers enrolled in debt relief
programs."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
111 W. Jackson St., Ste. 1700
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 984-0000
Fax: (212) 686-0114
Email: malmstrom@whafh.com
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Koelbl Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sherwin-Williams
Company. The case is styled as Shannon L. Koelbl, individually, on
behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the Plan
v. Sherwin-Williams Company, Case No. 1:24-cv-02043-BMB (N.D. Ill.,
Nov. 21, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as E.R.I.S.A. - Employee Benefits.
Mielle Organics -- https://mielleorganics.com/ -- is a hair care
and beauty brand that believes healthier ingredients encourage
healthier hair and skin.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
Caleb J. Wagner, Esq.
George A. Hanson, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON - KANSAS CITY
460 Nichols Road, Ste. 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Phone: (816) 714-7100
Fax: (816) 714-7101
Email: ricke@stuevesiegel.com
hanson@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
MCCLELLAND LAW - LIBERTY
Flagship Building
200 Westwoods Drive
Liberty, MO 64068
Phone: (816) 781-0002
Fax: (816) 781-1984
Email: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com
- and -
Drew T. Legando, Esq.
MERRIMAN LEGANDO WILLIAMS & KLANG
1360 West 9th Street, Ste. 200
Cleveland, OH 44113
Phone: (216) 522-9000
Fax: (216) 522-9007
Email: drew@merrimanlegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Amanda T. Quan, Esq.
OGLETREE DEAKINS
127 Public Square, Ste. 4100
Cleveland, OH 44114
Phone: (216) 274-6905
Fax: (216) 357-4733
Email: amanda.quan@ogletree.com
- and -
Mark E. Schmidtke, Esq.
OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART-VALPARAISO
56 South Washington Street, Ste. 302
Valparaiso, IN 46383
Phone: (219) 242-8668
Fax: (219) 242-8669
Email: mark.schmidtke@ogletreedeakins.com
- and -
Samuel H. Ottinger, Esq.
OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART-CLEVELAND
127 Public Square, Ste. 4100
Cleveland, OH 44114
Phone: (216) 241-6100
Fax: (216) 357-4733
Email: sam.ottinger@ogletreedeakins.com
SIEMENS MOBILITY: Class Cert Hearing in Keopadubsy Set for March 27
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KHAMKOTH KEOPADUBSY, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SIEMENS MOBILITY, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01412-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Kimberly Mueller entered an order granting the parties'
stipulated request for continuing the deadline for the named
plaintiff to appear for an in-person deposition, continuing the
hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
continuing the briefing deadlines for the Defendant's opposition to
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the Plaintiffs'
reply.
1. Plaintiff Keopadubsy shall appear for his deposition, in-
person, on Jan. 22, 2025;
2. If the court deems it necessary, the hearing on plaintiffs'
motion for class certification will be heard on March 27,
2025;
3. Defendant shall have up to and including Feb. 3, 2025, to
file its opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class
certification; and
4. Plaintiffs have up to and including March 3, 2025, to file
their reply brief.
Siemens provides rail traffic technology.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 8, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3SscUz at no extra
charge.[CC]
SMG FOOD: Filing for Class Certification in Ordono Due March 9
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Ordono, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated; v. SMG Food & Beverage,
LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-05019-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Laurel Beeler entered an order approving the Parties' Joint
Stipulation.
The Plaintiff's deadline to file a Motion for Class Certification
is now March 9, 2025.
The Defendant's deadline to oppose is April 8, 2025.
The Plaintiff's deadline to file his Reply to Defendant's
Opposition is now April 29, 2025.
The hearing for Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification will be
continued until June 5, 2025, subject to change depending on this
Court's availability.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 8, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N1Q0wp at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Steven M. Kroll, Esq.
BENT CARYL & KROLL, LLP
6300 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1415
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Telephone: (323) 315-0513
E-mail: skroll@bcklegal.com
SMG FOOD: Parties Seek March 9 Class Certification Bid Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Ordono, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated; v. SMG Food & Beverage,
LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-05019-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask
the Court to enter an order that:
1. Plaintiff's deadline to file a Motion for Class
Certification is March 9, 2025.
2. Defendant's deadline to oppose is April 8, 2025.
3. Plaintiff's deadline to file his Reply to Defendant's
Opposition is April 29, 2025.
4. The hearing for Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification
will be continued until June 5, 2025, subject to change
depending on the Court's availability.
SMG Food was founded in 1999. The Company line of business includes
providing management consulting services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BbluD6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Steven M. Kroll, Esq.
BENT CARYL & KROLL, LLP
6300 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1415
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Telephone: (323) 315-0513
E-mail: skroll@bcklegal.com
SOLAR MOSAIC: Faces Sauer Suit Over Undisclosed Financing Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES JOSEPH SAUER, JOHN WOOD, ANGELA LEON, GRETCHEN WALLACE,
ERICK BRAUKS, DAVINA and RONALD MESSINA, DAHNAH and KEITH CHAMBERS,
CLEO and ROBERT FLEMING, and KRISTEN LOTHIAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. SOLAR MOSAIC, LLC, and
SOLAR MOSAIC, INC., Case No. 6:24-cv-02309-JSS-LHP (M.D. Fla., Dec.
19, 2024) is an action for violations of the Truth in Lending Act;
deceptive and unfair trade practices laws; and fraudulent
inducement, in connection with misrepresentations and fraudulent
omissions in the solicitation of consumer loans for the purchase of
residential solar energy systems.
Solar Mosaic utilized uniform and standardized misrepresentations
to induce homeowners to enter solar loans with Solar Mosaic. The
crux of the misrepresentation is that homeowners would pay for the
cash value of the solar energy system over the course of a 25-year
loan, with a "low" annual percentage rate, the suit alleges.
However, Solar Mosaic bakes into the "cash value" of the solar
energy system an undisclosed financing fee that amounts to nearly
30% of the cash value. Disguising this fee as part of the cash
value of the solar energy systems allowed Solar Mosaic to advertise
a low APR. However, if the financing fee was disclosed as a
financing fee (which it is), the actual APR of the solar loans is
close to or exceeding 30%, added the suit.
As a result of this financing structure, the interest collected by
Solar Mosaic from the solar loans is not its primary profit source;
instead, the primary profit source is the hefty, undisclosed
financing fee. As such, Solar Mosaic provides very minimal baseline
qualification standards (including a minimum credit score and home
ownership) for its loans such that most homeowners will qualify,
the Plaintiffs aver.
Plaintiff Charles Joseph Sauer is a citizen of Florida who financed
a solar energy system through Solar Mosaic for his home located in
Winter Park, Florida.
Solar Mosaic is a "Finance Partner" to solar sales companies.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Amy L. Judkins, Esq.
William C. Ourand, Esq.
NEWSOME MELTON
201 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 1500
Orlando, F: 32801
Telephone: (407) 648-5977
Facsimile: (407) 648-5282
E-mail: ajudkins@newsomelaw.com
ourand@newsomelaw.com
lusardi@newsomelaw.com
SPRECKELS SUGAR: Briefing Schedule Entered in Castro Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Castro v. Spreckels Sugar
Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00747 (S.D. Cal., Filed
April 25, 2024), the Hon. Judge Todd W. Robinson entered an order
setting briefing schedule:
-- Defendant Spreckels Sugar Company, Inc. shall file its
opposition on or before Jan. 30, 2025
-- The Plaintiff may file his optional reply, if any, on or
before Feb. 20, 2025.
The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.
Spreckels operates one beet sugar factory located in Brawley,
California, and a beet seed processor located in Sheridan,
Wyoming.[CC]
SPROUTS FARMERS: Tyndall Sues Over Unfair Competition
-----------------------------------------------------
Randy Tyndall, an individual, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated v. SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and ECOSOUL HOME INC., a Delaware corporation, Case
No. 1:25-cv-00048-KES-HBK (E.D. Cal., Jan. 10, 2025), is brought
seek an order enjoining Defendants' ongoing acts of unfair
competition and other unlawful conduct, an award of damages to
compensate them for Defendant's acts of unfair competition, false
and misleading advertising, and breaches of warranty, and
restitution to the individual victims of Defendants' fraudulent,
unlawful, and unfair acts and practices under the California
Commercial Code and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act
("CLRA").
The purpose of this Complaint is to remedy Defendants' unlawful,
unfair, and deceptive business practices with respect to the
advertising, marketing, labeling, and sale, both presently and in
the future, of the Products as compostable, when in fact they are
not.
The Plaintiff purchased several items of the Products from one of
Sprout's stores, and did so in reliance on Defendants' false
representations that the Products were compostable. Specifically,
Plaintiff purchased a package of twenty 6" round plates, a package
of twenty 9" round plates, a package of twenty 12-oz. bowls, a
package of 100 straws, a package of a 36-count cutlery set, a
package of twenty 16-oz cold beverage cups, and a package of twenty
16-oz hot beverage cups with lids.
The Plaintiff viewed Defendants' false representations on the
labels and packaging of these aforementioned Products, and the
representations of the Products' alleged compostability was a
determining factor in Plaintiff's decision to purchase each of the
foregoing Products.
The Plaintiff relied upon the apparent truthfulness of these
representations as to the Products' compostability, leading to the
injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff as further described
herein. If Plaintiff had known that the Products were not actually
compostable as claimed by Defendants, Plaintiff would not have
purchased the Products and/or would not have paid the premium price
for compostable products. Defendants have thus breached their
express warranties under the CLRA by making representations that
the Products have characteristics, benefits, and qualities which
they do not have, and subsequently advertising the Products while
claiming that they did in fact have those characteristics,
benefits, and qualities; and violated the Business and Professions
Code based on fraudulent, unlawful, and unfair acts and practices,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff buys products that are compostable, recyclable, or
reusable so that he can minimize his impact on the environment.
The Defendants advertise, market, and sell disposable single-use
tableware such as plates, bowls, cold beverage cups, and hot
beverage cups with lids, beverage straws, and cutlery sets, all
under the Sprouts brand name (collectively, the "Products") which
are marketed on their packaging as compostable.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard C. Conway, Esq.
Ian I. Brady, Esq.
KAHN, SOARES & CONWAY, LLP
219 North Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230
Phone: (559) 584-3337
Facsimile: (559) 584-3348
SRP FEDERAL: Dunn Sues Over Unlawful Data Security Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Dunn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SRP FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 1:25-cv-00210-CMC
(D.S.C., Jan. 13, 2025), is brought seeking damages for the
injuries that the Defendant's negligence have and will cause, as
well as injunctive relief to ensure that the data Defendant
continues to store will be protected by reasonable data security
practices going forward.
This case arises from a data breach. The Defendant SRP Federal
Credit Union (hereafter "SRP") is a credit union that, as part of
its normal business operations collects highly sensitive data about
its clients including social security numbers, financial
information, and other details. SRP's customers have no choice but
to trust SRP to keep their data secure.
In a story that has become all too familiar, an unauthorized third
party gained access to SRP's network beginning on September 5,
2024, and absconded with personally identifying information
(hereafter, "PII"), including highly sensitive financial
information. Criminals can now sell the victims' data on the black
market for the purpose of stealing their identities. None of this
would have occurred if SRP had implemented reasonable data security
measures, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was a victim of the data breach.
The Defendant SRP is a federally chartered and regulated credit
union.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David A. Maxfield, Esq.
DAVE MAXFIELD, ATTORNEY, LLC
SOCO 80808 Building
808 D Lady Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Phone: (803) 509-6800
Fax: (855) 299-1656
Email: dave@consumerlawsc.com
- and -
Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
Columbus, OH 43219
Phone: (614) 578-5582
Email: mboyle@bgandg.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 697-6484
Fax: (212) 697-7296
Email: peretz@bgandg.com
STERLING INVESTMENT: Prelim. Approval of Settlement Deal Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON COLEMAN and JESSICA
CASEY, on behalf of the RVNB Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock
Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons
similarly situated, v. NEIL M. BROZEN, ROBERT PETERSON, JR.,
VASILIA PETERSON, MIKE PAXTON, NICK BOURAS, STERLING INVESTMENT
PARTNERS III, L.P., NICOLE PETERSON 2012 IRREVOCABLE TRUST, and
BROOKE PETERSON 2012 IRREVOCABLE TRUST, Case No. 3:20-cv-01358-E
(N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
(a) granting preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement,
attached to the Porter Declaration as Exhibit 1;
(b) certifying the Settlement Class for settlement purposes,
and appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives and
Plaintiffs' Counsel as Class Counsel;
(c) approving the proposed Class Notice, Exhibit A to the
Settlement Agreement;
(d) appointing Simpluris as the Settlement Administrator and
Escrow Agent;
(e) approving the Plan of Allocation; and
(f) setting a date for a Fairness Hearing.
The proposed settlement satisfies all the criteria for preliminary
approval and provides an excellent result for the Settlement Class.
For these reasons, discussed in more detail below, Plaintiffs
request that the Court grant this motion.
The proposed Settlement Class is defined as:
"All vested Participants in the RVNB Holdings, Inc. Employee
Stock Ownership Plan as of June 29, 2017, the date of the
termination of the Plan, or their Beneficiaries or Alternate
Payees."
With the exception of Nick Bouras, all Defendants are excluded
from the Settlement Class and Defendants’ Successors-In-
Interest. Nick Bouras, or his Beneficiaries or Alternate
Payees, shall be a member of the Settlement Class."
The Plaintiffs initiated the Class Action in the Eastern District
of Texas on Sept. 27, 2019.
On April 3, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint,
removing Generale as a Defendant and adding the Nicole Peterson
2012 Irrevocable Trust and the Brooke Peterson 2012 Irrevocable
Trust (the "Peterson Trusts").
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 9, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XApcGv at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
Patrick Muench, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 463-2101
Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com
rjenny@baileyglasser.com
pmuench@baileyglasser.com
- and -
J Douglas Uloth, Esq.
ULOTH, P.C.
5080 Spectrum Drive, Suite 1000 East
Addison, TX 75001
Telephone: (469) 791-0411
Facsimile: (888) 780-5946
E-mail: douguloth@ulothlaw.com
- and -
John Saul Edwards, Jr., Esq.
Thomas R Ajamie, Esq.
AJAMIE LLP
711 Louisiana Street, Suite 2150
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 860-1600
Facsimile: (713) 860-1699
E-mail: jedwards@ajamie.com
tajamie@ajamie.com
STOPBOX USA: Faces Rodriguez Class Suit Over Fake Prices
--------------------------------------------------------
EMILY RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. STOPBOX USA, LLC, a Washington entity, d/b/a
WWW.STOPBOXUSA.COM, Case No. 24STCV33567 (Cal. Super., Dec. 19,
2024) contends that the Defendant advertises fictitious regular
prices (and corresponding phantom discounts) on products sold
through its website at www.stopbox.com.
According to the complaint, the practice allows the Defendant to
fabricate a fake "reference price," and present the actual price as
"discounted," when it is not. The result is a sham price disparity
that is per se illegal under California law.
The Plaintiff purchased a "Stopbox" from the Defendant in December
2024 for the "discounted" price of $169.00, which the Defendant
compared to a "strike-through" Reference Price of $368.00. The
product that the Plaintiff purchased was not substantially marked
down or discounted, because the product had not been offered on
Defendant's Website at the Reference price for at least the 90-day
period prior to Plaintiff's purchase. In other words, the Reference
Price was a fake price used in Defendant's deceptive marketing
scheme, the Plaintiff asserts.
The Defendant knows that the prices are fake and artificially
inflated and intentionally uses them to increase sales and profits
by misleading consumers to believe that they are buying products at
a substantial discount, added the suit.
The Defendant is a retailer that sells products nationwide and in
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 706-6464
Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com
STURM & RUGER: All Pretrial Deadlines in Jones Class Suit Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jones v. Sturm, Ruger &
Co., Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-01233 (D. Conn., Filed Oct. 04, 2022),
the Hon. Judge Kari A. Dooley entered an order staying all pretrial
deadlines, including class certification deadlines:
-- The parties Status Report dated Dec. 6, 2024, states that
they have reached a settlement in principle, and they
reported during the Jan. 8, 2025, status conference that a
draft settlement agreement has been circulated for review.
-- The parties shall file their motion for preliminary approval
of class action settlement by Feb. 14, 2025.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Personal Property Damage.
Sturm manufacturers rugged firearms for the commercial sporting
market.[CC]
SUTHERLAND GLOBAL: Less Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARNELL LEE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SUTHERLAND
GLOBAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 6:23-cv-06549-EAW-CDH (W.D.N.Y.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order to certify a
collective action and authorize notice to putative collective
members pursuant to section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).
Sutherland operates as a digital transformation company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 10, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eUrrcq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 999-5200
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
- and -
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) WORKERS
Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com
SYSTEM1 INC: Agrees to Settle Subscriptions Class Suit for $2.5-M
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that System1 agreed to pay $2.5 million
as part of a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it
enrolled consumers in System1 automatic renewal subscriptions
without their consent.
The System1 settlement benefits California residents enrolled in
and charged for an automatic renewal or continuous service
subscription for PC Protect, ScanGuard, Total Adblock, TotalAV,
Total Password, Total VPN or Total WebShield software between Oct.
20, 2019, and June 30, 2024, who did not receive a full refund of
subscription fees.
Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit accused System1 of violating
California's automatic renewal law by failing to present the terms
of its automatic renewal subscriptions in a clear and conspicuous
manner. The company allegedly enrolled consumers in subscriptions
without their consent, resulting in financial damages.
System1 is a marketing company that owns several brands, including
antivirus software brands such as Total Security Limited, PC
Protect and TotalAV.
System1 hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to the $2.5
million settlement to resolve the class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the System1 settlement, class members can
receive an equal share of the net settlement fund. Exact payments
will vary depending on the number of participating class members
and the amount deducted for fees and other costs. No payment
estimates are available.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Feb. 4, 2025.
The final approval hearing for the System1 automatic renewal
settlement is scheduled for March 7, 2025.
To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid
claim form by Feb. 4, 2025.
Who's Eligible
California residents enrolled in and charged for an automatic
renewal or continuous service subscription for Protected Software
offered by System1, Total Security and Protected.net between Oct.
20, 2019, and June 30, 2024, who did not receive a full refund of
any amounts paid toward the subscription
Potential Award
TBD
Proof of Purchase
Personal identifiers (email addresses, mailing addresses, etc.) to
verify with defendant business records
Claim Form
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
02/04/2025
Case Name
Nelson, et al. v. System1 Inc., et al., Case No.
37-2023-00045878-CU-BT-CTL, in the California Superior Court for
San Diego County
Final Hearing
03/07/2025
Settlement Website
TotalSecuritySettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Nelson v. System1 Inc. Settlement Administrator
c/o CPT Group Inc.
50 Corporate Park
Irvine, CA 92606
TotalSecuritySettlement@CPTGroup.com
(888) 921-0256
Class Counsel
Zach P Dostart
DOSTART HANNINK LLP
Defense Counsel
Patrick C Justman
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP [GN]
TARANTINO PROPERTIES: Cross Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Cross, Jr., individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. TARANTINO PROPERTIES, INC., Case No.
2:25-cv-00140 (E.D. Pa., Jan. 9, 2025), is brought against the
Defendant's knowing and willful failure to pay its non-exempt
employees overtime wages at the legal overtime pay rate for
overtime work as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").
Specifically, Defendant failed to include commission payments into
its determination of Plaintiff's and Collective Member's regular
rate for purposes of calculating their overtime wages due. As a
result, Defendant systematically underpaid Plaintiff's and
similarly situated employees' overtime wages.
The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week. The
Plaintiff observed other similarly situated employees who worked
similar schedules and who regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a
week. The Defendant, however, fails to include the commission
payments in its determination of Plaintiff's and other FLSA
Collective Members' regular rate for purposes of calculating
overtime wages due for hours worked over forty in any given work
week.
Therefore, Defendant fails to pay overtime wages on the portion of
Plaintiff's and FLSA Collective Members' earnings attributable to
the commission payments, which properly should be included in the
calculation of each employee's regular rate for purposes of
calculating, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Maintenance Assistant
between May 4, 2024, until October 8, 2024.
The Defendant "is a full service real estate company, established
in 1980, that specializes in managing a wide range of income
producing properties."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Camille Fundora Rodriguez Esq.
Michael J. Anderson, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 875-3000
Fax: (215) 875-4604
Email: crodriguez@bm.net
manderson@bm.net
- and -
Alexandra K. Piazza Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
8241 La Mesa Blvd, Suite A
La Mesa, CA 91942
Phone: 215-875-3063
Email: apiazza@bm.net
TARGET CORPORATION: Oaks Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Oaks, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. TARGET CORPORATION, Case No. ESX-L-007988-24 (N.J. Sup. Ct.,
Essex Cty., Nov. 15, 2024), is brought for its violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the
Defendants blind-inaccessible website.
Upon visiting Defendant's website, https://www.target.com/
(hereinafter referred to as "Website"), Plaintiff quickly became
aware of Defendant's failure to maintain and operate its website in
a way to make it fully accessible for himself and for other blind
or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and
services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("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, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person.
The Defendant is and was at all relevant times a company doing
business and marketing to New Jersey customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Zemel, Esq.
ZEMEL LAW LLC
400 Sylvan Ave, Suite 200
Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
Phone: (862) 227-3106
Email: dz@zemellawllc.com
TELUS INTERNATIONAL: Faces Breach Class Suit Over AI Offerings
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo Finance reports that Slater Vecchio LLP and Scott & Scott LLP
have a class action lawsuit against Telus International (Cda) Inc.
("Telus International") on December 12, 2024.
The lawsuit alleges that Telus International and several of its
officers made misstatements regarding the company's Artificial
Intelligence ("AI") offerings in breach of the Securities Act, RSBC
1996 c 418 and other legal duties. As a result of Telus
International's alleged failure to comply with its disclosure
obligations, shareholders suffered a loss when the deep-seated
issues caused by the company's shift to AI were disclosed in May
and August 2024.
Sam Jaworski, a partner at Slater Vecchio LLP, commented that "the
investing public relies heavily on companies and their officers to
fairly and accurately represent the affairs of the company.
Companies that are found to have breached their duties owed to
investors must provide compensation for the financial losses that
they have caused."
The lawsuit seeks to represent all persons and entities that
acquired one or more subordinate voting shares of Telus
International between February 16, 2023 and August 1, 2024,
inclusive, and held all or a portion of these securities at any
moment between May 9, 2024 and August 1, 2024, inclusive. The
lawsuit seeks to represent persons and entities that purchased
Telus International securities on the New York Stock Exchange, the
Toronto Stock Exchange, and any other exchanges on which shares of
Telus International were traded. [GN]
TENNESSEE GAS: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Bradish Due April 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADISH JOHNSON CO.,
LIMITED, individually and as representative of all those similarly
situated, v. TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC, AND KINETICA
ENERGY EXPRESS, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-07363-CJB-EJD (E.D. La.), the
Hon. Judge Carl Barbier entered an order granting the joint motion
to amend scheduling order for class certification:
1. Plaintiff served opposing counsel with its July 12, 2024
affidavits of experts for the class
certification hearing on:
2. Plaintiff served opposing counsel with Dec. 13, 2024
its preliminary witness list for the class
certification hearing on:
3. The Defendants served opposing counsel Dec. 20, 2024
with their preliminary witness lists for
the class certification hearing on:
4. The Defendants will serve opposing counsel Jan. 15, 2025
with their affidavits of experts for the
class certification hearing on or before:
5. The Plaintiff will serve opposing counsel Feb. 24, 2025
with its rebuttal affidavits of experts
for the class certification hearing on or
before:
6. Fact discovery related to class Feb. 28, 2025
certification will close on:
7. Expert discovery related to class March 31, 2025
certification will close on:
8. Plaintiff's motion for class April 30, 2025
certification must be filed on or
before:
9. Defendants' opposition to class May 30, 2025
certification must be filed on
or before:
10. The Plaintiff's final witness and June 6, 2025
exhibit lists for the class
certification hearing must be
filed on or before:
11. The Defendants' final witness and June 13, 2025
exhibit lists for the class
certification hearing must be filed
on or before:
Tennessee Gas provides gas transportation and storage services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 3, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5oOxtD at no extra
charge.[CC]
TESLA MOTORS: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Abraham Garcia, individually, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. TESLA MOTORS, INC., DBA
TESLA, INC. (FORM UNKNOWN) AND DOES 1 TO 50, Case No. 24STCV19700
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. 10, 2025, and assigned Case No.
2:25-cv-00302.
The Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Class Action & PAGA
Complaint (the "FAC") seeks damages and penalties on behalf of a
putative class for: failure to pay all wages including minimum and
overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide
rest periods; failure to provide recovery periods; failure to
produce personnel records; failure to produce signed records;
failure to implement heat prevention & maintain legal temperature
controls; to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to
pay waiting time penalties; failure to reimburse for necessary
business expenditures; violation of California's quota laws;
violation of WARN Action; unfair business practices; and civil
penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
John S. Battenfeld, Esq.
Julianne G. Park, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue
Twenty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
Phone: +1.213.612.2500
Fax: +1.213.612.2501
Email: john.battenfeld@morganlewis.com
julianne.park@morganlewis.com
TESLA MOTORS: Pizano Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Diana Pizano, an individual, on behalf of
himself an all others similarly situated v. BFS GROUP OF CALIFORNIA
LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2024CUOE030937 was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Ventura, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on Jan. 10, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00306.
On November 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Class and
Representative Action Complaint against BFS Group, LLC, which
alleged an additional cause of action for Civil Penalties under
Cal. Lab. Code, asserting the following causes of action: Failure
To Pay Minimum Wages; Failure To Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure
To Provide Meal Periods; Failure To Authorize And Permit Rest
Breaks; Failure To Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; Failure
To Timely Pay Final Wages At Termination; Failure To Provide
Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Unfair Business Practices and a
claim for penalties under California's Private Attorneys' General
Act.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Matthew B. Golper, Esq.
BALLARD ROSENBERG GOLPER & SAVITT, LLP
2 Park Plaza, Suite 470
Irvine, CA 92614
Phone: (818) 508-3700
Facsimile: (818) 506-4827
Email: mgolper@brgslaw.com
TRANSDEV SERVICES: Court OK's Submission of Bid to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lovejoy v. Transdev
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00380 (S.D. Cal., Filed
Feb. 28, 2023), the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Battaglia entered an
order submitting motion to certify class:
The motion is suitable for determination on the papers and without
need for oral argument, pursuant to CivLR 7.1.d.1.
Accordingly, no appearances are required and the motion is deemed
submitted as of this date.
The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.
Transdev is a private sector operator of multiple modes of transit
in North America.[CC]
TRUMBULL INSURANCE: Scheduling Order in Grawe Class Suit Amended
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Grawe, et al., v. Trumbull
Insurance Company, Case No. 3:23-cv-00160 (D. Conn., Filed Feb. 8,
2023), the Hon. Judge Sarala V. Nagala entered an order amending
the scheduling order as follows:
-- Parties must designate all class certification Mar 21, 2025
experts and provide the other parties with
reports from retained experts pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) on any issues on which
they do not bear the burden of proof by:
-- Parties must designate any rebuttal class Apr 21, 2025
certification experts by:
-- Depositions of all class certification May 2, 2025
experts must be completed by:
-- Parties asserting a claim or counterclaim May 2, 2025
for damages must serve a damages analysis by:
-- All Phase I discovery must be completed, May 2, 2025
not propounded, by:
-- The parties must file a joint status May 2, 2025
report confirming that Phase I of
discovery is complete on:
The nature of suit states Diversity-Insurance Contract.
Trumbull operates as an insurance company.[CC]
TURBO DEBT: Andoh Sues Over Invasion of Privacy
-----------------------------------------------
Bobbyjo Andoh, Caitlynn Samuel, Qnd Teresa McKenna, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. TURBO DEBT, LLC,
Case 1:24-cv-08577 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 27, 2024), is brought against
Defendant: Invasion of Privacy; Breach of Confidence; Negligence;
Breach of Implied Contract; and violations of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act (“ECPA”), California Invasion of
Privacy Act, California Constitution, and California Unfair
Competition Law.
Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and other visitors to Defendant’s
Website, Defendant does not keep sensitive information about its
visitors private. Instead, Defendant collects and transmits the
fact that users of its Website seeking debt consolidation, debt
relief, and debt settlement services (collectively, “Sensitive
Information”) to third parties, including Alphabet, Inc.
(“Google”) and Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Facebook”), through
its use of surreptitious online tracking tools.
Each of the Plaintiffs and Class Members visited the Website and
had their personal Sensitive Information tracked by Defendant using
the Tracking Tools. However, Defendant never obtained authorization
from Plaintiffs or Class Members to share their Sensitive
Information with third parties. At all times relevant to this
action, Plaintiffs and Class Members gave no informed consent for
information about their Sensitive Information to be transmitted to
the third parties, including the largest advertiser and compiler of
user information, or the largest social media company on earth,
which has a sordid history of privacy violations in pursuit of
ever-increasing advertising revenue.
As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiffs and Class Members
have suffered numerous injuries, including: invasion of privacy;
lack of trust in communicating with online service providers;
emotional distress and heightened concerns related to the release
of Sensitive Information to third parties, loss of benefit of the
bargain; diminution of value of the Sensitive Information;
statutory damages and continued and ongoing risk to their Sensitive
Information., says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs never authorized Defendant to disclose any aspect of
their communications with Defendant through its Website to third
parties.
Turbo Debt, LLC is a limited liability corporation incorporated in
the State of Delaware.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Catherine E. Ybarra, Esq.
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
Sonjay C. Singh, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
700 S. Flower Street, Ste. 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 376-3739
Email: cybarra@sirillp.com
tbean@sirillp.com
ssingh@sirillp.com
TWITTER INC: Order on Joint Discovery Entered
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK SCHOBINGER, v.
TWITTER, INC., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-03007-VC (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Donna Ryu entered an order on joint discovery letter.
Schobinger made class-wide claims that Twitter agreed to pay its
employees a portion of the bonus contemplated by the 2022
Performance Bonus Plan, only to renege on that promise.
On Oct. 16, 2024, the Honorable Vince Chhabria denied class
certification, finding that Schobinger was not an adequate class
representative in light of the particular weakness of his
individual claim.
To be clear, Judge Chhabria has not ruled on the merits of the
case. However, as discussed below, his assessment bears on the
proportionality of the disputed discovery under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 26.
Schobinger argues this discovery is relevant "to show that Twitter
management was well aware that [the] promise had been made—and to
learn what they said amongst themselves in deciding not to pay it."
Twitter responds that "'internal,' non-employee facing
communications" are irrelevant to Schobinger's claims, "which are
based exclusively upon alleged statements the Company made to
employees."
The court denied class certification two months before the JDL was
filed. Schobinger could have addressed proportionality by refining
his request during the required meet and confer process. Instead,
he has doubled down, and fails to identify any proposed compromise
even though it is required by the court's standing order. This has
the feel of a last-ditch fishing expedition, the burden of which
outweighs the likely benefit. RFP 2 is not proportional to the
needs of the case, and Twitter need not produce responsive
documents beyond what it has already agreed to provide.
Schobinger offers no compromise, even though his request broadly
seeks "all financial records and other documents" regarding the
accrual of funds to pay bonuses in the disputed time frame.
Twitter argues that a deposition of Eaves would be cumulative and
irrelevant because Schobinger already deposed Segal. However,
Schobinger points out that Segal had been terminated by the time
the bonus was due to be paid, while Eaves was still working for
Twitter.
As such, it is reasonable to expect that Eaves may have different
knowledge about the accrual and the decision not to pay the bonus.
Balancing the proportionality considerations, Schobinger may take a
three-hour deposition of Mason Eaves. IT IS SO ORDERED
Twitter provides online social networking and microblogging
service.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=beV8x5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
TYCON MEDICAL SYSTEMS: Davis Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tycon Medical
Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Christian Davis, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tycon Medical
Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00020-JKW-LRL (E.D. Va., Jan. 10,
2025).
The nature of suit is stated Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Tycon Medical -- https://tyconmedical.com/ -- is a locally and
family-owned business in Norfolk & Richmond, Virginia offers custom
manual & power wheelchairs, CPAP, and mobility equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Hilton Wise, Esq.
WISE LAW FIRM, PLC
10640 Page Ave, Ste 320
Fairfax, VA 22030-7409
Phone: (703) 934-6377
Fax: (703) 934-6379
Email: dwise@wiselaw.pro
UMR INC: Troxel Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Luke Troxel and Philip
Kampa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. UMR, Inc., Case No. 0:23-cv-02521-JWB-TNL (D. Minn.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying two classes
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
The Plaintiffs move for certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(A),
(b)(2), and (b)(3) of the following class with claims for benefits
due and equitable relief under Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA):
-- The Benefits Class
"All individuals who: (a) were enrolled in an employer-
sponsored, nongrandfathered ERISA plan with benefits
administered by UMR at any time on or after June 30, 2020; (b)
had claims submitted to UMR for PrEP Ancillary Services they
received from in-network providers on or after June 30, 2020;
(c) had those claims found to be covered by UMR; and (d) did
not receive full, first-dollar coverage without cost-sharing
for those services. Plaintiffs also seek certification of the
following class under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2) with claims
for injunctive and equitable relief under ERISA";
-- The Injunctive Class
"All individuals who: (a) are currently enrolled in an
employer-sponsored, non-grandfathered ERISA plan with benefits
administered by UMR; (b) had claims submitted to UMR for PrEP
Ancillary Services they received from in-network providers on
or after June 30, 2020; (c) had those claims found to be
covered by UMR; and (d) did not receive full, first-dollar
coverage without cost-sharing for those services. For the
purpose of these definitions, PrEP Ancillary Services is
defined as services encompassed by the U.S. Preventive
Services Task Force Final Recommendation Statement for PrEP
for HIV. "
UMR provides third-party benefits administration services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 10, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qUknWy at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David W. Asp, Esq.
Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
Derek C. Waller, Esq.
Kira Q. Le, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 Washington Ave. South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
E-mail: dwasp@locklaw.com
jcbourne@locklaw.com
dcwaller@locklaw.com
kqle@locklaw.com
UNITED HEALTH: Class Cert Hearing in Mitchell Continued to Feb. 28
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mitchell v. United Health
Centers of the San Joaquin Valley, Case No. 1:23-cv-00060 (E.D.
Cal., Filed Jan. 11, 2023), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Thurston
entered an order granting the parties' stipulation for to continue
the hearing date and opposition and reply deadlines for Plaintiff's
motion for class certification:
(1) The Defendant shall file their opposition Jan. 31, 2025
by no later than:
(2) The Plaintiff may file a reply by no Feb. 10, 2025
later than:
(3) The hearing on Plaintiff's motion for Feb. 28, 2025
class certification is continued to:
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
United Health Centers of the San Joaquin Valley is a private
non-profit organization, established from a grass root movement by
people trying to improve access to healthcare in their rural
communities in California's Central Valley.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Class Settlement in Farrell Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERRILL FARRELL, et al.,
v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, et al., Case No.
3:23-cv-04013-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Joseph Spero entered
an order granting motion for conditional class certification,
preliminary approval of class action settlement, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.
The Court will likely be able to certify the proposed class for the
purposes of settlement, and conditionally certifies the Settlement
Class, defined as:
"Veterans of the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, and
Marine Corps who were administratively separated prior to
September 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."
The Named Plaintiffs Sherrill Farrell, James Gonzales, Jules Sohn,
and Lilly Steffanides have demonstrated that their claims are
typical of those of the class, satisfying Rule 23(a)(3), and that
they will fairly and adequately represent the class, satisfying
Rule 23(a)(4). Accordingly, the Court appoints Sherrill Farrell,
James Gonzales, Jules Sohn, and Lilly Steffanides as Class
Representatives.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), the Court
appoints Impact Fund, Legal Aid at Work, King & Spalding LLP, and
Haynes and Boone, LLP as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.
Any responses to Class Member objections shall be filed by Feb. 26,
2025.
The Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval and Motion for Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Costs shall be filed by Feb. 12, 2025.
Department of Defense provides the military forces needed to deter
war, and to protect the security of the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 8, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sCii3K at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Settlement Agreement in Giotto Gets Initial Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marcus Vinicius Giotto, et
al. v. US Department of Homeland Security, Secretary, et al., Case
No. 1:20-cv-00453-LM (D.N.H.), the Hon. Judge Landya McCafferty
entered an order granting the parties renewed, assented-to motion
for preliminary approval of their proposed settlement agreement and
to schedule a fairness hearing.
The court directs class counsel to distribute the proposed notice
to the class. The court will hold a fairness hearing on March 11,
2025.
The parties shall file any pleadings in support of final approval,
including any motions for attorney fees and costs, no later than
Feb. 25, 2025.
The court finds that the proposed notice adequately informs class
members of the proposed settlement and their rights thereunder.
In this class action habeas case brought at the onset of the
COVID-19 pandemic, civil immigration detainees confined at the
Strafford County Department of Corrections ("SCDOC") asserted that
conditions of confinement at SCDOC violated their constitutional
rights to be free from an unacceptable risk that they would
contract COVID-19 and suffer severe illness.
On April 17, 2020, plaintiffs filed an amended petition for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2241, and a
complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of
themselves and a putative class of civil immigration detainees
housed at SCDOC.
Department of Homeland Security works to improve the security of
the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 8, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=njb0Qi at no extra
charge.[CC]
VAIL RESORTS: Bisaillon Sues Over Unlawful Concealment
------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Bisaillon, an individual, on behalf of himself and
those similarly situated v. VAIL RESORTS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-00020-DBB (D. Utah, Jan. 9, 2025), is
brought against Vail Resort's intentional concealment to the
consumer public in this regard, while it continued to collect tens
of millions of dollars from that very same consumer public over the
holiday season, which constitute violations of the Utah Consumer
Sales Practices Act ("the Act"), and serves as the basis for the
other causes of action alleged herein including fraudulent
concealment and unjust enrichment.
The Defendant intentionally and willfully deceived hundreds of
thousands of consumers when it failed to disclose that the ski
patrol and mountain safety personnel union, comprised of workers
essential to the safety of the skiers and the operations at Park
City Mountain Resort ("Park City Mountain Resort" or "Mountain")
located in Park City, Utah, were on strike during the Christmas and
New Year's holiday season of 2024/2025.
Families of skiers who saved up all year long in order to spend the
holiday break on a family ski trip and who paid up to $289 per day,
per person for a one day lift ticket were faced with waiting up to
three hours in lift lines to ski for just minutes as approximately
only 16% of the Mountain remained open to the public. Because Vail
Resorts failed to disclose the strike and resultant conditions on
Park City's operations, what was expected to be a dream vacation
for thousands of families, at the expense of tens of thousands of
dollars per family, quickly turned into a colossal nightmare.
Vail Resorts' epic failure and intentional deceit to the consumer
public was aptly described in a live television broadcast by CNBC
financial host Jim Lebenthal on January 3, 2025, in a CNBC segment
entitled "The Travel Trade," says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a citizen of the state of Illinois and resides in
Wheaton, Illinois.
Vail Resorts self-describes itself on its own website as "the
premier mountain resort company in the world and a leader in
luxury, destination-based travel at iconic locations."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mel C. Orchard, III, Esq.
THE SPENCE LAW FIRM, LLC
15 S Jackson St, PO Box 548
Jackson, WY 83001
Phone: (307) 733-7290
- and -
Peter J. Flowers, Esq.
Matthew J. Herman, Esq.
MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
3 North Second Street, Suite 300
St. Charles, IL 60174
Phone: (630) 232-6333
- and -
Daniel W. Tarpey, Esq.
David G. Wix, Esq.
TARPEY WIX LLC
225 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 1515
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 948-9090
VENTRA SALEM: Davidson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Stacy Davidson, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. VENTRA SALEM, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00034 (N.D. Ohio, Jan. 9,
2025), is brought challenges policies and practices of Defendant
that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) as a
result of the Defendant's unpaid overtime wages.
The Plaintiff and other similarly situated workers were not paid
any amount for this pre-shift work and such time was not counted as
hours worked for purposes of computing overtime. The Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees performed this unpaid work every
workday, and it constituted a part of their fixed and regular
working time.
There was no practical administrative difficulty in recording this
unpaid work of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees. In fact, it was captured by Defendant's electronic
timeclock. Defendant, however, chose to ignore this time and paid
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees only from
their scheduled shift start time. This unpaid work performed by the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees constituted a part
of their principal activities, was required by Defendant, and was
performed for Defendant's benefit.
Moreover, this unpaid work was an integral and indispensable part
of other principal activities performed by the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees. The Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees routinely worked 40 or more hours per workweek.
As a result of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
not being paid for all hours worked, they were not paid overtime
compensation for all the hours they worked over 40 each workweek,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly non-exempt
manufacturing employee from September 16, 2021, to November 27,
2024.
The Defendant is in the business of manufacturing auto parts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B
North Canton, OH 44720
Phone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
Email: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
- and -
Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
1360 E. 9th St., Suite 808
Cleveland, OH 44114
Phone: 216-230-2955
Facsimile: 330-754-1430
Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
VENUS FASHION: Walker Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
Leah Walker, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Venus Fashion, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00292 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 10,
2025), is brought against the Defendant for their failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to services Stadium
Enterprises provides to their non-disabled customers through
https://venus.com. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to
its website, and therefore denial of its services offered, and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the
"ADA").
Because Defendant's website, Venus.com, is not equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA.
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Venus
Fashion's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
Venus Fashion provides to the public a website known as Venus.com
which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and
services, including, the ability to view a wide range of dresses,
tops, sweaters, outerwear, swimwear, lingerie, jeans, pants,
jumpsuits, rompers, loungewear, pajamas, shoes, bags and, bags and
jewelry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Reyes, Esq.
ASHER COHEN LAW PLLC
2377 56th Dr,
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Phone: (630)-478-0856
Email: dreyes@ashercohenlaw.com
VMSB LLC: Volpe Seeks Extension of Discovery Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Eric Volpe, Enzo Ferrer,
and Vincenzo Matino, each individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, v. VMSB, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company d/b/a "Gianni's at the former Versace Mansion" "Gianni's at
Casa Casuarina," and/or "The Villa Casa Casuarina," Case No.
1:23-cv-23888-RAR (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order compelling the Defendant to provide responsive
documents previously ordered to be produced pertaining to all of
the post-certification opt-in Plaintiffs.
Alternatively, the Plaintiffs request an extension of the discovery
deadline solely for the limited purpose of enforcing the production
of post-certification discovery propounded by post-certification
opt-in Plaintiffs.
On Dec. 6, 2024, the Plaintiffs propounded a Rule 34 Request for
Production upon Defendant requesting the very same types of
documents which the Defendant had already provided regarding the
Plaintiffs and pre-certification opt-in Plaintiffs.
The Defendant's responses were due no later than January 6, 2025,
or, alternatively, within a reasonable time after each
post-certification opt-in filed their respective Consents to
Join.1 Defendant did not produce any discovery or object.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 8, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lMIwa8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anthony F. Sanchez, Esq.
ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A.
6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101
Miami, FL 33143
Telephone: (305) 665-9211
E-mail: afs@laborlawfla.com
faz@laborlawfla.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Andrew B. Zelmanowitz, Esq.
Nikki Branch, Esq.
Kenneth W. Waterway, Esq.
BERGER SINGERMAN, LLP
201 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 695-8224
Facsimile: (954) 523-2872
E-mail: azelman@bergersingerman.com
LTorres@bergersingerman.com
MAvin@bergersingerman.com
nbranch@bergersingerman.com
LTorres@bergersingerman.com
MAvin@bergersingerman.com
kwaterway@bergersingerman.com
LTorres@bergersingerman.com
MAvin@bergersingerman.com
VOICE SEARCH: Leither Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Doe Corporation. The
case is styled as Gary Leither, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Doe Corporation d/b/a Voice Search Activated,
Case No. 5:25-cv-00032-J (W.D. Okla., Jan. 9, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Colton L. Richardson, Esq.
RICHARDSON RICHARDSON BOUDREAUX PLLC
7447 S Lewis Ave.
Tulsa, OK 74136
Phone: (918) 492-7674
Email: colton@rrbok.com
VONACHEN SERVICES: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Kallas
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kallas v. Vonachen
Services, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01351-MMM (C.D. Ill.), the Hon.
Judge Jonathan Hawley entered a temporary standing order as
follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately 30 days after the answer or other responsive
pleading is filed. The conference will generally be
conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling
conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16
scheduling conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate
in the discovery that the parties agree upon all maters
contained within the discovery plan, and they request that
the Rule 16 scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings y telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to
appear for a telephone hearing will be treated as a failure
of counsel to appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after
the discovery deadline has already passed.
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery disputes must be brought to the Court's attention
before the relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery
disputes raised with the Court after the expiration of the
relevant discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the
Court, even if the parties agreed to conduct discovery after
the relevant discovery deadline has passed. If the parties
agree to conduct discovery after the expiration of a
deadline set by the Court, they must still file a motion
requesting that the Court move that deadline as agreed by
the parties in order to avoid any subsequent discovery
disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference
or mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request
a settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
Vonachen Services operates as a janitorial service company. The
Company provides service in janitorial, material handling, office
support.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 8, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2LOQgk at no extra
charge.[CC]
WALDORF ASTORIA: Yarijanian Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jozef Yarijanian, an individual and behalf of
all others similarly situated v. WALDORF ASTORIA MANAGEMENT LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; WALDORF ASTORIA EMPLOYER LLC,
an unknown entity; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV32714 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. 10, 2025, and assigned
Case No. 2:25-cv-00299.
On December 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed an unverified Complaint which
alleged eight causes of action: minimum wage violations; overtime
wage violations; meal period violations; rest period violations;
wage statement penalties; waiting time penalties; failure to
reimburse necessary business expenses; unfair competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Connie L. Chen, Esq.
Robert D. Vogel, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
Phone: (213) 689-0404
Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
Email: connie.chen@jacksonlewis.com
robert.vogel@jacksonlewis.com
WALMART INC: Court Strikes E-Filed Documents
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Eddie Golikov, v. Walmart
Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-08211-RGK-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge R.
Gary Klausner entered an order striking electronically filed
document(s):
The Court ORDERS the documents listed below be stricken for failure
to comply with the Court's Local Rules, General Orders, and/or Case
Management Order, as indicated:
Date filed Doc. No. Title of Document
Jan. 8, 2025 33 Motion to Certify Class
Walmart operates discount stores, supercenters, and neighborhood
markets.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=07RINn at no extra
charge.[CC]
WOLFSPEED INC: Ferreira Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Luis Ferreira, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WOLFSPEED, INC., GREGG A. LOWE, and NEILL P. REYNOLDS,
Case No. 6:25-cv-00062-ECC-MJK (N.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2025), is boruhg
t on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other
than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Wolfspeed
securities between August 16, 2023 and November 6, 2024, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused
by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") and Rule 10b 5 promulgated thereunder, against the
Company and certain of its top officials.
The Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational, and compliance
policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: the accurate operational
status and profitability of the Mohawk Valley fabrication facility,
as they 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 that to meet
its publicly stated projections, the Company would have to cancel
or otherwise indefinitely suspend planned future projects such as
the facility in Saarland, Germany, and the Company would have to
terminate approximately 20% of its workforce and close the Durham
fabrication facility as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On the evening of August 21, 2024, the Company announced their
fourth quarter fiscal year 2024 results and had an associated
earnings call (the "Q4 2024 Earnings Call"). The Company reported
adjusted quarterly losses of 89 cents per share, higher than
analyst's expectations, and revenue fell to $200.7 million for the
quarter, lower than analyst's expectations. During the Q4 2024
earnings call, the Company also announced plans to close one of its
semi-conductor wafer production facilities in Durham, North
Carolina. On this news, the Company's stock price dropped from an
opening price of $13.76 per share on August 22, 2024 to $12.83 per
share to close on August 22, 2024, a decline of around $0.93 and
around 6.76% in the span of one day.
On November 6, 2024, Wolfspeed announced its financial results for
the first quarter of fiscal year 2025 and released 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 released guidance with a range 30% to
50% below that mark. On this news, Wolfspeed's stock price dropped
from $13.71 closing price on November 6, 2024 to a stock price of
$8.33 per share on November 7, 2024, a decline of $5.38 and around
39.2% in a single day, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff acquired Wolfspeed securities at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.
Wolfspeed is a developer and manufacturer of semi-conductors,
focusing on silicon carbide materials.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarah E. Delaney, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617) 398-5600
Email: sarah@blockleviton.com
WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC: Wiernik Removed from Sup. Ct. to D. Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as SKYLER WIERNIK, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WORCESTER
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, Case No. 2485CV01379 (Filed Nov. 15, 2024),
was removed from the Worcester Superior Court to the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, on Dec. 26,
2024.
The Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:24-cv-13185-JEK to the proceeding.
The suit asserts claims of negligence, negligence per se, and
breach of implied contract.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of
"[a]ll persons whose Private Information was compromised as a
result of the Incident."
Worcester Polytechnic Institute is a private research
university.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
KRISTENSEN LAW GROUP
53 State Street, Suite 500
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 913-0363
E-mail: john@kristensen.law
The Defendant is represented by:
Victoria L. Steinberg, Esq.
Melanie Stallone, Esq.
CLOHERTY & STEINBERG LLP
One Financial Center, Suite 1120
Boston, MA 02111
Telephone: (617) 481-0160
E-mail: vsteinberg@clohertysteinberg.com
mstallone@clohertysteinberg.com
- and -
Carey S. Busen, Esq.
Gilbert S. Keteltas, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1050 Connecticut Ave N.W., Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 861-1568
E-mail: cbusen@bakerlaw.com
gketeltas@bakerlaw.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 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 ***