/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250127.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, January 27, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 19
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Baker Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Cooke Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Cowley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Croswell Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Cruz Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Dacones Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Dupuy Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Early Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Estano Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Higgs Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Owens Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Rodgers Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
55 FULTON MARKET: Faces Sandoval Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Class Action Over Toddler Drinks
ADENA HEALTH: Court Narrows Claims in Jarrell Privacy Lawsuit
ALLEVIATE TAX: Class Cert Scheduling Order Entered in Morton
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Connelly Allowed Leave to File Reply Brief
AMERICAN ADDICTION: Ellison Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee
AMERICAN HOME SHIELD: Johnson Sues Over Telemarketing Calls
AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOOD: Dudley Files Fraud Suit in D.N.J.
ANDY STRANGE: Garcia Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Drivers
APPLE COMMUTER: Bid to Enforce Settlement Deal Due Jan. 24
ARIZONA: Potter Challenges Vexatious Statute's Constitutionality
ASCENSION HEALTH: Coton Sues Over Violation of Privacy Rights
B.S.D. CAPITAL: Onisko and Scholz Suit Removed to C.D. California
BACKCHECKED LLC: Santos Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
BAIN CAPITAL: SEIU Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
BALLAZHI & ASSOCIATES: Pompilio Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
BANK OF AMERICA: Can Compel Arbitration in Modern, et al. Lawsuit
BEST BUY: Barba Suit Removed to S.D. California
BEST BUY: Gregory Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
BIO-LAB INC: Brown Sues Over Hazardous Chemicals
BITFINEX CRYPTO: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class & Subclass
BLUE FLAME: Garrison Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
BLUE HILLS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Jollis Suit Claims
BMW FINANCIAL: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Carlson Suit Granted
CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Fails to Prevent Drop in Share Price, Suit Says
CERTEGY PAYMENT: Stachewicz Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal
CONTINENTAL CAFE: Faces Hill Suit Over Data Breach
COXCOM LLC: Ellis Sues Over Deceptive Pricing and Billing Scheme
CREDIT AGRICOLE: General Pretrial Management Entered
DERMA MADE: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Girtley Says
DETROIT TIGERS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Pellant, et al. ADEA Suit
DFT INC: Faces Vasquez Suit in Calif. Super.
EMORY UNIVERSITY: Parties Can Submit Supplemental Briefing
EMPLOYBRIDGE LLC: Jackson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ENVISION MANAGEMENT: Ruling in Harrison ERISA Lawsuit Affirmed
ENVOY AIR INC: Adair Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
EUROMARKEY DESIGNS: Chavez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
EVOLVE BANK & TRUST: Felton Files Suit in C.D. California
EXTRA SPACE MANAGEMENT: Dixon Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
FALL LINE: Planas Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty
FAMILY DOLLAR STORES: Gonzalez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
FIRST NECK BUENA: Cheli Sues Over Inaccessible Property
GOODYEAR TIRE: Court Tosses Perkins Suit Over Session Replay Code
HAMLINE UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Sues Over Website's Access Barriers
HAWAII RADIOLOGIC: Arkin Alleges Inadequate Security Measures
INTELEX USA LLC: Crumwell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL: Puntillo Files Suit in N.D. California
JLC LLC: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Commercial Property
JO-ANN STORES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Blank Suit Claims
KANSAS CITY LIFE: Bid to Dismiss McMillan Class Suit Tossed
KATSUYA-H&V LLC: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
L.N. CURTIS: Faces Pereira Labor Suit in Calif. Super.
LAO FAMILY: Faces Zaheer Labor Suit in Calif. Super.
LCT OPCO: Jackson Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
LITHIA MOTORS: Olasaba Files Employment Suit in Cal. Super.
MDL 3031: Court OK's Stipulation on Briefs in Opposition
MDL 3076: Plaintiffs Seek to Authorize Service of Process
MEADOW HILL: Court Tosses Singh, et al. Third Wage Lawsuit
MEDUSIND INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Auer Alleges
MERRICK GARLAND: Parties Must Submit Letter on Current Case Status
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Artificially Inflated Stock Price, Klein Claims
MYHERITAGE (USA): Carter Sues Over Disclosed Genetic Testing Info
NEW YORK, NY: Olsson Sues Over Untimely Payment of Wages
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Can Supplement Complaint with Contribution Claim
NORTHEAST REHABILTATION: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bagni Says
NORTHEAST SPINE: Court Narrows Claims in Blackman Data Breach Suit
OLIVETREE MANAGEMENT: Removes Queen Suit to D. Maryland
PERMIAN RESOURCES: Conspires to Fix Crude Oil Price, Hayday Says
POPEYES LOUISIANA: Faces Jones BIPA Class Suit in N.D. Illinois
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Arede Says
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Kinney Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Info
PRIME HEALTHCARE: Loses Bid to Dismiss R.S. ECPA Lawsuit
PVOLVE LLC: Sends Unsolicited Marketing Messages, Erickson Alleges
QVC INC: Faces Cabrera Suit Over Data Privacy Violations
REA.DEEMING BEAUTY: Removes Rodriguez Suit to C.D. Calif.
RICE DRILLING: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid in Gregor by Feb. 10
ROCKLER COMPANIES: Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store
RUGS.COM LLC: Perkins Files Consumer Suit in Wash. Super.
RUSH STREET: Fails to Protect Customers' Personal Info, Nelson Says
RUSH STREET: Moore Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Customers' Info
RYE FIRE: Firefighters Sue Over Unpaid Overtime
SABRE GLBL: Chau Sues Over Failure to Protect Information
SAVOR GOODS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Blank Suit Claims
SCHULSON COLLECTIVE: Sued Over Blind-Inaccessible Properties
SEAFOOD SHAKE BOIL: Hockey Sues to Recover Compensation
SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Porter Sues Over Uncompensated Overtime Hours
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Castorina Sues Over Unlawfully Charged Fees
SERTA INC: Guitron Suit Removed to C.D. California
SMARTRENT TECHNOLOGIES: Lugo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SMCP USA: Goldson Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Compensation
SPORTSBET: Faces Multimillion-Dollar Class Action Lawsuit
SPROUTS FARMERS: Faces Class Suit Over Disposable Tableware Claims
STARR RESTAURANTS: Gomberg Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Properties
STELLA MSO LLC: Elyashiv Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
STRATEGIC EDUCATION: Kearney Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Agrees to Settle Shareholder Class Action Suit
SUNBRIDGE BRITTANY: Nahshal Labor Suit Filed in Calif. Super.
SYSTEM1 INC: Settles Auto-Renewals Class Action Lawsuit for $2.5MM
TOYOTA MOTOR: Flick Files Product Liability Suit in E.D. Tex.
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Must Oppose Class Cert. in BOAGF by Jan. 29
TRANSMEDICS GROUP: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
VIKING CLIENT: Freidman Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
VIP INC: Faces Fedorchuk Suit Over Tire Maintenance Warranty Fee
VIVINO INC: Esparza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
VOLER INC: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
VPS of MI: Faces Bell Personal Injury Suit in Michigan
ZILLION CONCEPTS: Allen Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
*********
3M COMPANY: Baker Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Baker, Jr., 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.; 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; TYCOFIRE
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., Case No.
2:24-cv-07181-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 10, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to
develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged
herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further
seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from
the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed
with thyroid cancer.
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:
James Ryan Ziminskas, Esq.
THEMIS LAW, PLLC
7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 105
Austin, TX 78731
Phone: (737) 208-1636
3M COMPANY: Cooke Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Cooke, 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-06723-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: Cowley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nolen Cowley Jr., 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-06728-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 Marine Corp.
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: Croswell Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Croswell, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:24-cv-06910-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 27, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (“AFFF”) containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”). PFAS
includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
(“PFOA”) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (“PFOS”) and
related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS,
seeking relief against Defendants for personal injury and due to
exposure from PFAS related to the direct use of AFFF, a
firefighting foam containing PFAS compounds and for direct exposure
to AFFF and/or exposure from ingestion of PFAS from their water
supply.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
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. When consumed, PFOS
and PFOA have been linked to numerous and serious health issues.
PFOA and PFOS are associated with a variety of illnesses, including
but not limited to, kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative
colitis, thyroid disease, liver cancer, and thyroid cancer. The
chemicals are particularly dangerous for pregnant women and young
children. As the manufacturers of AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF,
the Defendants knew or should have known that the inclusion of
Toxic Surfactants in AFFF presented an unreasonable risk to human
health.
The Defendants’ PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products’ condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants’ AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants’ instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff’s consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant’s AFFF products caused
Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein.
The Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were being exposed to
toxic chemicals until the contamination was recently discovered.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants’
AFFF products at various locations during the course of
Plaintiff’s training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff
further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising
from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff’s water supply was contaminated with PFOS and
PFOA.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tayjes Shah, Esq.
THE MILLER FIRM, LLC
108 Railroad Ave.
Orange, VA 22960
Phone 540-672-4224
Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com
3M COMPANY: Cruz Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Cruz, 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-06766-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 Navy.
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: Dacones Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Baltazar Dacones, 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-06769-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 Navy.
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: Dupuy Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lance Edward Dupuy, 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.; 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; TYCOFIRE
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., Case No.
2:24-cv-07173-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 10, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to
develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged
herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further
seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from
the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed
with thyroid disease.
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:
James Ryan Ziminskas, Esq.
THEMIS LAW, PLLC
7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 105
Austin, TX 78731
Phone: (737) 208-1636
Email: rziminskas@themislawpllc.com
3M COMPANY: Early Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ronnie Early, 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-07541-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 20, 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: Estano Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Estano, Jr., 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.; 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; TYCOFIRE
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., Case No.
2:24-cv-07187-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 10, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to
develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged
herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further
seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from
the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed
with 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:
James Ryan Ziminskas, Esq.
THEMIS LAW, PLLC
7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 105
Austin, TX 78731
Phone: (737) 208-1636
Email: rziminskas@themislawpllc.com
3M COMPANY: Higgs Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Higgs, 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-07533-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 20, 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: Owens Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Owens, 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-07530-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 20, 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: Rodgers Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsia Rodgers, 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-07528-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 20, 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
55 FULTON MARKET: Faces Sandoval Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARITZA ZAPOTITLAN SANDOVAL, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 55 FULTON MARKET INC. d/b/a FULTON
MARKET BY KEY FOOD, OPEN MARKET 15 INC. d/b/a OPEN MARKET, SNL MEAT
& PRODUCE CORP d/b/a KEY FOOD, RED APPLE TREE INC. d/b/a KEY FOOD,
DHY SONAMOO LLC, d/b/a KEY FOOD, JOUN CHIL AN, HI JONG LEE, and
YEONG SHIM, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00156 (S.D.N.Y., January
8, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law, fraudulent filing of information returns under the Internal
Revenue Code, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations
of the Earned Safe and Sick Time Act, the New York State Human
Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
55 Fulton Market Inc. d/b/a Fulton Market By Key Food is a grocery
store owner and operator located in New York, New York.
Open Market 15 Inc. d/b/a Open Market is a grocery store owner and
operator located in New York, New York.
SNL Meat & Produce Corp d/b/a Key Food is a grocery store owner and
operator located in Brooklyn, New York.
Red Apple Tree Inc. d/b/a Key Food is a grocery store owner and
operator located in located in Brooklyn, New York.
DHY Sonamoo LLC, d/b/a Key Food is a grocery store owner and
operator located in Brooklyn, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 W. 24th St., 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Class Action Over Toddler Drinks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that the maker of Go &
Grow and Pure Bliss Toddler Drinks by Similac faces a proposed
class action lawsuit that claims the items are falsely advertised
as healthy and nutritionally appropriate for children between 12
and 36 months.
According to the 39-page case, leading health authorities recommend
that children in this age range should have zero added sugar in
their diets since excess sugar consumption early on can lead to
poor dietary habits and significant health risks, such as heart
disease, type 2 diabetes and obesity. Contrary to these nutritional
recommendations, the Similac toddler drinks contain four grams of
added sugar per serving, the lawsuit says.
Per the complaint, defendant Abbott Laboratories' allegedly
deceptive labeling of the toddler drinks has caused caregivers to
make "ill-advised nutritional purchasing decisions."
The suit contends that the milk-based powders are marketed as
"stage 3" transition formulas to imply that the toddler drinks are
the next nutritionally recommended product for caregivers to
purchase after "stage 1," infant formula, and "stage 2,"
supplemental formula. The labeling for the Similac toddler drinks
is also riddled with health claims, including representations that
the products are free from "added corn syrup solids," "artificial
growth hormones," "antibiotics" or "GMOs," the lawsuit notes.
"The claims on the labels of [Abbott's] 'Toddler Drinks' are false
and misleading because they focus on the products' purported health
benefits while omitting information regarding the health harms of
their added sugar content," the filing alleges.
The plaintiffs, three parents who have paid over $30 per can of the
toddler drinks, say they would not have spent as much for the
products—or bought them at all—had they known Similac Go & Grow
and Pure Bliss toddler drinks were not beneficial or necessary to
the health of their children.
"As Abbott is well aware, consumers seek out and prefer healthful
foods and beverages, especially for their children, and are willing
to pay more for, or purchase more often, products marketed and
labeled as healthy," the complaint claims.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who, at
any time within the applicable statute of limitations period,
purchased Go & Grow Toddler Drink by Similac or Pure Bliss Toddler
Drink by Similac for personal or household use, and not for resale
or distribution. [GN]
ADENA HEALTH: Court Narrows Claims in Jarrell Privacy Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Robin Jarrell, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Adena Health System,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00282 (S.D. Ohio), Judge James L.
Graham of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio granted A motion to dismiss as Count IV (invasion
of privacy), Count VI (breach of fiduciary duty) and Count VII
(negligence) of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Adena's motion
is denied as to the remaining counts.
Adena is a healthcare services provider. Plaintiff Robin Jarrell
initiated this class action seeking damages based on Adena's
alleged use of certain tracking tools on its website, which
Plaintiff contends has resulted in the unauthorized disclosure of
personal health information to entities such as Facebook and
Google.
Plaintiff asserts the following seven (7) claims against Adena in
her complaint:
Count I: Breach of Confidence – a tort under Ohio law commonly
referred to as a "Biddle claim," based on Biddle v. Warren General
Hospital, 715 N.E.2d 518 (Ohio 1999).
Count II: Violation of Electronic Communications Privacy Act
("ECPA"), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(1) et seq. – based on Adena's
alleged unauthorized interception, use, and disclosure of
Plaintiff's information.
Count III: Civil Liability for Criminal Actions – As authorized
by Ohio Rev. Code Sec. 2307.60, based on conduct alleged to have
violated 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1320d-6(a)(3), which prohibits knowingly
disclosing individually identifiable health information to a third
party.
Count IV: Invasion of Privacy – based on the "intrusion upon
seclusion" theory.
Count V: Unjust Enrichment – based on the theory that the
content of the unauthorized disclosures had value to Plaintiff and,
by using such disclosures for marketing and revenue purposes, Adena
unjustly retained benefits therefrom.
Count VI: Breach of Fiduciary Duty – brought in the alternative
to the Biddle claim in Count I.
Count VII: Negligence – also brought in the alternative to the
Biddle claim in Count I.
Adena brings a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). It raises various arguments seeking the
dismissal of Counts II-VII of Plaintiff's Complaint.
Adena argues that Count II must be dismissed because the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act does not apply when one party to the
communication consents to the supposed interception, and the
exceptions to that rule are likewise inapplicable. It contends that
Counts III through VII are subsumed by Count I (Biddle), based on
Ohio Supreme Court case law. It asserts that Counts III, V, and VII
fail for independent reasons.
Because Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Adena intercepted
her communications for a criminal or tortious purpose, the Court
denies Adena's motion to dismiss as to Count II.
The Court agrees with Plaintiff that Ohio law does not require that
all of Plaintiff's claims be automatically dismissed under the rule
of Biddle, and the Court also recognizes Plaintiff's broader point
about this stage of these proceedings, to the extent that dismissal
of Counts III through VII may depend on factual issues yet to be
sorted out on the nascent record. It declines to dismiss Counts
III-VII based on Adena's theory of broad and automatic subsumption
of claims under Biddle.
Regarding subsumption, the Court understands the Ohio case law to
call for dismissal of claims which are based on the same factual
allegations as the Biddle claim. To that end, the Court finds that
the invasion of privacy claim (Count IV), the breach of fiduciary
duty claim (Count VI), and the negligence claim (Count VII) are
subject to dismissal.
A copy of the Court's Opinion & Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hOVfOL from PacerMonitor.com.
ALLEVIATE TAX: Class Cert Scheduling Order Entered in Morton
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAN MORTON, v. ALLEVIATE
TAX LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-02263-N (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge David
Godbey entered a class certification scheduling order as follows:
1. The Plaintiffs must serve on defendants (but NOT file with
the Court) their motion for class certification within 45
days of this Order.
The motion must comply with Local Rule 23.2 (except
paragraph (f)), and must be accompanied by all supporting
evidence, including expert testimony, if any, and supporting
brief.
The Court will consider class certification on written
submission on Aug. 8, 2025. The Court may, at its
discretion, by separate order set a hearing on class
certification.
2. Any motions for leave to join additional parties must be
filed within 30 days of the date of this Order. Any motion
for leave to amend pleadings under Rule 15(a) must be filed
within 60 days of this Order. Any motion for leave to amend
pleadings after that date must show good cause pursuant to
Rule 16(b).
3. All discovery except regarding class certification is
stayed.
4. The parties may by written agreement alter the deadlines and
limitations in this paragraph, without the need for court
order. No continuance of the Submission Date will be granted
due to agreed extensions of these deadlines.
5. On the Submission Date, the parties must file with the Court
the motion for class certification, response, and reply,
together with all supporting evidence and briefs. In
addition to electronic filing, the parties are ordered to
file a hard copy of the opening, response, and reply briefs
only, bound together in a single spiral volume.
Alleviate Tax provides tax debt relief services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d2yWYS at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Connelly Allowed Leave to File Reply Brief
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RENEE CONNELLY, v.
AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-02768-JMG (E.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge John Gallagher entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's motion for leave to file reply brief in support of
Plaintiff's motion to strike.
The Court further entered an order that the Clerk of Court is
directed to docket Exhibit A to Plaintiff's motion as "Plaintiff's
Reply in Support of Motion to Strike Exhibit I to Amazon's Response
to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification."
Amazon.com provides e-commerce services. The Company retails books,
diamond jewelry, electronics, appliances, apparels, and
accessories.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vAPRSe at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMERICAN ADDICTION: Ellison Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Addiction
Centers, Inc. The case is styled as Patricia Ellison, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American
Addiction Centers, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00062 (M.D. Tenn., Jan.
16, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract.
American Addiction Centers (AAC) --
https://americanaddictioncenters.org/ -- is a Brentwood,
Tennessee–based, publicly traded for-profit addiction treatment
chain.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip Joseph Krzeski, Esq.
R. Scott Pietrowski, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 339-7300
Fax: (646) 417-5967
Email: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com
spietrowski@sirillp.com
AMERICAN HOME SHIELD: Johnson Sues Over Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Antwane Johnson, individually and on behalf of a class of all
persons and entities similarly situated v. AMERICAN HOME SHIELD OF
VIRGINIA, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-02339-AJT-IDD (E.D. Va., Dec. 20,
2024), is brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991 ("TCPA") as a result of the Defendant's intrusive
telemarketing calls.
The Plaintiff brings this action to enforce the consumer-privacy
provisions of the TCPA alleging that American Home Shield of
Virginia, Inc. made telemarketing calls to numbers on the National
Do Not Call Registry, including his own. One of American Home
Shield's strategies for marketing their services generating new
customers is the sending of telemarketing calls to individuals.
Recipients of these calls, including Plaintiff, did not consent to
receive such telephone calls, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has never provided his written consent to receive
telemarketing calls from the Defendant.
American Home Shield offers residential warranty services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Robinson, Esq.
319 N. Piedmont St., #1
Arlington VA. 22203
Phone: 703-789-4800
Email: wprlegal@gmail.com
- and -
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Phone: (508) 221-1510
Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com
AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOOD: Dudley Files Fraud Suit in D.N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against American Neighborhood
Mortgage Acceptance Company, LLC. The case styled SHERICE DUDLEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOOD MORTGAGE ACCEPTANCE COMPANY, LLC doing
business as ANNIEMAC HOME MORTGAGE, Case No. 1:24-cv-10781-RMB-MJS
(D.N.J., November 26, 2024).
The suit is brought over Defendant's alleged fraudulent conduct.
The case is assigned to Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb.
American Neighborhood Mortgage Acceptance Company, LLC is a lender
based in Mount Laurel, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Courtney E. MacCarone, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
E-mail: cmaccarone@zlk.com
ANDY STRANGE: Garcia Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER HERNANDEZ GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANDY STRANGE GRADING, INC.
and ANDY STRANGE, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00009-RWS (N.D. Ga.,
January 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an hourly-paid driver
from June 2024 through November 2024.
Andy Strange Grading, Inc. is a construction company in Georgia.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John L. Mays, Esq.
James D. Dean, Esq.
PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C.
1355 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2000
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 873-8000
Email: jmays@pcwlawfirm.com
jdean@pcwlawfirm.com
APPLE COMMUTER: Bid to Enforce Settlement Deal Due Jan. 24
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kakha Abuladze, v. Apple
Commuter, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-08684-MMG-RFT (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Robyn Tarnofsky entered a settlement conference
order as follows:
-- The Plaintiffs shall file Amended Jan. 15, 2025
Proposed Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law in connection
with their application for a
default judgment against certain
Defendants by:
-- Any motions to enforce a setlement Jan. 24, 2025
agreement based on a term sheet
shall be filed by:
-- Oppositions to any such motions Feb. 7, 2025
shall be filed by:
-- Replies, if any, in further support Feb. 14, 2025
of any such motions shall be filed
by:
Apple offers a variety of transportation services and tours in New
York City.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WMYx5b at no extra
charge.[CC]
ARIZONA: Potter Challenges Vexatious Statute's Constitutionality
----------------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP POTTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STATE OF ARIZONA, KRIS MAYES, in her
official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Arizona, and
DOES 1-6, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00016-KML (D.
Ariz., January 8, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants
for declaratory and injunctive relief.
The class action complaint is brought by the Plaintiff against the
Defendants to challenge the constitutionality of Arizona Revised
Statutes Sec. 12-3201 titled "Vexatious litigants," pursuant to the
vagueness and overbreadth doctrines. In addition to
unconstitutionality requiring courts to enjoin well-founded
lawsuits in general, the Statute unconstitutionally permits Arizona
courts to enjoin pro se litigants who (1) present as defendants,
not plaintiffs; (2) have filed as little as one civil action; (3)
have seen no action reach judgment finality; (4) seek to compel
public records production; and (5) have not been provided a
meaningful opportunity to be heard in opposition to a request to
have the litigant designation vexatious. The Plaintiff seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the Statute from being
used to punish, threaten, restrict or violate pro se litigants'
fundamental rights.
Arizona is a state in the Southwestern region of the United States.
[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
ASCENSION HEALTH: Coton Sues Over Violation of Privacy Rights
-------------------------------------------------------------
William Coton, Jennifer Butler, and Travis Butler individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ASCENSION HEALTH, a
Missouri nonprofit corporation, Case No. 4:25-cv-00072-PLC (E.D.
Mo., Jan. 17, 2025), is brought to secure redress against Ascension
for its reckless and negligent violation of their privacy rights.
Plaintiffs and Class Members are patients and former patients of
Ascension who had their PII and PHI collected, stored and
ultimately breached by Ascension.
Under statute and regulation, Ascension had a duty to implement
reasonable, adequate industry-standard data security policies
safeguards to protect patient PII and PHI. Ascension recognizes and
acknowledges these duties in the various "HIPAA Notice of Privacy
Practices" posted on its website. However, Ascension breached these
assurances and promises to its patients that their PII and PHI
would be secure by failing to implement reasonable and adequate
safeguards, thereby failing to protect its patients' sensitive PII
and PHI.
The Plaintiffs and Class Members must now spend time and money on
prophylactic measures, such as increased monitoring of their
personal and financial accounts and the purchase of credit
monitoring services, to protect themselves from future loss.
Plaintiffs and Class Members have also lost the value of their PII
and PHI. Plaintiffs and Class Members would not have paid for
Ascension's services or would not have paid as much as they did,
had they known that Ascension did not intend to protect the PII and
PHI in its possession, and thus, Plaintiffs and Class Members have
lost the benefit of their bargains.
As a result of Ascension's wrongful actions and inactions, patient
information was stolen. Plaintiffs and Class Members who have had
their PII and PHI compromised by nefarious third-party hackers,
have had their privacy rights violated, have been exposed to the
risk of fraud and identity theft, and have suffered damages.
Plaintiffs and Class Members bring this action to secure redress
against Ascension, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs received a data breach notice from Ascension.
Ascension is "one of the nation's leading non-profit and Catholic
health systems."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Devoti, Esq.
Matthew C. Casey, Esq.
CASEY DEVOTI & BROCKLAND
5100 Dagget Avenue
St. Louis, MO 63110
Email: mdevoti@caseydevoti.com
mcasey@caseydevoti.com
- and -
Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 381-9988
Fax: (213) 381-9989
Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
B.S.D. CAPITAL: Onisko and Scholz Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as Onisko and Scholz, LLP, Paul Scholz, Cindy
Schoelen, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. B.S.D. Capital, Inc. doing business as: Lendistry, Case No.
24STCV28081 was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on Nov. 27, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-10314-MEMF-SK to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
BSD Capital -- https://bsd.capital/ -- is a commercial and
residential real estate entrepreneurship company with offices
located in the heart of Hollywood, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jimmy R Howell, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF J.R. HOWELL
2219 Main Street, Suite 436
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Phone: (323) 897-8656
Email: jr@lawofficejrhowell.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Joseph S. Leventhal, Esq.
Sebastian Mark Van Roundsburg, Esq.
GLASER WEIL FINK HOWARD JORDAN AND SHAPIRO LLP
600 West Broadway, Suite 2150
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 765-4380
Fax: (310) 556-2920
Email: jleventhal@glaserweil.com
svanroundsburg@glaserweil.com
BACKCHECKED LLC: Santos Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
----------------------------------------------------------
Raul Santos, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BACKCHECKED, LLC and CERTIFIED EMPLOYMENT SCREENING
INC. d/b/a AMERICHEK, Case No. 2:24-cv-03690-ROS (D. Ariz., Dec.
22, 2024), is brought arising from Defendants failure to safeguard
the Personally Identifiable Information ("PII" or "Private
Information") of Plaintiff and Class members, which resulted in
unauthorized access to its information systems on or around
September 26, 2024 and the compromised and unauthorized disclosure
of that Private Information, causing widespread injury and damages
to Plaintiff and the proposed members.
The Defendants detected unusual activity in their computer systems
and ultimately determined that an unauthorized third party accessed
their network and obtained certain files from their systems on
September 26, 2024 ("Data Breach"). As a result of the Data Breach,
which Defendants failed to prevent, the Private Information of
Plaintiff and the proposed Class members, was stolen, including
their names, addresses, dates of birth, driver's license number,
and Social Security numbers.
The Defendants' investigation concluded that the Private
Information compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff's and
other Class Members information (together, "Clients"). The
Defendants' failure to safeguard Plaintiff and Class Members'
highly sensitive Private Information as exposed and unauthorizedly
disclosed in the Data Breach violates their common law duties,
California law, and Defendants' implied contract with Clients to
safeguard their Private Information.
The Plaintiff and Class members now face a lifetime risk of
identity theft due to the nature of the information lost, which
they cannot change, and which cannot be made private again. The
Defendants' failure to protect Plaintiff and Class Members' Private
Information has harmed and will continue to harm thousands of
Defendants' Clients, causing Plaintiff to seek relief on a class
wide basis, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a Customer of Defendant Americhek.
BackChecked, LLC is a background screening platform.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: 305.479.2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
BAIN CAPITAL: SEIU Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bain Capital
Investors, LLC, et al. The case is styled as SEIU Pension Plans
Master Trust and all others similarly situated v. Bain Capital
Investors, LLC, Adam Koppel, BC Perception Holdings, LP,
Christopher Gordon, Doug Giordano, Perceptive Advisors LLC,
Perceptive Life Sciences Master Fund, LTD, Ron Renaud, Case No.
2024-1274-JTL (Del. Chancery Ct., Dec. 10, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Civil Action."
Bain Capital -- https://www.baincapital.com/ -- is a global private
investment firm that partners differently to unlock opportunity and
help people and companies create exceptional outcomes.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christine Mackintosh, Esq.
Phone: (302) 622-7000
Fax: (302) 622-7100
- and -
Benjamin Potts, Esq.
Andrew Blumberg, Esq.
Daniel Meyer, Esq.
Phone: (212) 554-1408
Fax: (212) 554-1444
- and -
William Passannante, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER PA
123 S Justison St
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 622-7086
Email: wpassannante@gelaw.com
BALLAZHI & ASSOCIATES: Pompilio Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tamme Pompilio, on behalf of herself and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown v. BALLAZHI & ASSOCIATES,
LLC, D/B/A AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE, AND ARBEN BALLAZHI,
INDIVIDUALLY, Case No. 1:25-cv-00524 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 16, 2025), is
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and Illinois
Minimum Wage Law (IMWL) as a result of the Defendants failure to
pay wages.
The Plaintiff was paid a salary intended to compensate her for 40
hours per week and on occasion, was paid additional amounts defined
as "commissions". However, Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of
40 hours and did not receive any additional compensation for such
hours, including overtime premiums for hours worked over 40 in
individual work weeks. The Plaintiff was not exempt from the
overtime provisions of the FLSA or any state wage and hour statute
provisions, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an "inside sales
associate" at the Schaumburg Illinois location.
The Defendant is an "enterprise" engaged in commerce or in the
production of goods for commerce.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John William Billhorn, Esq.
BILLHORN LAW FIRM
53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312)-853-1450
BANK OF AMERICA: Can Compel Arbitration in Modern, et al. Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as MODERN PERFECTION, LLC; FRUITFUL BEAR,
LLC; GRAVITY VIDEO, INC.; BEAUTE NEST, LLC; PIZZAZZ! LLC; ERIC
SNIPES INC., individually and as representatives of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs – Appellants, and BUZTUBR,
INC., Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant – Appellee,
No. 23-1965 (4th Cir.), Judges Toby Heytens, Pamela Harris and
Nicole Berner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland granting the bank's motion to compel
arbitration and dismissing the complaint.
Over a five-year period, the businesses each opened accounts with
the bank. In doing so, they entered into deposit agreements that
governed the accounts and that the bank periodically updated.
Although each business had a different deposit agreement, the
parties agree the relevant provisions are identical in each
agreement.
During the COVID-19 pandemic's early days, the businesses each
executed promissory notes with the bank to receive federal Paycheck
Protection Program (PPP) loans. The parties also agree the
promissory notes are identical in all relevant respects.
Unlike the deposit agreements, the promissory notes do not contain
an arbitration clause.
In 2022, the businesses sued the bank in federal district court,
asserting breach of contract, fraud, and other state-law claims
based on the bank's marketing and administration of its PPP loan
program. The bank moved to compel arbitration and dismiss the
complaint. Although the businesses opposed both arbitration and
dismissal, they did not ask the district court to stay their
lawsuit as an alternative to dismissal if it deemed their disputes
arbitrable.
The district court granted the bank's motion to compel arbitration
and dismissed the complaint. It concluded the parties have entered
into an arbitration agreement that contains a valid and enforceable
delegation clause and the plain language of the delegation clause
also makes clear that the parties must address threshold issues of
arbitrability before the arbitrator.
A fourth-order disagreement arises when the parties have multiple
agreements that conflict as to the third-order question of who
decides arbitrability. Applying that framework in this case, the
Circuit Judges conclude, "The businesses have failed to properly
raise any fourth-order issues and we agree with the district court
that the deposit agreements provide that an arbitrator decides
arbitrability questions."
On appeal, the businesses offer two challenges to the district
court's reasoning. The businesses assert the deposit agreements'
language is insufficiently clear to delegate arbitrability
questions to the arbitrator. They insist the delegation clause is
unenforceable because they never agreed to arbitrate claims arising
out of the promissory notes. The Circuit Judges agree with the
district court's conclusion that the deposit agreements contain a
delegation clause. They also note the businesses err in asserting
that this rule is limited to situations where the underlying
contract that contained the delegation clause is in its entirety,
an arbitration agreement.
The businesses also argue the district court committed legal error
by dismissing their complaint rather than staying the suit pending
arbitration. But the businesses never requested a stay in this
case.
A copy of the Court's Opinion is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x0eIdP from PacerMonitor.com.
BEST BUY: Barba Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jacqueline Barba, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. BEST BUY STORES, L.P., a Virginia
Limited Partnership; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 24CU027683N
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on Jan. 16, 2025, and assigned Case No.
3:25-cv-00114-BAS-MSB.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated various
provisions of the California Labor Code and committed unlawful
business practices. In addition to compensatory damages, Plaintiff
seeks liquidated damages, civil penalties, restitution, general
damages, special damages, incidental damages, pre-judgment and post
judgment interest, injunctive relief, costs, attorneys' fees.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Barbara J. Miller, Esq.
Christopher J. Taylor, Esq.
Anthony Birong, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
Phone: +1.714.830.0600
Fax: +1.714.830.0700
Email: barbara.miller@morganlewis.com
christopher.taylor@morganlewis.com
anthony.birong@morganlewis.com
BEST BUY: Gregory Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Martize Gregory and Stefania Morgante,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
VERANO ILLINOIS, LLC; VERANO HOLDINGS, LLC; VERANO HOLDINGS, CORP.;
and ATARAXIA, LLC, Case No. 2024-CH-10465 was removed from the
Circuit Court of Cook County Department, Chancery Division,
Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on Jan. 16, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00535.
The Complaint alleges that the purported class was "harmed in the
full amount of the moneys paid for the RSO products purchased."
Further, alleges that "total sales of RSO Products during the
applicable statutory period is in the millions."[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Casey T. Grabenstein, Esq.
SAUL EWING LLP
161 North Clark Street, Suite 4200
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 876-7100
Email: Casey.grabenstein@saul.com
- and -
Jonathan A. Singer, Esq.
SAUL EWING, LLP
1001 Fleet Street, Suite 900
Baltimore, MD 21202
Phone: (410) 332-8690
Email: Jon.singer@saul.com
BIO-LAB INC: Brown Sues Over Hazardous Chemicals
------------------------------------------------
Yolanda Brown, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Bio-Lab, Inc.; KIK Custom Products, Inc. d/b/a KIK
Consumer Products, Case No. 2024-CV-2571 (Ga. Super. Ct., Rockdale
Cty., Nov. 27, 2024), is brought seeking redress for residents,
property owners, employees and businesses living, working and/or
located in and around the facility located in Conyers, Georgia
owned and operated by the Defendants, which was the location of a
chemical reaction on September 29, 2024, that resulted in the
release of a large cloud of hazardous chemicals from the facility
to the surrounding area, including the Plaintiff’s residence.
The chemical reaction at the Defendants’ facility resulted in
contamination of, and exposure to, massive amounts of hazardous
chemicals, including chlorine, which is a toxic gas that can
irritate the respiratory system, eyes, and skin. As a result of
this release of chemicals and the resulting shelter-in-place orders
for the surrounding area, Plaintiff and Class Members have all
suffered, among other things, loss of use and enjoyment of
property, property damage, exposure to toxic material,
inconvenience, disruption and economic damages.
As a result of Defendants' negligent, careless, reckless, and/or
intentional conduct in connection with the September 29, 2024,
toxic chemical release, Plaintiff Brown has suffered damages,
including, but not limited to, past, present and future pain and
suffering, an increased risk of future health complications from
exposure to and inhalation of toxic chemicals, and contamination of
her property by egregiously high and plainly dangerous levels of
toxic chemicals and their byproducts dispersed by Defendants into
the air, soil and water, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an adult citizen of Conyers, Georgia and is the
owner-occupier of the real property.
Bio-Lab is a manufacturer of pool and spa chemicals under several
different brands, including BioGuard, SpaGuard, Spa Essentials,
Natural Chemistry, SeaKlear, and Aqua Pill.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas Sizemore, Esq.
Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq.
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC
32 Ann Street,
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: 803-222-2222
Fax: 843-494-5536
Email: Thomas.Sizemore@poulinwilley.com
Paul.Doolittle@poulinwilley.com
Roy.Willey@poulinwilley.com
BITFINEX CRYPTO: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class & Subclass
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Tether and Bitfinex Crypto Asset
Litigation, ase No. 1:19-cv-09236-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter granting the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and appointment of class counsel.
-- The Plaintiffs seek for an Order certifying a Class and Sub-
Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and
appointing Selendy Gay PLLC and Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky LLP as Co-lead Class and Sub-Class Counsel.
Bitfinex is a liquid major cryptocurrency exchange.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 10, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3lbFNN at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Laura M. King, Esq.
Andrew R. Dunlap, Esq.
Oscar Shine, Esq.
Philippe Z. Selendy, Esq.
SELENDY GAY ELSBERG PLLC
1290 Sixth Avenue
New York, NY 10104
E-mail: lking@selendygay.com
adunlap@selendygay.com
oshine@selendygay.com
pselendy@selendygay.com
- and –
Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
Matthew S. Weiler, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
jkim@schneiderwallace.com
mweiler@schneiderwallace.com
BLUE FLAME: Garrison Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Garrison, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. BLUE FLAME LOUNGE, INC., a Georgia Domestic Profit
Corporation, and JACQUELYN WHITE, an individual, Case No.
1:25-cv-00160-SDG (N.D. Ga., Jan. 14, 2025), is brought for damages
and other relief brought by Plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") as amended by the Tip Income Protection Act
of 2018 ("TIPA"), as a result of Defendants' failure to pay
Plaintiffs the minimum wage and overtime wages as required by
federal law. Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, including "kick-backs,"
liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
The essence of Plaintiffs' claims are that Defendants:
misclassified Plaintiffs as independent contractors rather than
employees; failed to pay them at least the federal minimum wage for
each hour they worked at Blue Flame; failed to pay them at least
one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for each hour they
worked at Blue Flame over 40 hours in a given workweek,
constituting a violation of the overtime wage provisions of the
FLSA; and seized their tips in violation of TIPA and the FLSA, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendants, having been
employed at Blue Flame from September 2020 to March 2024.
Blue Flame features adult entertainers, including nude female
dancers, who perform throughout its facility, which includes, in
relevant part, stages and the floor area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
Jordan P. Rose, Esq.
THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600
Winter Park, FL 32789
Phone: (407) 574-4999
Facsimile: (833) 423-5864
Email: cleach@theleachfirm.com
jrose@theleachfirm.com
ppalmer@theleachfirm.com
BLUE HILLS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Jollis Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
ROGER JOLLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE HILLS THERAPEUTICS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-12967-WGY (D. Mass., Nov. 30, 2024) seeks to stop
the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.
Blue Hills Therapeutics Inc, a medicare certified home health
agency. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (508) 221-1510
Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com
BMW FINANCIAL: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Carlson Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Laura M. Provinzino of the United States District Court for
the District of Minnesota granted the motion filed by BMW Financial
Services NA, LLC and BMW of North America, LLC to compel
arbitration in the case captioned as JOSHUA CARLSON, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BMW
FINANCIAL SERVICES NA, LLC, and BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-3193 (LMP/TNL) (D. Minn.).
Plaintiff Joshua Carlson filed a putative class action complaint in
Minnesota state court alleging that Defendants BMW Financial
Services NA, LLC and BMW of North America, LLC violated Minnesota's
Consumer Fraud Act, Minn. Stat. Sec. 325F.69, and Minnesota's
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Sec. 325D.44 by engaging
in a scheme to install substandard tires that are designed to fail
prematurely on new BMW vehicles, including a vehicle Carlson
leased. BMW, citing an arbitration clause in the agreement Carlson
signed to lease his vehicle, moves to compel Carlson to arbitrate
his dispute.
BMW argues that Carlson's claims relate to the condition of the
leased vehicle and are within the scope of the arbitration clause
In response, Carlson asserts that the arbitration clause is
unconscionable, constituting a contract of adhesion that is invalid
and unenforceable. The Court finds Carlson's arguments are
unavailing.
Carlson argues that the arbitration clause is substantively
unconscionable because it imposes an obligation on the Plaintiff to
arbitrate tire disputes, even though BMW's warranty policies
absolve BMW of any responsibility for tires. According to the
Court, the clause does not require the parties to arbitrate tire
disputes or any other type of dispute; rather, it provides that
either party may elect to arbitrate disputes within the clause's
scope, no matter who initiates the dispute. Even if the arbitration
clause favors BMW, as Carlson argues, the fact that either party
may unilaterally elect to have a dispute between them arbitrated
rather than litigated in court suggests that it does not
unreasonably favor BMW. Thus, the Court cannot conclude that the
lease's arbitration clause is substantively unconscionable.
Carlson further contends that the arbitration clause is
procedurally unconscionable because of what he characterizes as a
procedural trap for the consumer by which BMW purportedly requires
arbitration for all disputes but disclaims any liability relating
to disputes involving tires. The Court points out regardless of
whether Carlson believes that individual arbitration is an
insufficient method to vindicate his claims, it is the method of
dispute resolution he agreed to use for these types of claims when
he signed the lease and agreed to be bound by its terms, which
include the arbitration clause and class action waiver.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the arbitration clause is neither
substantively nor procedurally unconscionable.
Carlson also argues that his Minnesota consumer fraud claims fall
outside the scope of the arbitration clause because those claims
are statutory causes of action which should not be subject to
arbitration under a contract dispute clause. But the arbitration
clause provides that either party may elect to have any claim
decided by arbitration. According to the Court, the scope of the
arbitration clause is broad enough to cover Carlson's allegations.
The Court concludes Carlson has not shown that the arbitration
clause is unconscionable or that it constitutes an unenforceable
contract of adhesion. Therefore, the Court finds that the
arbitration clause is valid and enforceable.
Because a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate exists
between BMW and Carlson, and because Carlson's claims fall within
the scope of the agreement, the Court grants BMW's motion and stays
these proceedings pending arbitration.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mUicgr from PacerMonitor.com.
CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Fails to Prevent Drop in Share Price, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY M. ABRAHAM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CELSIUS HOLDINGS, INC.; JOHN
FIELDLY; and JARROD LANGHANS, Defendants, Case No.
9:25-cv-80053-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 14, 2025) is a securities class
action on behalf of all persons who purchased Celsius stock or sold
Celsius puts during the period between February 29, 2024 and
September 4, 2024 ("Class Period"), alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, during the Class
Period, the Defendants made false and misleading statements and
engaged in a scheme to deceive the market and a course of conduct
that artificially inflated the price of Celsius securities and
operated as a fraud or deceit on Class Period purchasers of Celsius
stock and sellers of put options by misrepresenting the Company's
business and prospects.
When trading resumed November 6, 2024, the market price of Celsius
common stock on this news fell another $1.69 per share, or
approximately 5 percent, on unusually high volume of more than 22.5
million shares trading, or more than 3.5 times the average daily
volume over the preceding 10 trading days, causing Class members
significant losses.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
subsequent declines in the market value of Celsius securities,
Plaintiff and other Class members suffered losses and damages.
Celsius Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, provides thermogenic calorie-burning
beverages. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert J. Robbins, Esq.
Stephen A. Astley, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 750-3000
Email: rrobbins@rgrdlaw.com
sastley@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
mblasy@rgrdlaw.com
CERTEGY PAYMENT: Stachewicz Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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 granting her motion for
leave to file under seal Exhibits 2-6, 11-13, 17, 25, and 27-30 and
portions of Exhibit 1 to her motion for class certification.
The Plaintiff also seeks leave to file under seal those portions of
the Memorandum of Law which quote or otherwise reveal the contents
of material proposed to be sealed.
Exhibit 1 is the transcript of the deposition of Defendant's
corporate representative. The Defendant has marked certain portions
of this transcript as "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential –
Attorneys' Eyes Only" pursuant to paragraph 5 of the Amended
Stipulated Protective Order.
Exhibits 2-6, 11-13, 17, 25, and 27-29 are each documents produced
by the Defendant which it has designated as "Confidential" or
"Highly Confidential – Attorneys' Eyes Only" pursuant to the
Amended Stipulated Protective Order.
Exhibit 30 is a declaration and attached exhibits which quote or
otherwise reveal the contents of material which Defendant has
designated as "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential – Attorneys'
Eyes Only" pursuant to the protective order.
Pending the Court’s ruling on this motion, Plaintiff will file
redacted version of the Exhibits,1 and will publicly file a version
of the Memorandum of Law in support of the Motion for Class
Certification with portions Should the Court find that any of the
material referenced herein be publicly filed, the Plaintiff will
promptly refile unredacted versions of same.
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=wr86Br 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
CONTINENTAL CAFE: Faces Hill Suit Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------
TISHARDRA HILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CONTINENTAL CAFE HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:24-cv-13166-SJM-APP (E.D. Mich., November 26, 2024) is a
class action arising out of Defendant's failures to properly secure
and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personally
identifiable information and protected health information.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's data security failures
allowed a targeted cyberattack to compromise Defendant's network
that, upon information and belief, contained the private
information of Plaintiff and Class Members who were all employees
or customers of Defendant. The Defendant first became aware of the
data breach on October 18, 2024. To date, the Defendant has not
informed Plaintiff and Class Members when the data breach actually
took place, says the suit.
As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members are
now at a current, imminent, and ongoing risk of fraud and identity
theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and for years into
the future closely monitor their medical and financial accounts to
guard against identity theft.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant
seeking redress for its unlawful conduct and asserting claims for:
(i) negligence and negligence per se, (ii) breach of implied
contract, (iii) breach of fiduciary duty, (iv) unjust enrichment,
and (vi) declaratory relief.
Continental Cafe Holdings, LLC is a contract dining and refreshment
provider spanning across Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and
Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Emily E. Hughes, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 W. University Dr., Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
eeh@millerlawpc.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN LLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
COXCOM LLC: Ellis Sues Over Deceptive Pricing and Billing Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Ellis; and Laura Dibble, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Coxcom, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-00225-MW-MAF (N.D. Fla., Nov. 27, 2024), is brought
challenging a deceptive pricing and billing scheme whereby Cox
falsely advertised and promised to new and existing customers that
the monthly prices for Cox's service plansi would be at quoted,
fixed rates for a 1- or 2-year Service Agreement or Promotional
Agreement, but then, after the customer signed up, Cox as a matter
of policy would unlawfully increase the service price in the middle
of the promised fixed-rate period.
Notably, Cox's deceptive price advertising and practices were
uniform in all of Cox's sales channels. According to Cox, consumers
would "Get the exact same price when you shop online, by phone or
in-store." For customers who signed up for Service Agreements or
Promotional Agreements between 2014 and March 22, 2021, one
mechanism that Cox utilized to increase the service rate in the
middle of the promised fixed-rate agreement was by annually
increasing two disguised monthly television service charges, which
Cox called the "Broadcast Surcharge" and the "Regional Sports
Surcharge" (the "Surcharges").
Cox advertised and quoted fixed rates for each and every Service
Agreement or Promotional Agreement it ofTered, including a detailed
graphical monthly price chart on its website that broke out the
price to be charged each and every month for the fixed-price
period. Cox promised that for Service Agreements, the quoted fixed
prices were "guaranteed." On its website, Cox stated that the
"guaranteed" fixed price only excluded equipment, movie rentals,
and non-service charges. Notably, those quoted and advertised fixed
rates excluded the amount of the Surcharges (and also their
increases—ven though the Surcharges were, in fact, monthly
"service charges."
The Plaintiffs estimate that Cox has extracted more than $90
million from over 700,000 Florida subscribers since 2015 via this
illegal scheme of increasing its service prices in the middle of
promised fixed-rate agreements. The Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit
on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated Florida
consumers, seeking damages and/or restitution, punitive damages,
and pre- and post-judgment interest. Plaintiffs also seek a
declaration by this court that Cox's practices alleged herein
violate Florida law. Additionally, Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and the Class, seek a public injunction to stop these
unlawful advertising practices in order to protect the general
public, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Gainesville, Florida,
where she was a victim of Cox's deceptive pricing and billing
scheme.
Cox currently provides cable TV and/or internet services to 6.5
million households nationwide, including 500,000 households in
Florida, including in this District and Division.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John A. Love, Esq.
LOVE CONSUMER LAW
2500 Northwinds Pkwy Ste 330
Alpharetta, GA 30009
Phone: (404) 855-3600
Email: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com
- and -
Daniel M. Hattis, Esq.
Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq.
HATTIS & LUKACS
11711 SE 8th st, Ste 120
Bellevue, WA 98005
Phone: (425) 233-8650
Email: dan@hattislaw.com
pkl@hattislaw.com
- and -
Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
5 Greentree Centre, Suite 410
525 Route 73 N.
Marlton, NJ 08057
Phone: (856) 797-9951
Email: sdenittis@denittislaw.com
CREDIT AGRICOLE: General Pretrial Management Entered
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE RUIZ, v. CREDIT
AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK, et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-10777-VSB-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses
entered an order regarding general pretrial management as follows:
-- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related
to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss
or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for
summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with
this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on
the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-
moses.
-- Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must
be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery
set by the Court.
-- Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting
discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need
for such an application arises and must comply with Local
Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual
Practices.
-- Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court
proceeding (including a telephonic court conference) or to
extend a deadline must be made in writing and in compliance
with § 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone
requests for adjournments or extensions will not be
entertained.
On Dec. 23, 2024, the Defendant Botting filed a letter "to request
a telephone conference with the Court concerning plaintiff Jose
Ruiz's failure to prosecute this action."
On Dec. 24, 2024, the plaintiff filed a letter in opposition.
On Dec. 26, 2024, the Hon. Vernon S. Broderick, ordered, "Before
addressing this dispute with the Magistrate Judge, the parties
shall meet and confer in accordance with FRCP 37(a)(1)."
The parties have not contacted Judge Moses since the Dec. 26 Order.
Therefore, no later than Jan. 15, 2025, the parties must meet and
confer in real time (i.e., in person or by telephone), and submit a
joint letter advising the Court of any developments since the
parties' December 23 and 24 letters, including which issues remain
to be resolved.
Credit Agricole is active in a broad range of capital markets,
investment banking and financing activities.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SvzAyU at no extra
charge.[CC]
DERMA MADE: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Girtley Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
KALARI JACKSON GIRTLEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DERMA MADE, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-12397 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 3, 2024) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, www.dermamade.com, is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Derma Made, LLC offers dermatologist-recommended skincare products.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
DETROIT TIGERS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Pellant, et al. ADEA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Brandy R. McMillion of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted in part and
denied in part Detroit Tigers, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the case
captioned as GARY PELLANT and RANDALL JOHNSON, Plaintiffs, v.
DETROIT TIGERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-13288 (E.D.
Mich.). The case is stayed pending resolution of the earlier filed
litigation now pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
This case concerns alleged age discrimination against professional
baseball scouts. There are three cases that are relevant to this
Motion:
(1) D. Colo. Case No. 23-cv-01563 ("the Colorado case");
(2) this case, E.D. Mich. Case No. 23-cv-13288 ("the Michigan
case"); and
(3) S.D.N.Y. Case No. 24-cv-04314 ("the New York case").
The Colorado case was transferred to the Southern District of New
York and became the New York case.
Plaintiffs Johnson and Pellant filed the Michigan case against the
Tigers on December 27, 2023, six months after the Colorado case was
filed.
In the Michigan complaint, Plaintiffs allege they are among several
employees fired by the Tigers in the last eight years after the
Tigers and the MLB decided to replace older employees with younger
ones. E.D. Mich. Case No. 23-cv-13288. At the time of filing,
Johnson and Pellant were 67 and 68 years old, respectively.
Plaintiffs contend that the MLB sought to reform itself by relying
on analytics and having scouts primarily focus on video scouting.
Plaintiffs allege that this initiative led the MLB to heavily
recruit younger scouts while simultaneously -- and intentionally --
pushing out the older scouts. This conduct was based on a false
stereotype that the older scouts lacked the ability to use
analytics and engage in video scouting with the same skill as
younger scouts.
Their Complaint in this case raises three claims:
(1) wrongful termination under the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act;
(2) post-termination employment interference in violation of the
ADEA; and
(3) a state-law claim for age discrimination under Michigan's
Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, Mich. Comp. Laws Sec. 37.2201 et
seq. Id
The Tigers argue that the Court should apply the first-to-file rule
to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint or, alternatively, to stay the
case until final judgment is entered against Johnson and Pellant
in the New York case.
Courts typically evaluate three factors when determining whether to
apply the first-to-file rule:
(1) the chronology of events,
(2) the similarity of the parties involved, and
(3) the similarity of the issues or claims at stake.
There is no dispute this first factor is satisfied. The second
factor is also satisfied, the Court finds.
Plaintiffs in this case are Johnson and Pellant, and the Tigers are
the defendant in this case. The Court notes Johnson and Pellant
were also plaintiffs in the Colorado case (and are plaintiffs in
the New York case), and the Tigers are one of the many defendants
in the Colorado-New York case. According to the Court, the parties
not only substantially overlap, but they are also perfectly
identical, with the addition of other plaintiffs and defendants.
Consequently, the second factor also favors applying the
first-to-file rule, the Court concludes.
Like the first two factors, the third factor favors applying the
first-to-file rule. When considering the third factor, the issues
need only to substantially overlap in order to apply the
first-to-file rule. The issues in the Colorado-New York and
Michigan cases meet this threshold. The issues involve claims of
age discrimination against professional baseball scouts. And many
of the facts alleged in the Michigan complaint are identical to
those in the Colorado-New York complaint.
Thus, the Court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs' argument that these
are different issues. To the contrary, these claims all require an
analysis under the ADEA. Plus, the issues don't have to be
identical. Accordingly, the Court finds that the three
first-to-file factors are all satisfied.
The Court finds that the first-to-file rule applies to this case
and finds it appropriate to stay the case rather than dismiss it.
A copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7TvrlB from PacerMonitor.com
DFT INC: Faces Vasquez Suit in Calif. Super.
--------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against DFT, INC. The case is
captioned as Henry Vasquez, on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. DFT, INC., Case No. 24CV024125
(Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., November 26, 2024).
The suit arises from the Defendant's alleged employment law
violation.
A case management conference is set for August 22, 2025 before
Judge Richard K. Sueyoshi.
DFT, INC. manufactures valve products. The Company offers check and
control valves for power generation, textiles, and municipal
industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bevin Elaine Pike, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park E Ste 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2533
Telephone: (310) 712-8010
EMORY UNIVERSITY: Parties Can Submit Supplemental Briefing
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARC SCHULTZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EMORY
UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-02002-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge
Thomas Thrash entered an order granting the Parties' Joint motion
for leave to submit supplemental briefing regarding the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification.
Within 14 days of this order, the Parties shall contemporaneously
submit supplemental briefing regarding Plaintiff's motion for class
certification and the impact of the Eleventh Circuit's opinion
vacating this Court's prior order granting, in part, Plaintiff's
Motion.
These supplemental briefs shall not exceed ten (10) pages in
length. Following the Court's new ruling on class certification,
the Parties shall meet and confer and, within 30 days after that
ruling, propose a schedule for any further discovery and other
subsequent proceedings.
Emory is a private research university in Atlanta, Georgia, United
States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RCJlYp at no extra
charge.[CC]
EMPLOYBRIDGE LLC: Jackson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EMPLOYBRIDGE, LLC.
The case is styled as Leonard Jackson, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated persons v. EMPLOYBRIDGE, LLC, PRODRIVERS
STAFFING, INC., PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS OF GEORGIA, INC., Case No.
24CV104191 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Dec. 20, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Employbridge -- https://www.employbridge.com/ -- is transforming
workforce staffing, combining trusted expertise and powerful
technology.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Edward Adams, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL E. ADAMS
600 Allerton St., Ste. 200
Redwood City, CA 94063-1570
Phone: 650-599-9463
Fax: 650-599-9785
Email: michael@michaeleadamslaw.com
ENVISION MANAGEMENT: Ruling in Harrison ERISA Lawsuit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as ROBERT HARRISON, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated individuals on behalf of Envision
Management Holding, Inc. ESOP, and GRACE HEATH, on behalf of
herself, the Envision Management Holding, Inc. ESOP, and all other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. ENVISION MANAGEMENT
HOLDING, INC. BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ENVISION MANAGEMENT HOLDING, INC.
EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN COMMITTEE, ARGENT TRUST COMPANY,
DARREL CREPS, III, PAUL SHERWOOD, JEFF JONES, AARON RAMSAY, TANWEER
KAHN, NICOLE JONES, and LORI SPAHN, Defendants, Civil Action No.
21-cv-00304-CNS-MDB (D. Colo.), Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney of the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado affirmed
the order of Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell finding
that there is no common legal interest between Plaintiffs and
non-party Department of Labor.
This case concerns an employee stock ownership plan -- The Plan --
that allows participating employees to acquire an interest in
company stock. The Plan is subject to the Employment Retirement
Security Act of 1974, and all seven of Plaintiffs' claims are
brought under ERISA.
Plaintiff Robert Harrison, a former employee of Defendant Envision
Management Holding, initiated this action on Jan. 29, 2021, by
filing a class action complaint. Plaintiff Grace Heath, also a
former employee of Envision, joined Plaintiff Harrison in the
amended complaint. Plaintiffs assert causes of actions against
various Defendants and seek plan-wide relief.
The DOL provided investigative materials to Plaintiffs under a
common interest agreement. The material included DOL Interview
Reports. The current dispute concerns whether the common interest
doctrine protects against the disclosure of these DOL Interview
Reports or other DOL documents in this litigation.
The DOL filed a Statement of Interest. Relying on the CIA, the DOL
asserts various privileges and protections over the information it
shared with Plaintiffs, including work product protection, the
deliberative process privilege, and the law enforcement privilege.
Given the numerous discovery disputes over documents that the DOL
provided Plaintiffs, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to file a motion
on whether the common interest doctrine applies to their
information-sharing arraignment. The Court referred the issue to
Magistrate Judge Dominguez Braswell for determination. In a
thorough and well-reasoned decision, Magistrate Judge Dominguez
Braswell determined that there is no common legal interest between
the DOL and Plaintiffs, and that the DOL cannot rely on the CIA to
protect against waiver.
Plaintiffs object to Magistrate Judge Dominguez Braswell's order on
four grounds, arguing that she:
(i) misconstrues a handful of sentences in the Department of
Justice's Statement of Interest as being antithetical to
Plaintiffs' legal interest;
(ii) misunderstands the interest shared by DOL and Plaintiffs as
being financial instead of legal;
(iii) recognizes that pending litigation is not required to
establish a common interest yet rejects Plaintiffs' legal authority
on this basis; and
(iv) relies on two materially distinguishable decisions to reject
the CIA.
Plaintiffs argue that Magistrate Judge Dominguez Braswell
incorrectly concluded that the DOL's and Plaintiffs' interests are
not common. They take issue with her reliance (in part) on the
DOJ's statement that it has no position on the merits of this case
as an admission that the DOL believes Plaintiffs' claims are
meritless.
The Court finds Magistrate Judge Dominguez Braswell correctly
summarized the DOL's role and position in this case. Judge Sweeney
explains, "The DOL is not a party to this case, the DOL's
investigation is still open, the DOL is still considering whether
to participate in this litigation, the DOL has not yet made a
disposition decision, and the DOL expressly takes no position on
the merits of the case. These positions allowed her to correctly
determine that the DOL and Plaintiffs failed to make a showing that
they are working towards a common legal strategy. Her decision to
reject the unsupported, conclusory argument that the DOL and
Plaintiffs share a common interest is not clearly erroneous."
The Court concludes Plaintiffs cannot show that Magistrate Judge
Dominguez Braswell's order was clearly erroneous or contrary to
law. Plaintiffs' objection, is overruled, and the Court affirms
Magistrate Judge Dominguez Braswell's order. The Court also
overrules Plaintiff's earlier objection, and affirms her earlier
order, Plaintiffs' request to stay this litigation pending the
filing of a writ of mandamus is denied. It now lifts the stay
entered by Magistrate Judge Dominguez Braswell pending resolution
of Plaintiffs' objections.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3B9Kmf from PacerMonitor.com.
ENVOY AIR INC: Adair Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------
Cleophus V. Adair and Olivia M. Nisbet, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, and the general public v. ENVOY AIR
INC., a Delaware corporation; ABM INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED, a
Delaware corporation, ABM AVIATION, INC., a Georgia corporation;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV31443 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 27, 2024), is brought to recover unpaid
wages, liquidated damages, penalties, restitution, and related
relief on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and
the general public.
The Complaint is brought against the Defendants for alleged
violations of the California Labor Code and California Business and
Professions Code. As set forth below, Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants have: failed to pay them overtime wages at the correct
rate; failed to pay them double time wages at the correct rate;
failed to pay them overtime and/or double time wages by failing to
include all applicable remuneration in calculating the regular rate
of pay; failed to provide them with meal periods; failed to provide
them with rest periods; failed to pay them premium wages for missed
meal and rest periods; failed to provide them with accurate written
wage statements; failed to reimburse them with necessary business
expenditures; failed to pay them all their final wages following
separation of employment, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as non-exempt employees
duringthe relevant and statutory periods.
ENVOY AIR INC. is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein, a
Delaware corporation doing business in the State of
California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David Yeremian, Esq.
David Keledjian, Esq.
D.LAW, INC.
450 N. Brand Blvd.
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (818) 962-6465
Facsimile: (818) 962-6469
Email: d.yeremian@d.law
d.keledjian@d.law
EUROMARKEY DESIGNS: Chavez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Euromarkey Designs,
Inc. The case is styled as Martha Chavez, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Euromarkey Designs, Inc d.b.a
Crate & Barrel, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0000637 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
San Joaquin Cty., Jan. 15, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Euromarket Designs Inc. doing business as Crate and Barrel --
https://www.crateandbarrel.com/ -- is a retail chain of
contemporary home furnishings and housewares.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP
31365 Oak Crest Dr., Ste. 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Phone: 805-270-7100
Fax: 805-270-7589
Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
EVOLVE BANK & TRUST: Felton Files Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Evolve Bank & Trust,
et al. The case is styled as Ashley Felton, an individual, and all
those similarly situated v. Evolve Bank & Trust, Evolve Bancorp,
Inc., AMG National Trust, Lineage Bank, American Bank, Inc., Case
No. 2:24-cv-10317-GW-AJR (C.D. Cal., Nov. 27, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Evolve Bank & Trust -- https://www.getevolved.com/ -- is a
best-in-class technology-focused financial services organization
and Banking-as-a-Service ("BaaS") provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake J Lindemann, Esq.
LINDEMANN LAW FIRM APC
9777 Wilshire Boulevard 4th Floor
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (310) 279-5269
Fax: (310) 300-0267
Email: blake@lawbl.com
EXTRA SPACE MANAGEMENT: Dixon Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Extra Space
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Eric Dixon, on behalf of
himself, and other similarly situated employees v. Extra Space
Management, Inc. doing business as: Extra Space Storage, Case No.
1:24-cv-00393-CLC-SKL (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 14, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act for Denial of Overtime Compensation.
Extra Space Storage -- https://www.extraspace.com/ -- offers
affordable storage units at over 3500 facilities in 43 statesExtra
Space Storage offers affordable storage units at over 3500
facilities in 43 states.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph J. Jeziorkowski, Esq.
VALIANT LAW
2 Westchester Park Drive Suite 205
White Plains, NY 10604
Phone: (914) 730-2422
Fax: (909) 677-2290
Email: jjj@valiantlaw.com
FALL LINE: Planas Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty
-------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR PARDO PLANAS and KEITH W. MEYER, on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated stockholders, Plaintiffs v. FALL LINE CAPITAL,
LLC, FALL LINE ENDURANCE FUND, LP, FALL LINE ENDURANCE FUND GP,
LLC, ERIC O'BRIEN, CLAY MITCHELL, ANDREY ZARUR, MATTHEW WALKER, and
GANESH KISHORE, Defendants, Case No. 2024-1215-KSJM (Del. Ch.,
November 26, 2024) is a verified stockholder class action complaint
against (1) the Company's former control group for breaching their
fiduciary duties as controllers to the Company's non-insider
minority shareholders, (2) the Company's directors who extracted
special benefits from the Company's conflicted merger, (3) the
Company's President and Chief Executive Officer, for breaching his
fiduciary duties in his capacity as an officer of the Company, and
(4) and for violation of 8 Del. C. Section 203 by all Defendants,
in each case in connection with the Company's May 29, 2023
Agreement and Plan of Merger with, inter alia, entities affiliated
with investment funds advised by Fall Line Capital, LLC.
The complaint alleges that Fall Line and the Company's management
team conspired to, and did, form a controlling Buyer Consortium
comprised of the Company's largest stockholders to spearhead the
privatization of the Company. As negotiations ensued, the Buyer
Consortium worked with the Company's management to recruit other
rollover stockholders, ultimately amassing nearly 80% of the
Company's ownership and squeezing out the remaining stockholders.
The Special Committee formed specifically to protect the Company's
minority stockholders was ineffective and repeatedly failed to
protect the minority's interests, says the suit.
Fall Line Capital, LLC is a private equity firm focused on
investments in farmland and agricultural technologies.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher P. Quinn, Esq.
KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
112 French Street, Ste 201
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 336-7200
E-mail: Chris.Quinn@ksfcounsel.com
- and -
Michael J. Palestina, Esq.
Brian C. Mears, Esq.
Gina M. Palermo, Esq.
KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
1100 Poydras Street, Suite 960
New Orleans, LA 70163
Telephone: (504) 455-1400
- and -
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
Telephone: (212) 971-1341
FAMILY DOLLAR STORES: Gonzalez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Gonzalez, and other similarly situated individuals v.
FAMILY DOLLAR STORES OF FLORIDA, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-20221-DPG
(S.D. Fla., Jan. 15, 2025), is brought to recover money damages for
unpaid overtime wages and retaliatory termination under the laws of
the United States and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("the FLSA").
While employed by the Corporate Defendant, the Plaintiff worked
approximately an average of 45 to 50 hours per week without being
compensated at the rate of not less than one- and one-half times
the regular rate at which he was employed. The Plaintiff was
employed as an Assistant manager performing the same or similar
duties as that of those other similarly situated Assistant managers
whom the Plaintiff observed working in excess of 40 hours per week
without overtime compensation, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an Assistant Manager
from September 5, 2023 until her wrongful termination on April 30,
2024.
FAMILY DOLLAR STORES OF FLORIDA, LLC is a discount store
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julisse Jimenez, Esq.
THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, PA
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, Florida 33180
Phone: (305) 482-1475
Email: julisse@legalopinionusa.com
FIRST NECK BUENA: Cheli Sues Over Inaccessible Property
-------------------------------------------------------
Charlene Cheli, an individual, on her own behalf and on the behalf
of all other similarly situated v. FIRST NECK BUENA LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-00407 (D.N.J., Jan. 14,
2025), is brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA") and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD") as a
result of the Defendant's inaccessible property.
The Plaintiff encounters architectural barriers at many of the
places that she visits. Seemingly trivial architectural features
such as cracked asphalt/concrete, access aisles, parking spaces,
curb ramps, and door handles are taken for granted by the
non-disabled but, when improperly designed or implemented, can be
arduous and dangerous to those who use wheelchairs and other
mobility devices.
The Plaintiff has visited the Property on several occasions over
the years, her last visit as a patron of the occurred on October
31, 2024. The Plaintiff visited the Property as a bone fide patron
with the intent to avail herself of the goods and services offered
to the public within but found that the Property contained several
violations of the ADA--both in architecture and in policy.
The ADA has been law for over 30 years and the Property remains
non-compliant. Thus, the Plaintiff has actual notice and reasonable
grounds to believe that she will continue to be subjected to
discrimination by the Defendants, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a mobility impaired person.
FIRST NECK BUENA LLC, owns a parcel of land which encompasses a
place of public accommodation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq.
SHADINGER LAW, LLC
717 E. Elmer Street, Suite 7
Vineland, NJ 08360
Phone: (609) 319-5399
Email: js@shadingerlaw.com
GOODYEAR TIRE: Court Tosses Perkins Suit Over Session Replay Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge W. Scott Hardy of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania will grant Goodyear Tire and
Rubber Company's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the
case captioned as KENDRA PERKINS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER
COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action No. 22-1521 (W.D. Pa.) for lack of
personal jurisdiction.
This is a class action brought against Goodyear for wiretapping the
electronic communications of visitors to its website,
www.goodyear.com. Goodyear procures third-party vendors, such as
Microsoft Corporation, to embed snippets of JavaScript computer
code ("Session Replay Code") on Goodyear's website, which then
deploys on each website visitor's internet browser for the purpose
intercepting and recording the website visitor's electronic
communications with the Goodyear website, including their mouse
movements, clicks, keystrokes (such as text being entered into an
information field or text box), URLs of web pages visited, and/or
other electronic communications in real-time. These third-party
vendors ("Session Replay Providers") create and deploy the Session
Replay Code at Goodyear's request.
Plaintiff alleges that Goodyear's procurement of the Session Replay
Providers to secretly deploy the Session Replay Code results in the
electronic equivalent of looking over the shoulder of each visitor
to the Goodyear website for the entire duration of their website
interaction. Plaintiff asserts claims for violation of
Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act,
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Sec. 5701, et seq., and invasion of privacy.
Plaintiff recognizes that Defendant Goodyear Tire and Rubber
Company is a corporation organized under the laws of Ohio, and its
principal place of business in Akron, Ohio. Defendant is a citizen
of Ohio.
Plaintiff does not argue that this Court can exercise general
jurisdiction over Goodyear. Instead, Plaintiff argues that this
Court can exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Defendant
because a substantial part of the events and conduct giving rise to
Plaintiff's claims and harm occurred in Pennsylvania. The privacy
violations complained of in this case resulted from Defendant's
purposeful and tortious acts directed towards citizens of
Pennsylvania while they were located within Pennsylvania.
At all relevant times, Defendant targeted its goods and services to
Pennsylvania citizens, and knew that its practices would directly
result in collection of information from Pennsylvania citizens
while those citizens browse www.goodyear.com from devices located
in Pennsylvania. Defendant chose to avail itself of the business
opportunities of marketing and selling its goods and services in
Pennsylvania and collecting real-time data from website visit
sessions initiated by Pennsylvanians while located in Pennsylvania,
and the claims and harm alleged herein arise specifically from
those activities.
Plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of the following class: "All
natural persons in Pennsylvania whose Website Communications were
captured in Pennsylvania through the use of Session Replay Code
embedded in www.goodyear.com."
The Court finds the Amended Complaint fails under the Calder
effects test because there are no allegations that Goodyear
expressly aimed its conduct at Pennsylvania. According to the
Court, the Amended Complaint in this case failed to allege, for
example, that Goodyear's website is accessible only in
Pennsylvania; that the Session Replay Code is deployed only to
users who access the site in Pennsylvania; or that the content of
Goodyear's website is tailored in any meaningful way to
Pennsylvanians.
The Court also finds personal jurisdiction over Goodyear also fails
under the traditional test. It accepts that Goodyear has extensive
contacts and purposefully avails itself of Pennsylvania's market.
However, Judge Hardy explains that there are no facts pleaded in
the Amended Complaint to support a strong relationship among
Goodyear, Pennsylvania and the deployment of Session Replay Code on
Goodyear's website. According to the Court, Goodyear's in-state
sales and marketing activities, as alleged in the complaint, are
insufficiently related to the wiretapping and invasion of privacy
claims in this case. The Amended Complaint did not allege any facts
regarding the company's promotion of its website in Pennsylvania or
that the website was featured on the Goodyear blimp at a
Pennsylvania sporting event. Although Goodyear promoted its
automotive business in Pennsylvania, it did not promote its website
-- the device that allegedly caused Plaintiffs' harm.
A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FVde4p from PacerMonitor.com.
HAMLINE UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Sues Over Website's Access Barriers
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH ORTIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRUSTEES OF THE HAMLINE UNIVERSITY OF
MINNESOTA, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00034 (W.D.N.Y., January 9,
2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York
State Human Rights Law, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.hamline.edu/, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: lack of alternative text, empty links that contain no
text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Trustees of the Hamline University of Minnesota is a private
university that sells online goods and services in Minnesota. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
HAWAII RADIOLOGIC: Arkin Alleges Inadequate Security Measures
-------------------------------------------------------------
RANDEE ARKIN and DOMINIC RAMISCAL Plaintiffs v. HAWAII RADIOLOGIC
ASSOCIATES, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00503-HG-KJM (D.
Hawaii, November 26, 2024) allege claims of negligence, breach of
implied contract, and unjust enrichment arising from the
Defendant's unlawful conduct.
On or around November 5, 2024, the Plaintiffs received a "Notice of
Security Incident" letter from Defendant. According to the data
breach letter, on or around August 26, 2024, Hawaii Radiologic
became aware of suspicious activity on its computer network.
However, an investigation conducted by the Defendant concluded that
an unknown actor had gained access to its computer system as early
as August 20, 2024.
This is a class action to recover damages sustained and suffered by
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated customers, caused by a) Defendant's negligent failure to
implement adequate security measures to protect the confidentiality
of patient health information and other personal information, and
b) Defendant's negligent and unreasonable delay in notifying
victims after Defendant learned unauthorized parties had hacked its
computer systems and accessed the Hawaii Radiologic computer
network, including all patient personal identifying information and
personal health information, all of which encompassed an extreme
degree of highly sensitive information.
Hawaii Radiologic Associates, Ltd., is a healthcare services group
that provides diagnostic radiologic imagining at three imaging
centers located in the Island of Hawai'i.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Richard Turbin, Esq.
Janice D. Heidt, Esq.
TURBIN CHU HEIDT, A LAW CORPORATION
737 Bishop Street, Suite 2730
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: (808) 528-4000
Facsimile: (808) 599-1984
E-mail: richturbin@turbin.net
jheidt@turbin.net
- and -
Amber L. Schubert, Esq.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE
2001 Union St., Ste. 200
San Francisco, CA 94123
Telephone: (415) 788-4220
Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
E-mail: aschubert@sjk.law.com
INTELEX USA LLC: Crumwell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated v. INTELEX USA, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00337
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 14, 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://warmies.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 her
computer.
INTELEX USA, LLC, operates the Warmies online retail store, as well
as the Warmies 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
INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL: Puntillo Files Suit in N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against International Travel
Network, LLC. The case is styled as Roberta Puntillo, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. International
Travel Network, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-08931-TSH (N.D. Cal., Dec.
10, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
International Travel Network, LLC (ITN) -- https://itncorp.com/ --
provides tools and solutions for airlines, travel agencies and a
network of independent travel agents that serve over a million
happy customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Andrew McShane, Esq.
Ling Yue Kuang, Esq.
AUDET & PARTNERS LLP
711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102
Phone: (415) 568-2555
Fax: (415) 568-2556
Email: mmcshane@audetlaw.com
lkuang@audetlaw.com
JLC LLC: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Commercial Property
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated v. JLC LLC and BOCAS DORAL LLC D/B/A BOCAS
HOUSE, Case No. 1:25-cv-20210-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 14, 2025), is
brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation
expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the
individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal
enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property and
restaurant and bar business within the commercial property.
Although over 32 years have passed since the effective date of
Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities
accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Plaintiff found
the commercial property and commercial restaurant business located
within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The
Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial
property and commercial restaurant business located within the
commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of
the premises.
The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and
businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to
access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each
denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial
Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA.
The barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies),
embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff and others similarly
situated.
The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff
by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located
therein, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate.
JLC LLC, owns, operates and/or oversees the commercial property; to
include its general parking lot, parking spots, and entrance access
and path of travel specific to the tenant businesses therein and
all other common areas open to the public located within the
commercial property.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104
Miami, FL 33144
Phone: (786) 361-9909
Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
Primary Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com
JO-ANN STORES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Blank Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
ALLISON BLANK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JO-ANN STORES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:24-cv-02556-SHK (C.D. Cal., Dec. 2, 2024) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.
Jo-Ann Stores, LLC operates as a retails fabric and craft products
company. The Company offers apparel, home decorating fabrics,
notions, seasonal accessories, floral, and framing products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (754) 444-7539
E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com
KANSAS CITY LIFE: Bid to Dismiss McMillan Class Suit Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARRY A. MCMILLAN,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. KANSAS
CITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:22-cv-01100-BAH (D. Md.),
the Hon. Judge Brendan A. Burson entered an order:
-- Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied.
-- Defendant's motion for leave to supplement is granted.
-- McMillan's motion for class certification is granted, and
The Court certifies the following class:
"All persons who own or owned a Better Life Plan, LifeTrack,
AOP, MOP, POP, Chapter One, Classic, Rightrack (89), Performer
(88), Performer (91), Competitor (88), Competitor (91),
Executive (88), Executive (91), Protector 50, LewerMax, Ultra
20 (93 ), Competitor II, Executive II, Performer II, Ultra 20
(96), or Century II VUL life insurance policy issued in the
state of Maryland, that was issued or administered by Defendant
or its predecessors in interest, and that was active on or
after Jan. 1, 2002."
Excluded from the Class are: Defendant Kansas City Life ,Insurance
Company ("KCL"); any entity in which KCL has a controlling
interest; any of the officers, directors, or employees of KCL; the
legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns of KCL;
anyone employed with Plaintiffs counsel's firms; and any Judge to
whom this case is assigned, and his or her immediate family.
Given that the amended complaint's class definition does not
unambiguously exclude McMillan, and considering that in
interpreting the amended complaint, the Court must make all
reasonable inferences in the Plaintiffs favor, the Court declines
to find that the pied class definition excludes past KCL sales
agents, like McMillan.
The Court denies Defendant's motion to dismiss.
Because Plaintiff has met all of the requirements under Rule 23(a)
and (b)(3), the motion to certify the class will be granted.
McMillan alleges breach of contract and conversion by the
Defendant, related to the terms of the life insurance policy that
McMillan and other members of the putative class purchased from the
Defendant.
Kansas City Life is a public insurance company established in
1895.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Jan. 10, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XNIqQC
at no extra charge.[CC]
KATSUYA-H&V LLC: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against KATSUYA-H&V, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Miguel Martinez, an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. KATSUYA-H&V LLC, FENNELL
CHELSEA, SBE/KATSUYA USA LLC, Case No. 25STCV00633 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 10, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Katsuya -- https://www.sbe.com/restaurants/katsuya/ -- merges
traditional Japanese cuisine with modern techniques and flavours to
deliver an entirely original experience.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
Jason W. Rothman, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
1460 Westwood Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: 310-438-5555
Fax: 310-300-1705
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
Jason@tomorrowlaw.com
L.N. CURTIS: Faces Pereira Labor Suit in Calif. Super.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against L.N. Curtis And Sons
captioned as DANIEL PEREIRA, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. L.N. CURTIS AND SONS; and
DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24CV101859 (Cal.
Super., Alameda Cty., Dec. 2, 2024).
L.N. Curtis & Sons is a business supplies and equipment firm
providing emergency responder equipment. [BN]
LAO FAMILY: Faces Zaheer Labor Suit in Calif. Super.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Lao Family Community
Development Inc. captioned as ZABINA ZAHEER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAO FAMILY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, Case No.
24CV024474 (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Dec. 2, 2024). The case
is assigned to Hon. Lauri A. Damrell.
Lao Family Community Development, Inc. (LFCD) assists diverse
refugee, immigrant, limited English, and low-income U.S. born
community members in achieving long-term financial and social
self-sufficiency. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by Courtney M. Miller, Esq.+
LCT OPCO: Jackson Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
----------------------------------------------------------------
SYLINIA JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LCT OPCO LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00184 (S.D.N.Y., January 9, 2025) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://lacolombe.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: lack of alternative text, empty links that contain no
text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
LCT OPCO LLC is a company that sells online goods and services,
doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
LITHIA MOTORS: Olasaba Files Employment Suit in Cal. Super.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against LITHIA MOTORS, INC., et al.
The case is captioned as Marco Olasaba v. Lithia Motors, Inc., et
al., Case No. 24STCV31335 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., November
26, 2024).
The suit arises from the Defendants' alleged employment violation.
Lithia Motors, Inc. is an American nationwide automotive dealership
group headquartered in Medford, Oregon.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon Brouillette, Esq.
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
Raymond Wendell, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste 3
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (866) 276-7637
MDL 3031: Court OK's Stipulation on Briefs in Opposition
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re: Cattle and Beef Antitrust
Litigation, captioned as Case No. 0:22-md-03031 (D. Minn., Filed
June 3, 2022), the Hon. Judge John R. Tunheim entered an order
granting the stipulation on the Defendants briefs in opposition to
class certification.
The actions in these MDL share factual questions arising from
plaintiffs' allegations that, since at least Jan. 1, 2015, until
the present, defendants exploited their market power in this highly
concentrated market by conspiring to limit the supply, and fix the
prices, of beef sold in the U.S. wholesale market.
The Defendants allegedly implemented and executed their conspiracy
by, coordinating slaughter volumes and cash cattle purchases to
wrongfully drive up the price for beef. Plaintiffs allege that this
conduct violated federal antitrust law.[CC]
MDL 3076: Plaintiffs Seek to Authorize Service of Process
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re: FTX Cryptocurrency Exchange
Collapse Litigation, Case No. 1:23-md-03076-KMM (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion and
authorize service of process upon the Defendants Temasek Holdings
(Private) Ltd., SoftBank Group Corp., SoftBank Investment Advisers
(UK) Ltd., Softbank Global Advisers Ltd., Sino Global Capital Ltd.,
in this MDL, as well as in the O'Keefe (S.D. Fla.), O'Keefe (N.D.
Cal.), Chernyavsky (S.D. Fla), and Cabo (N.D. Cal.):
1. Emailing the Complaint(s) and Summons(es) to Defendants'
counsel at the following e-mail addresses:
-- Temasek: Andrew Ehrlich, aehrlich@paulweiss.com; Nina
Kovalenko, nkovalenko@paulweiss.com; Brad Karp,
bkarp@paulweiss.com; Robert O'Loughlin,
roloughlin@paulweiss.com
-- SoftBank: Adam Foslid, AFoslid@winston.com
-- Sino Global: Jason Gottlieb, jgottlieb@morrisoncohen.com;
Michael Mix, mmix@morrisoncohen.com; Vani Upadhyaya,
vupadhyaya@morrisoncohen.com
2. Via email through emailing the Complaint(s) and Summons(es)
to Defendants at the following e-mail addresses:
-- Temasek: Pradyumna Agrawal, Managing Director for
Blockchain Investments, at pradyumna@temasek.com.sg, and
Antony Lewis, Director for Crypto & Blockchain Venture
Building & Investing, at antonylewis@temasek.com.sg
-- SoftBank: Rajeev Misra, CEO of Softbank Defendants
Softbank Investment Advisors (UK) Ltd. and SoftBank
Global Advisers Ltd., at rajeev@softbank.com and Tom
Cheung, Partner at Softbank Defendant SoftBank Investment
Advisers at tom.cheung@softbank.com • Sino Global
Capital
Ltd. (d/b/a Ryze Labs): mailto:media media@ryzelabs.io.
The Plaintiffs named several sophisticated multinational venture
capital firms in this action for their role in aiding and abetting
the FTX fraud.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 10, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GV4x8d at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
Continental Plaza
3250 Mary Street, Suite 202
Coconut Grove, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 740-1423
E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com
joseph@moskowitz-law.com
service@moskowitz-law.com
- and -
David Boies, Esq.
Alexander Boies, Esq.
Brooke A. Alexander, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Telephone: (914) 749-8200
E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com
aboies@bsfllp.com
balexander@bsfllp.com
- and -
Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
Christopher Young, Esq.
Itak K. Moradi, Esq.
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM
601 California Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 500-6800
E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
cyoung@saverilawfirm.com
imoradi@saverilawfirm.com
- and -
James R. Swanson, Esq.
Kerry J. Miller, Esq.
Molly L. Wells, Esq.
C. Hogan Paschal, Esq.
FISHMAN HAYGOOD L.L.P.
201 St. Charles Avenue, 46th Floor
New Orleans, LA 70170-4600
Telephone: (504) 586-5252
Facsimile: (504) 586-5250
E-mail: jswanson@fishmanhaygood.com
kmiller@fishmanhaygood.com
mwells@fishmanhaygood.com
hpaschal@fishmanhaygood.com
- and -
Robert Lieff, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
Rutherford, CA 94573
E-mail: rlieff@lieff.com
MEADOW HILL: Court Tosses Singh, et al. Third Wage Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Philip M. Halper of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the case captioned as KULWINDER SINGH and BIKRAMIJT SINGH,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
-against- MEADOW HILL MOBILE INC., MH MOBIL 300 INC., ABUJABER
HAZIM, and AHMED GHADEER, Defendants, Case No. 23-CV-05379 (PMH)
(S.D.N.Y.).
Plaintiffs brought three actions arising out of their employment as
gas station attendants at Meadow Hill Mobil Mart.
On May 19, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the first action, Singh et al. v.
Meadow Hill Mobile, Inc. et al., 20-CV-03853 ("Singh I"), against
Meadow Hill Mobil, Inc., Abujaber Hazim, and Ahmed Ghadeer
(together, the "Singh I Defendants"), asserting various claims for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
On Oct. 15, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the second action, Singh et al.
v. MH Mobile 300 Inc., 21-CV-08499 ("Singh II"), against MH Mobil
300 Inc. and MH Mobile Inc. (together, the "Singh II Defendants"),
asserting identical claims for relief as asserted in Singh I.
Instant Action
Plaintiffs filed the instant action ("Singh III") on June 25, 2023.
Three of the four Singh III Defendants -- Abujaber Hazim, Ahmed
Ghadeer, and Meadow Hill Mobil, Inc. -- were parties to Singh I.
The remaining Singh III Defendant -- MH Mobil 300 Inc. -- was a
party to Singh II.
Plaintiffs assert a single claim for filing fraudulent tax returns
in violation of Internal Revenue Code Sec. 7434.
Plaintiffs allege that they were employed by Defendants as gas
station attendants at Meadow Hill Mobil Mart located at 1423
NY-300, Newburgh, New York 12550. Plaintiff Kulwinder Singh was
employed from on or about May 1, 2016 to March 2, 2020, and
Plaintiff Bikramjit Singh was employed from on or about Oct. 1,
2018 to March 9, 2020. They further allege that the Individual
Defendants are officers, directors, managers and/or majority
shareholders or owners of the Corporate Defendants.
Defendants allegedly provided Plaintiffs with copies of W-2's that
reflected only the wages that Plaintiffs were paid by check and
omitted wages paid in cash. Plaintiffs, accordingly, allege that
Defendants willfully filed fraudulent information with the Internal
Revenue Service by filing these W-2's as well as other tax forms
that grossly understate the amount of wages they received for each
year.
On Nov. 14, 2023, Defendants filed a pre-motion letter regarding
their anticipated motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendants, pursuant to the briefing schedule set by the Court,
served their motion to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on Feb. 26, 2024.
Defendants assert that this action must be dismissed because of the
applicability of the affirmative defense of res judicata. Under res
judicata, a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the
parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or
could have been raised in that action.
The Court finds the IRC claim asserted against Defendants Abujaber
Hazim, Ahmed Ghadeer, and Meadow Hill Mobil, Inc., is barred by the
doctrine of res judicata. Judge Halper says, "Plaintiffs offer no
valid reason why they could not have sought the requisite evidence
(i.e., Defendants' annual tax returns) or asserted the IRC legal
theory in their first action. Indeed, this action is the classic
attempt at claim splitting which the affirmative defense
precludes."
With respect to Plaintiffs' IRC claim asserted against MH Mobil
300, Defendants argue that res judicata applies because MH Mobil
300 was in privity with the Singh I Defendants against whom
Plaintiff obtained a judgment in Singh I.
The Court finds that privity exists between MH Mobil 300 Inc. and
the Singh I Defendants. Judge Halper concludes, "The allegations in
Singh III concern the same conduct during the same employment
period at issue in Singh I, and, thus, could have been raised in
their initial action. Plaintiffs offer no plausible explanation for
their failure to assert the IRC claims in Singh I (or even Singh
II, which was brought against MH Mobil 300). Plaintiffs' IRC claim
against MH Mobil 300 is therefore barred under the doctrine of res
judicata. Accordingly, the motion is granted as to MH Mobil 300."
Defendants' motion to dismiss as to Abujaber Hazim, Ahmed Ghadeer,
and Meadow Hill Mobil, Inc., is granted on the letter motion and
Defendants' motion to dismiss as to MH Mobil 300 Inc., is granted
on the instant motion.
A copy of the Court's Opinion & Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b5gtEn from PacerMonitor.com.
MEDUSIND INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Auer Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
JEANNE AUER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situate, Plaintiff v. MEDUSIND, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-20207-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 14, 2025) is an action against
the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
sensitive information of its customers.
According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of
the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect
consumers' personally identifiable information or "PII," from a
foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack.
Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because
of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that Defendant
collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired by data
thieves.
Medusind Inc. provides medical revenue cycle management (RCM)
solutions. The Company offers RCM technology, medical and dental
RCM, and account payable solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Raina Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
Email: raina@straussborrelli.com
MERRICK GARLAND: Parties Must Submit Letter on Current Case Status
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chaohua Yang, v. Merrick
B. Garland, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-06102-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Arun Subramanian entered an order directing the parties to
submit a letter within 14 days of any order on the class
certification motion, and no update has been provided.
-- The Court observes that Guervara Enriquez was voluntarily
dismissed and closed on November 1, 2024.
-- By Jan. 15, 2025, the parties must submit a letter to the
Court reporting on the current status of the case.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gyGWC2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Artificially Inflated Stock Price, Klein Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHLOMO (STEVE) KLEIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., SANJAY MEHROTRA,
and MARK MURPHY, Defendants, Case No. 9:25-cv-80040 (S.D. Fla.,
January 9, 2025) 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 made materially false
and misleading statements regarding Micron's business, operations,
and prospects in order to trade Micron common stock at artificially
inflated prices between September 28, 2023, and December 18, 2024.
Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that: (i) demand
for Micron's products in consumer markets, especially the company's
NAND products, had significantly deteriorated; (ii) accordingly,
the Defendants had overstated the extent to which demand for
Micron's products had recovered, particularly in consumer markets
and for its NAND products, and/or had overstated the sustainability
of demand for such products, as well as the normalization of
inventory for such products; and (iii) as a result, the company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
When the truth emerged, Micron's stock price fell $16.81 per share,
or 16.18 percent, to close at $87.09 per share on December 19,
2024. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions,
and the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the suit.
Micron Technology, Inc. is a manufacturer of memory and storage
products with its principal place of business in Boise, Idaho.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
2103 N. Commerce Parkway
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33326
Telephone: (954) 515-0123
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
Email: jagoldstein@millershah.com
nczipperian@millershah.com
- and -
James M. LoPiano, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
Email: jlopiano@pomlaw.com
MYHERITAGE (USA): Carter Sues Over Disclosed Genetic Testing Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KAREN CARTER, MELISSA PORTER, TRACEY COLEMAN, and ALEEMA HAWKS, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. MYHERITAGE (USA), INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00224 (N.D.
Ill., January 8, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act, the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Illinois Eavesdropping
Statute, New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, common law invasion of
privacy, breach of confidence, negligence, breach of implied
contract, and unjust enrichment.
According to the complaint, the Defendant disclosed personally
identifiable information regarding its customers who subjected to
genetic testing and the results of their genetic testing to third
parties, including Google, without consent. Each of the Plaintiffs
and Class members visited the Defendant's website and had their
personal genetic testing information tracked by the Defendant using
Google's Tracking Tools. However, the Defendant never obtained
authorization from them to share their genetic testing information
with third parties. The Defendant's transmission of genetic testing
information was not just contrary to its customers' reasonable
expectation of privacy and its own Privacy Statement, it was also a
violation of Illinois law, says the suit.
MyHeritage (USA), Inc. is a direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic
testing kit provider in Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kyle D. McLean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 297-5195
Email: kmclean@sirillp.com
- and -
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
Sonjay C. Singh, Esq.
David DiSabato, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
Email: tbean@sirillp.com
ssingh@sirillp.com
ddisabato@sirillp.com
NEW YORK, NY: Olsson Sues Over Untimely Payment of Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Krystal Olsson, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NYC HEALTH + HOSPITALS
and DR. MITCHELL KATZ, in his official capacity as President and
Chief Executive Officer of NYC HEALTH + HOSPITALS, Case No.
1:25-cv-00346 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 14, 2025), is brought for damages and
equitable relief based on Defendants' systemic and continuous
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of
the Defendants untimely payment of employees' wages.
The Plaintiff and Putative Collective action members who elect to
opt-in as part of the collective action are all victims of the
Defendants' common pattern, practice, and/or policy to violate the
FLSA by failing to provide timely and prompt payment of Plaintiffs'
wages. As part of its regular business practice, Defendants
intentionally, willfully, and repeatedly engaged in a pattern,
practice, and/or policy of violating the FLSA with respect to
Plaintiffs and members of the Putative Collective. This policy and
pattern or practice includes willfully failing to timely and
promptly pay Plaintiffs.
Because Plaintiff was not paid in a timely manner, Plaintiff was
denied the time value of her money by Defendants' underpayments.
Specifically, Plaintiff suffered actual monetary injury in that she
was unable to invest, save, or purchase utilizing the wages she
earned at the time value it held when it was due. Throughout the
relevant period, Defendants have engaged in a willful policy and
practice of violating the FLSA by failing to timely and promptly
remit prompt and timely payment of employees' wages earned in each
pay period, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff currently works for Defendants as a Patient Care
Technician.
NYCHH is a not-for-profit municipal health care system organized
pursuant to the laws of the State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (212) 227-5700
Fax: (212) 656-1889
Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Can Supplement Complaint with Contribution Claim
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Benita Y. Pearson of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio granted Norfolk Southern Corporation and
Norfolk Southern Railway Company's motion to supplement the
Third-Party Complaint in the case In re: East Palestine Train
Derailment, Case No. 4:23-CV-00242 (N.D. Ohio) with its claim for
contribution
Norfolk Southern filed a Third-Party Complaint against OxyVinyls,
GATX Corporation, General American Marks Company, and Trinity
Industries Leasing Company. Each Third-Party Defendant moved to
dismiss the Third-Party Complaint in its entirety.
The Court denied the motions in all respects except as to Norfolk
Southern's contribution claim, which the Court found premature
because Norfolk Southern had not yet paid any amount to Plaintiffs
and certainly had not paid more than its proportionate share of any
liability. The Court's dismissal of Count Four, the contribution
claim, was without prejudice.
Since that ruling, Norfolk Southern and Plaintiffs reached a class
action settlement which the Court has approved. Under the approved
settlement, Norfolk Southern is obligated to discharge the whole of
the common liability to Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class for a
total amount of $600 million. Norfolk Southern has paid $315
million, over half of that obligation. Its final payment of $285
million will be due after the Effective Date of the Settlement
Agreement. Appeals are pending that delay the payment of the full
$600 million.
The supplemental pleading Norfolk Southern seeks leave to file
revives the contribution claim which was previously dismissed as
premature. Norfolk Southern argues that because the class action
has settled and it is wholly liable to the $600 million figure and
has paid $315 million of that total, the issue of contribution is
no longer premature. OxyVinyls disagrees, arguing that the
contribution claim is still premature because Norfolk Southern is
not yet obligated to pay, nor has it paid, the full settlement
amount. Instead, OxyVinyls argues that the contribution claim will
not ripen until either (1) the Effective Date of the Settlement
passes, which would be a day after the conclusion of any and all
appeals, or (2) Norfolk Southern pays the entire amount of $600
million which is not due until the Effective Date.
The Court finds that the contribution claim is ripe. OxyVinyls'
objections go to the merits of the contribution claim, not its
sufficiency. According to the Court, while Norfolk Southern does
not yet have a complete and enforceable contribution claim
requiring an alleged joint tortfeasor to make a specific payment,
it has met the standard for pleading the supplemental claim. The
fact of liability (i.e. debt assumed by Norfolk Southern via
settlement) and the amount paid so far by Norfolk Southern is
known. The only unknown is whether there will be an allocation of
that liability.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JWqT1t from PacerMonitor.com.
NORTHEAST REHABILTATION: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bagni Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM BAGNI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHEAST REHABILTATION HOSPITAL NETWORK,
Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00029 (D.N.H., Jan. 14, 2025) is an
action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard sensitive information of its customers.
According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of
the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect
consumers' personally identifiable information or "PII", from a
foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk
because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that
Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired
by data thieves.
Northeast Rehabiltation Hospital Network is a New Hampshire-based
rehab hospital network. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam H. Weintraub, Esq.
WEINTRAUB LAW LLC
170 Commerce Way, Suite 200
Portsmouth, NH 03801
Telephone: (603) 212-1785
Email: aweintraub@awhfirm.com
- and -
Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S. State Street, Suite N300
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (215) 867-2399
Email: medelson@edelson-law.com
NORTHEAST SPINE: Court Narrows Claims in Blackman Data Breach Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Zahid N. Quraishi of the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey granted in part and denied in part Northeast
Spine & Sports Medicine, LLC's motion to dismiss the case captioned
as LISA BLACKMAN, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NORTHEAST SPINE &
SPORTS MEDICINE, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 24-7022 (ZNQ)
(JTQ) (D.N.J.) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Plaintiff brings this putative class action against Defendant
alleging negligence and breach of contract arising from a recent
cyberattack and data breach. She seeks relief due to Defendant
failing to:
(1) adequately protect Plaintiff's private information,
(2) warn Plaintiff of its inadequate security practices, and
(3) effectively secure hardware to protect Plaintiff's
information.
Defendant is a multi-specialty medical group in New Jersey
specializing in orthopedic surgery, neurosurgery, pain management,
sports medicine, chiropractic, physical and occupational therapy,
acupuncture and massage. On or about Jan. 15, 2024, Defendant was
victim to a cyber-attack in which a ransomware group obtained the
private information of Plaintiff and the putative class. The
compromised information included personally identifiable
information, health insurance information, and medical treatment
information, and is alleged to be in the hands of cyber-criminals.
The basis of the Complaint is that Defendant failed to adequately
protect Plaintiff's Private Information -- and failed to even
encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. As alleged,
Plaintiff's information was compromised because of Defendant's
negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure
to protect patients' sensitive data. Plaintiff and the putative
class have purportedly suffered injuries as a result of Defendant's
negligent and reckless conduct.
Article III Standing
The Court has original jurisdiction over this class action pursuant
to the Class Acton Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d).
In relevant part, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff (1) spent
time mitigating the impact of the data breach, (2) suffered actual
injury, including being victim to $45 in fraudulent charges, (3)
received and continues to receive spam calls, and has anxiety,
fear, and stress as a result of the data breach. These allegations
are sufficient to confer Article III standing because they show
that Plaintiff's data was misused and that she suffered concrete
injuries.
Moreover, the Court finds that the factors for standing established
in Clemens v. ExecuPharm Inc., 48 F.4th 146, 155–56 (3d Cir.
2022) for data breach cases likewise support a finding that
Plaintiff has standing. Generally, cyber-attacks involve some
degree of intentional conduct just by the very nature of the
attack. The Complaint alleges that a ransomware group took credit
for the cyberattack, thus showing that the attack involved some
degree of intentional conduct Considering (1) the intentionality of
the attack, (2) that the data was misused, and (3) the type of data
accessed, the Court finds that Plaintiff has Article III standing.
Plaintiff asserts two causes of action in her Complaint:
(1) negligence, and
(2) breach of an implied contract
Negligence
Defendant argues that the Court should dismiss Plaintiff's
negligence claim because the Complaint insufficiently alleges
causation and damages.
Defendant argues that the Court should dismiss Plaintiff's
negligence claim because Plaintiff lacks standing to assert future
damages given that such allegations represent future and
speculative claims.
The Court finds that the Complaint alleges a plausible claim for
negligence. With respect to damages, it finds that Plaintiff has
sufficiently alleged facts to support relief as to past, present,
and future harm for purposes of negligence.
Breach of Contract
Defendant argues that the Court should dismiss Plaintiff's claim
for breach of implied contract because the parties never entered
into a contract, there are no reasonably definite terms alleged,
there was no meeting of the minds, and there was no consideration.
Plaintiff maintains that she has properly pled mutual assent
because there were express representations made in the privacy
policies which are part of the course of conduct to create an
implied contract.
The Court finds that the Complaint fails to sufficiently plead
breach of an implied contract. It is apparent from the Complaint
that Plaintiff paid Defendants to perform medical services and she
provided her PII as a pre-requisite to receiving Defendant's
services. Importantly, and fatal to surviving the Motion, is that
Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts regarding the parties'
mutual assent. The Complaint does not allege that Defendant agreed
to safeguard the PII beyond complying with federal regulations.
Thus because the Complaint does not plead the existence of mutual
assent, the Court will grant the portion of the Motion seeking to
dismiss Plaintiff's claim for breach of an implied contract.
Plaintiff's breach of contract claim will therefore be dismissed
without prejudice, and Plaintiff will be given leave to amend her
Complaint.
A copy of the Court's Opinion is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Mmve7X from PacerMonitor.com.
OLIVETREE MANAGEMENT: Removes Queen Suit to D. Maryland
-------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of NICOLE QUEEN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OLIVETREE
MANAGEMENT LLC, Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit
from the Circuit Court of Maryland, Baltimore County, (Case No.
C-03-CV-24-003963) to the U.S. District Court for the U.S. District
of Maryland on Nov., 2025.
The clerk of court for the U.S. District Court for the U.S.
District of Maryland assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-03474-BAH. The case
is assigned to Judge Brendan Abell Hurson.
Olivetree Management LLC is a property management company serving
several markets accross the USA. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott C Borison, Esq.
BORISON FIRM LLC
1400 S. Charles St.
Baltimore, MD 21230
Telephone: (650) 740-6228
Fax: (301) 620-1018
Email: scott@borisonfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Margaret Fonshell Ward, Esq.
DOWNS WARD BENDER HERZOG & KINTIGH, P.A.
11350 McCormick Road Suite 400, Executive Plaza III
Hunt Valley, MD 21031
Telephone: (443) 589-3313
Facsimile: (410) 584-2020
Email: mward@downs-ward.com
- and -
Nathan Daniel Adler, Esq.
NEUBERGER QUINN GIELEN RUBIN AND GIBBER PA
One South St 27th Fl
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone: (410) 332-8516
Facsimile: (410) 332-8517
Email: nda@nqgrg.com
- and -
Robert Carroll Baker , III, Esq.
NEUBERGER, QUINN, GIELEN, RUBIN & GIBBER, P.A.
One South Street
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone: (410) 332-8522
Facsimile: (410) 332-8594
Email: rcb@nqgrg.com
PERMIAN RESOURCES: Conspires to Fix Crude Oil Price, Hayday Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
HAYDAY FARMS LLP, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PERMIAN RESOURCES CORP. f/k/a
CENTENNIAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, INC.; EXPAND ENERGY CORPORATION
f/k/a CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION; CONTINENTAL RESOURCES INC.;
DIAMONDBACK ENERGY, INC.; EOG RESOURCES, INC.; HESS CORPORATION;
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION; PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
COMPANY; SCOTT D. SHEFFIELD; and JOHN B. HESS, Defendants, Case No.
1:25-cv-00026 (D.N.M., January 9, 2025) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Sherman Act and numerous state
antitrust and consumer protection laws.
The case arises from the Defendants' conspiracy to coordinate, and
ultimately constrain, domestic shale oil production, which has had
the effect of fixing, raising, and maintaining the price of crude
oil, and thereby the price paid by end-users of oil-derivative
products, in and throughout the United States. The Defendants
agreed to limit their respective domestic shale production growth,
which in turn fixed and/or stabilized crude oil prices in the
United States at an artificially high level. As a result of the
Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiff and the Classes suffered
substantial harm from the supracompetitive prices they paid for
crude oil for personal use, says the suit.
Hayday Farms LLP is a soybean farm owner headquartered in
Minnesota.
Permian Resources Corporation, known as Centennial Resource
Development, is an oil and gas production company, headquartered in
Midland, Texas.
Expand Energy Corporation, formerly known as Chesapeake Energy
Corporation, is an oil and gas production company, headquartered in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Continental Resources Inc. is an oil and gas production company,
headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Diamondback Energy, Inc. is an oil and gas production company,
headquartered in Midland, Texas.
EOG Resources, Inc. is an oil and gas production company,
headquartered in Houston, Texas.
HESS Corporation is an oil and gas production company,
headquartered in New York, New York.
Occidental Petroleum Corporation is an oil and gas production
company, headquartered in Houston, Texas.
Pioneer Natural Resources Company is an oil and gas production
company, headquartered in Irving, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher A. Dodd, Esq.
DODD LAW OFFICE, LLC
500 Marquette Avenue NW, Suite 1330
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Telephone: (505) 475-2932
Email: chris@doddnm.com
- and -
Brian D. Clark, Esq.
Arielle S. Wagner, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
Email: bdclark@locklaw.com
aswagner@locklaw.com
- and -
Stephen J. Teti, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
265 Franklin Street, Suite 1702
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 456-7701
Email: sjteti@locklaw.com
POPEYES LOUISIANA: Faces Jones BIPA Class Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRUNETTEA JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. POPEYES LOUISIANA KITCHEN, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00257 (N.D. Ill., January 9, 2025) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to provide the
required written disclosures regarding its use of the biometric
information that it collected, captured, and stored from its
employees. Moreover, the Defendant failed to provide the purpose or
duration of such use and also failed to obtain releases from the
Plaintiff and the Class members. As a result of the Defendant's
misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages, says
the suit.
Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc. is a restaurant owner and operator,
headquartered in Miami, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
Kathryn E. Milz, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, Suite 1700
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com
kmilz@sommerspc.com
- and -
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
Meghan Higday, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C.
1801 Century Park E., Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 824-3828
Email: mh@melmedlaw.com
jm@melmedlaw.com
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Arede Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
GILLIAN AREDE, on behalf of herself and as parent and guardian of
her minor child, M.B., and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:25-cv-00204-JAM-JDP (E.D. Cal., Jan. 14, 2025) is a class
action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard personally identifiable information including, but not
limited to, Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, Social Security
Numbers, and/or other personal information (collectively, "PII" or
"Private Information").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant
maintained the Private Information in a reckless and negligent
manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on
Defendant's computer system and network in a condition vulnerable
to cyberattack. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the
Data Breach and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's
and Class Members' Personal Information was a known risk to
Defendant and thus Defendant was on notice that failing to take
steps necessary to secure the Personal Information from those risks
left that information in a dangerous condition.
Because of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members
suffered ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of the
benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, and the value of
their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of
the attack and the substantial and imminent risk of identity
theft.
PowerSchool Holdings, Inc. provides cloud-based software for K-12
education. The Company offers student information systems,
enrollment, unified classroom. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
KRISTENSEN LAW GROUP
120 Santa Barbara Street, Suite C9
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 837-2000
Email: john@kristensen.law
- and -
Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
EKSM, LLP
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (888) 350-3931
Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Kinney Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY KINNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:25-at-00042 (E.D. Cal., January 9, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust
enrichment, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, breach
of fiduciary duty, and declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated customers stored within its network systems
following a data breach discovered on December 28, 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.
PowerSchool Holdings, Inc. is a provider of cloud-based education
software, headquartered in Folsom, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Caleb Marker, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
6420 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1080
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Telephone: (877) 500-8780
Facsimile: (877) 500-8781
Email: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com
- and -
Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq.
JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC
500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 372-1300
Email: chris@jefirm.com
tyler@jefirm.com
- and -
Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
1100 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 341-0400
Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
PRIME HEALTHCARE: Loses Bid to Dismiss R.S. ECPA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Otis D. Wright, II of the United States District Court for
the Central District of California granted the plaintiff' motion to
reconsider the order dismissing the case captioned as R.S.,
Plaintiff, v. PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:24-cv-00330-ODW (SPx) (C.D. Calif.) with prejudice. Prime
Healthcare's motion to dismiss is denied.
R.S. has been a Prime Healthcare patient since approximately 2012.
R.S. began receiving healthcare services from Prime Healthcare and,
starting in 2018, accessed its Web Properties. She has had a
Facebook account for at least ten years. Through the Web
Properties, R.S. scheduled appointments, found doctors, researched
medical treatments and conditions, and provided personal
health-related information. R.S. alleges that Prime Healthcare
disclosed her Private Information to Facebook without her
knowledge, consent, or written authorization, and in violation of
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
On Feb. 8, 2024, R.S. filed this putative class action against
Prime Healthcare, asserting a single cause of action for violating
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(1).
On April 24, 2024, Prime Healthcare filed a Motion to Dismiss under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which Prime Healthcare
opposed. On Aug. 7, 2024, the Court issued an Order granting Prime
Healthcare's Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the case. On Aug. 8,
2024, the Court issued a Judgment. On Aug. 21, 2024, R.S. moved for
reconsideration of the Order pursuant to Rule 59(e) and Local Rule
7-18.
Motion for Reconsideration
R.S. moves for reconsideration of the Order under Rule 59(e) and
Local Rule 7-18, arguing that the Court committed clear error by
failing to consider material facts presented to the Court before
the Order was entered. Specifically, R.S. argues that the Court's
failure to address the applicability of the crime-tort exception
justifies reconsideration. Prime Healthcare responds that the Court
properly dismissed the Complaint and adequately addressed the
crime-tort exception in its Order.
The statute exempts from liability interceptions made by a person
who is a party to the communication or when one of the parties to
the communication consents to the interception. This is often
referred to as the party exception or party exemption. This
exception is itself limited: it does not apply if the interception
was for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act,
known as the crime-tort exception.
In its Motion to Dismiss, Prime Healthcare argued that it is not
liable under the ECPA because R.S. consented to Prime Healthcare
intercepting her communications, and thus the party exception
applies. R.S. countered that the party exception does not apply
because Prime Healthcare intercepted R.S.'s communications with a
criminal and tortious purpose, triggering the crime-tort exception
and precluding reliance on the party exception. Prime Healthcare
disagreed, arguing that the crime-tort exception does not apply in
this case.
As the Court did not consider the applicability of the crime-tort
exception, the Court finds it appropriate to grants R.S.'s Motion
under Local Rule 7-18(c) and reconsider Prime Healthcare's Motion
to Dismiss.
Motion to Dismiss
Prime Healthcare argues that R.S. fails to plausibly allege that
the crime-tort exception applies, and thus that the party exception
defeats R.S.'s claim.
R.S. alleges that, at the time it intercepted her communications,
Prime Healthcare had the purpose to disclose private health
information without her consent in violation of HIPAA.
Prime Healthcare argues that R.S. fails to allege sufficient facts
to invoke the crime-tort exception on three grounds:
(1) there was no HIPAA violation,
(2) disclosure was not independent from interception, and
(3) it held no improper purpose.
Judge Wright concludes that while Prime Healthcare's goal in
violating HIPAA may have been to make money, as alleged, its
purpose of intercepting R.S.'s Private Information, as alleged, was
to disclose it to third parties. Prime Healthcare's financial
motivation for disclosing R.S.'s Private Information does not
immunize it from liability under the ECPA. At this stage, by
alleging these facts, R.S. has plausibly raised that Prime
Healthcare intercepted her Private Information with the purpose of
violating HIPAA, sufficient to satisfy the crime-tort exception.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wzXRvq from PacerMonitor.com.
PVOLVE LLC: Sends Unsolicited Marketing Messages, Erickson Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
NATALIE ERICKSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PVOLVE LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-00249 (C.D. Cal., January 9, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in the
practice of transmitting text messages to the cellular telephone
number of consumers, including the Plaintiff, in an attempt to
promote its products or services without consent. As a result of
the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members
suffered damages, the suit says.
Pvolve LLC is a fitness company with its headquarters in Novi,
Michigan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (754) 444-7539
Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com
QVC INC: Faces Cabrera Suit Over Data Privacy Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL NAVARRO-CABRERA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QVC, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-00229-MRP (E.D. Pa., Jan. 14, 2025) alleges violation of
the Video Privacy Protection Act.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint that the Defendant
knowingly and intentionally discloses its users' personally
identifiable information—including a record of every video viewed
by the user or audiovisual content purchased —to unauthorized
third parties without first complying with the VPPA.
QVC, Inc. offers online shopping services. The Company provides
dresses, blazers, shoes, handbags, jewelry, beauty, kitchen and
food, home and garden, electronics, and other related products.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark C. Atlee, Esq.
ATLEE HALL, LLP
415 North Duke Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
Telephone: (717) 393-9596
Facsimile: (717) 393-2138
Email: mcatlee@atleehall.com
- and -
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646)-837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: aleslie@bursor.com
- and -
Adrian Gucovschi, Esq.
Nathaniel Haim Sari, Esq.
GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC.
140 Broadway, FL 46
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 884-4230
Facsimile: (212) 884-4230
Email: adrian@gr-firm.com
nsari@gr-firm.com
REA.DEEMING BEAUTY: Removes Rodriguez Suit to C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of EMILY RODRIGUEZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REA.DEEMING
BEAUTY INC., Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles (Case No. 24STCV28274) to the U.S. District Court for the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Dec.
2, 2024.
The clerk of court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-10381-AJR. The case is assigned to Magistrate
Judge A. Joel Richlin.
Rea.deeming Beauty, Inc., doing business as beautyblender, provides
beauty care products for customers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC
4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 706-6464
Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
- and -
David W. Reid, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC
4100 Newport Place Suite 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone:(949) 706-6464
Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
Email: dreid@pacifictrialattorneys.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Ira M Steinberg, Esq.
GREENBERG GLUSKER FIELDS CLAMAN
AND MACHTINGER LLP
2049 Century Park East Suite 2600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 553-3610
Facsimile: (310) 553-0687
Email: isteinberg@ggfirm.com
RICE DRILLING: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid in Gregor by Feb. 10
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY GREGOR, et al., v.
RICE DRILLING D, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-03999-EPD (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers entered an order
granting the joint motion to amend the preliminary pretrial order:
-- The Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification shall be filed by no later than Feb. 10, 2025
-- The Plaintiffs' reply to Defendants' opposition to class
certification shall be filed by no later than MARCH 3, 2025.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=F5JlIO at no extra
charge.[CC]
ROCKLER COMPANIES: Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store
------------------------------------------------------------------
CLARENCE and TAMMY FROST, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ROCKLER COMPANIES INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-00107 (D. Minn., January 9, 2025) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights
Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiffs and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.rockler.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiffs and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: does not provide sufficient screen reader-accessible
text equivalent for important non-text image(s); uses visual cues
as the only means of conveying information, making the information
unavailable to screen reader users; and fails to alert screen
readers to "pop-up" window content, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Rockler Companies Inc. is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in Minnesota. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndselaw.com
chad@throndsetlaw.com
RUGS.COM LLC: Perkins Files Consumer Suit in Wash. Super.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against RUGS.COM LLC. The case is
captioned as SARAH PERKINS and EMILY WRIGHT, on their own behalf
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. RUGS.COM LLC, Case
No. 24-2-27334-4 (Wash. Super., King Cty., November 26, 2024).
The suit is brought over the Defendant's consumer protection law
violation.
RUGS.COM LLC provides rugs online. The Company offers a wide range
of contemporary, shaggy, persian, floral, silk, and jute materials
rugs.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Beth Ellen Terrell, Esq.
Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
Blythe H. Chandler, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP
936 N 34th St, Ste 300
Seattle, WA 98103-8869
Telephone: (206) 816-6603
Facsimile: (206) 816-6603
RUSH STREET: Fails to Protect Customers' Personal Info, Nelson Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BRETT NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RUSH STREET GAMING, LLC and SUGARHOUSE HSP
Gaming, L.P. d/b/a RIVERS CASINO, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00106
(E.D. Pa., January 8, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant
for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, breach of
implied contract, and breach of confidence.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated customers stored within their network
systems following a data breach confirmed on November 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.
Rush Street Gaming LLC is a casino owner and operator headquartered
in Illinois.
Sugarhouse HSP Gaming, LP, doing business as Rivers Casino
Philadelphia, is a casino owner and operator in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut St., Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
Mark Svensson, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
Email: ek@zlk.com
msvensson@zlk.com
RUSH STREET: Moore Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Customers' Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RUSH STREET GAMING, LLC and SUGARHOUSE HSP
Gaming, L.P. d/b/a RIVERS CASINO, Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-00091-NIQA (E.D. Pa., January 8, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence/negligence per se, invasion of
privacy, unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated customers stored within their network
systems following a data breach confirmed on November 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.
Rush Street Gaming LLC is a casino owner and operator headquartered
in Illinois.
Sugarhouse HSP Gaming, LP, doing business as Rivers Casino
Philadelphia, is a casino owner and operator in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq.
KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, PC
30 East Butler Ave.
Ambler, PA 19002
Telephone: (267) 468-5374
Email: jginsburg@creditlaw.com
- and -
Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
EKSM, LLP
4200 Montrose, Ste. 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (888) 350-3931
Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com
RYE FIRE: Firefighters Sue Over Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------
Curt Varone, writing for Fire Law Blog, reports that three Colorado
firefighters have filed a class action lawsuit claiming their
department has refused to pay them overtime in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act. Hunter Richardson, Alec Coscarella, and
Jennifer Anderson filed suit against the Rye Fire Protection
District.
The suit was filed in US District Court for the District of
Colorado. It alleges the department not only failed to pay
overtime, but failed to adopt a work period pursuant to 29 USC Sec.
207k. By failing to adopt a work period, the department is
potentially liable to pay overtime based upon a 40 hour work week
under 29 USC Sec. 207a.
Take a look at the US Department of Labor regulation on point:
-- 29 CFR Sec. 553.230 Maximum hours standards for work periods
of 7 to 28 days—section 7(k). For those employees engaged in fire
protection activities who have a work period of at least 7 but less
than 28 consecutive days, no overtime compensation is required
under section 7(k) until the number of hours worked exceeds the
number of hours which bears the same relationship to 212 as the
number of days in the work period bears to 28.
The argument has been made that a fire department that fails to
adopt an appropriate work period, may -- by default -- lose the 7k
exemption and thus owe overtime pursuant to 29 USC Sec. 207a (ie.
overtime after 40 hours per week). Quoting from the complaint:
-- Plaintiffs Anderson, Coscarella, and Richardson, and those
similarly situated were affected by a common compensation policy,
plan or decision which was made by the Board of Directors of the
Rye Fire Protection District or its Fire Chief who was authorized
to establish a compensation plan for firefighters.
-- Specifically, a decision, plan or policy was implemented to
pay firefighters at their regular rate of pay for hours worked over
40 in a single work week, and not to pay them one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay for hours worked over forty in a
single work week.
-- None of the firefighters employed by the RFPD, regardless of
rank or pay level, are exempt from the overtime requirements of the
FLSA.
-- At all times relevant to this Complaint, the RFPD operated on
a “48/96 schedule” for firefighting employees.
-- A 48/96 schedule involves firefighter employees working for 48
straight hours and then being off duty for the next 96 hours.
-- A 48/96 schedule is also colloquially referred to as a “two
days on, four days off” work schedule.
-- The RFPD never adopted an established and regularly recurring
work period for the firefighters.
-- The RFPD never expressed an intention to have a specific
established and regularly recurring work period for the
firefighters.
-- In job offer letters provided to employees, the RFPD stated
that employee “regularly scheduled work hours will be as
designated” but did not state if there was an established and
regularly recurring work period for the firefighters.
-- At all times relevant to this Complaint, RFPD payroll is
tallied from the 28th of the month to the following 27th.
-- At all times relevant to this Complaint, the RFPD paid
firefighter employees on the first day of the month.
-- At all times relevant to this Complaint, the RFPD's pay
records indicate that firefighter employees were paid on the first
day of the month for work performed during the previous calendar
month.
-- While using the 48/96 schedule, the RFPD never identified an
established and regularly recurring period of work for the
firefighters.
-- While using the 48/96 schedule, the RFPD never established a
beginning and ending time for the firefighters' work period.
-- The RFPD did not pay firefighters at one-and-one-half times
their regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in a single
workweek.
-- The RFPD did not pay firefighters at one-and-one-half times
their regular rate of pay for hours worked over 212 in a 28-day
period.
-- The RFPD did not pay firefighters at one-and-one-half times
their regular rate of pay for hours worked which exceeded the
number of hours which bears the same relationship to 212 as the
number of days in a work period bears to 28.
-- The RFPD simply did not pay overtime compensation to
firefighters, regardless of the number of overtime hours the
firefighters worked. [GN]
SABRE GLBL: Chau Sues Over Failure to Protect Information
---------------------------------------------------------
Henry Hung Chau, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SABRE GLBL, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-01254-O (N.D. Tex.,
Dec. 23, 2024), id brought seeking to redress Defendant's unlawful,
willful and wanton failure to protect the personal identifiable
information of likely thousands of individuals that was exposed in
a major data breach of Defendant's network in violation of its
legal obligations.
On July 4, 2022, an unknown actor gained access to Defendant's
inadequately protected computer systems. As a result, approximately
29,590 individuals, including Plaintiff and the Class Members, have
had their personal identifiable information ("PII" or "Private
Information" exposed (the "Data Breach").
On July 4, 2022, an unauthorized third party obtained access and
exfiltrated data from Defendant's servers containing Private
Information, including employee's names, Social Security numbers,
dates of birth, employment information, financial account numbers,
passport numbers, vias numbers, U.S. 1-9 forms, driver's licenses,
and signatures. The Defendant failed to detect this unauthorized
access for over a year. During that time, the cybercriminals had
free reign to do whatever they wanted with Plaintiff's and the
Class Members' Private Information.
The Defendant betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and the other Class
Members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their personal
identifiable information and thereby enabling cybercriminals to
steal such valuable and sensitive information, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff entrusted their Private Information to the
Defendant.
Sabre is a leading software and technology company that powers the
global travel industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William B. Federman, Esq.
Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
212 W. Spring Valley Rd.
Richardson, TX 75081
Phone: (405) 235-1560
Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com
jaw@federmanlaw.com
SAVOR GOODS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Blank Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
ALLISON BLANK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SAVOR GOODS, LLC, Defendant, Case
5:24-cv-02554-SHK (C.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2024) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.
Savor Group Limited owns and operates as a restaurant. The Company
organizes events, as well as offers dining facilities. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (754) 444-7539
E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com
SCHULSON COLLECTIVE: Sued Over Blind-Inaccessible Properties
------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Gomberg, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Schulson Collective, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00299 (E.D.
Pa., Jan. 17, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's
failure to make its digital properties accessible to legally blind
individuals, which violates the effective communication and equal
access requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities
Act ("ADA").
Because Defendant's website, https://alpenrosephl.com, (the
"Website" or "Defendant's website"), is not equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA.
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. Defendants Website, and its online
information, is heavily integrated with its brick-and-mortar
location.
Upon visiting Defendant's website, https://alpenrosephl.com,
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 access
barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users
to enjoy and learn about the services at https://alpenrosephl.com,
prior to entering Defendant's physical location, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired person.
The Defendant operates the https://alpenrosephl.com online
restaurant and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of
Pennsylvania and throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Glanzberg, Esq.
Robert Tobia, Esq.
GLANZBERG TOBIA LAW, P.C.
123 South Broad Street Suite 1640,
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Phone: +1 215-981-5400
Email: DGlanzberg@aol.com
robert.tobia@gtlawpc.com
SEAFOOD SHAKE BOIL: Hockey Sues to Recover Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------
Teresa J. Hockey, individually and on behalf of all individuals
similarly situated v. SEAFOOD SHAKE BOIL STRONGSVILLE, INC., JUN
ZHANG, and HANGCHUN ZHENG, Case No. 1:25-cv-00089-CAB (N.D. Ohio,
Jan. 17, 2025), is brought to recover compensation, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other equitable relief
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act of 1939 ("FLSA"), the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (the "Ohio Wage Act"), the Ohio
Prompt Pay Act ("OPPA").
The Defendants violated the FLSA and the Ohio Wage Laws because
they required Named Plaintiff and Putative Plaintiffs to spend
substantial amounts of time performing non-tip-producing and
directly supporting work tasks before and after serving customers
and throughout their shift while being paid less than the statutory
minimum wages, and required Named Plaintiff and Putative Plaintiffs
to share tips with management, as well as back-of-house employees
who have no or only de minimis Interaction with customers while
taking a tip credit.
Because the requirements for taking the tip credit were not
satisfied, Defendants were not permitted to rely on it to satisfy
their minimum wage and overtime obligations under the FISA and Ohio
Wage Laws and were required to pay the entire statutory minimum
wage and overtime wage, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is employed as a Server at Defendants' Strongsville
location beginning in March 2023 and remains employed with
Defendants as of the filing of this Complaint.
Seafood Shake Boil Strongsville, Inc. is a corporation for-profit
and is registered to do business in the state of Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
Anna R. Caplan, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP
4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
Columbus, OH 43219
Phone: 614-221-4221
Fax: 614-744-2300
Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
acaplan@barkanmeizlish.com
SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Porter Sues Over Uncompensated Overtime Hours
--------------------------------------------------------------
Loria Porter, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., an Illinois
Corporation, Case No. 3:25-cv-03011-SEM-EIL (C.D. Ill., Jan. 15,
2025), is brought arising from Defendant's willful violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and for common law claims of
breach of contract or (in the alternative) unjust enrichmentas a
result of uncompensated overtime hours.
To provide this wide variety of services, Defendant employs remote
Customer Service Representatives (referred to herein as "CSRs")
that provide over the phone assistance to Defendant's customers and
clients from their home offices. Despite routinely scheduling CSRs
for 40 hours in a week, Defendant required all CSRs to obtain
advanced approval from Defendant before reporting any overtime
hours on their timecards.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent in this action all current and
former CSRs who are similarly situated to each other in terms of
their positions, job duties, pay structure and Defendant's
violations of federal and state law. The Defendant knew or should
have known how long it takes CSRs to complete their off-the-clock
work, and Defendant could have properly compensated Plaintiff and
the putative Collective and Class for this work but did not. The
Defendant knew or should have known that CSRs, including Plaintiff,
worked overtime hours for which they were not compensated, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a remote CSRs from
Plaintiff's home office within the last 2 years.
Sedgwick is a corporation that assists businesses throughout the
world with various forms of insurance claims, among other
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
Oscar A. Rodriguez, Esq.
ASH LAW, PLLC
402 W. Liberty St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Phone: (734) 234-5583
Email: cash@nationalwagelaw.com
orod@nationalwagelaw.com
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Castorina Sues Over Unlawfully Charged Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Castorina, Renee Meisenbach, and Lizabeth Asvitt-Osman, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. SELECT
PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., Case 1:25-cv-00296 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 16,
2025), is brought against Defendant alleging breach of contract;
and violations of California's Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("Rosenthal Act"), and California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL") to recover the unlawfully charged
Pay-to-Pay Fees and to enjoin SPS from continuing to charge these
unlawful fees.
SPS is one of the last major mortgage servicers to charge
residential borrowers "Pay-to-Pay Fees," i.e. fees for paying
mortgages online or over the phone. These Pay-to-Pay Fees can be up
to $15 for each payment made. In charging these fees to its
residential mortgage customers, SPS violates state debt-collection
and consumer protection laws.
No law affirmatively permits SPS to charge Pay-to-Pay Fees, and
numerous state and federal governmental agencies have condemned
Pay-to-Pay Fees as unfair. Borrowers cannot choose their mortgage
servicer, and thus, those assigned to SPS must pay its unfair fees
and cannot elect to transfer to the many other mortgage servicers
that comply with the law by offering these payment methods for
free.
As a loan servicer, SPS is compensated by the creditor for
collecting borrowers' monthly payments--its profits are not
supposed to arise from additional "service" fees untethered to the
cost to SPS of providing such services. In violation of state
consumer protection laws, SPS marks-up its costs of processing loan
payments online or by phone above the actual cost and imposes
Pay-to-Pay Fees on borrowers to create a profit for itself, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiffs paid Pay-to-Pay Fees to the Defendant.
SPS is one of the last major mortgage servicers to charge
residential borrowers "Pay-to-Pay Fees."[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Katherine Aizpuru, Esq.
Robin Bleiweis, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 1010
Washington, D.C. 20006
Phone: (202) 973-0900
Email: kaizpuru@tzlegal.com
rbleiweis@tzlegal.com
- and -
James L. Kaufman, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540
Washington, D.C. 20007
Phone: (202) 463-2101
Email: jkaufman@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Catherine E. Anderson, Esq.
GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP
90 Broad Street, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 847-8315
Email: canderson@gslawny.com
- and -
Rachel Geman, Esq.
Margaret Becko, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013
Phone: (212) 355-9500
Email: rgeman@lchb.com
mbecko@lchb.com
- and -
Joseph S. Tusa, Esq.
TUSA P.C.
P.O. Box 566
55000 Main Road, 2nd Floor
Southold, NY 11971
Phone: (631) 407-5100
Email: joseph.tuspc@gmail.com
SERTA INC: Guitron Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Eden Guitron, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. SERTA, INC., a Delaware corporation;
SERTA SIMMONS BEDDING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 24STCV27855 was removed from the
Superior Court for the State of California in and for the County of
Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on Jan. 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00409.
On October 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint for
violation of California Penal Code against Defendants in the State
Court Action.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Abraham J. Colman, Esq.
Kristina S. Azlin, Esq.
Justin C. Adofina, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
400 South Hope Street, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213.896.2400
Fax: 213.896.2450
Email: abe.colman@hklaw.com
kristina.azlin@hklaw.com
justin.adofina@hklaw.com
SMARTRENT TECHNOLOGIES: Lugo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Lugo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SMARTRENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., (f/k/a) SMARTRENT.COM,
INC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, Case No. 6:25-cv-00064
(M.D. Fla., Jan. 16, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") on behalf of all current and former "Field
Operations Managers" (hereinafter, FOM(s)) who worked for Defendant
in Florida and/or Nationwide who were not paid proper overtime for
all hours worked.
The Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and former FOMs
(or similar) were all paid on a salaried basis, and performed the
same or similar job duties required by Defendant without being paid
proper overtime for hours worked over 40 per workweek, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an "Field Operations
Manager" ("FOM") from September 7, 2021 through May 17, 2023.
The Defendant specializes in smart home solutions, which integrate
with a variety of hardware, including Smart home hardware, Property
management tools, CRM tools, and Compatible smart devices from
manufacturers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noah E. Storch, Esq.
RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
7951 SW 6th Street, Suite 316
Plantation, FL 33324-4241
Phone: (866) 344-9243
Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
Email: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com
SMCP USA: Goldson Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Goldson, an individual on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. SMCP USA, a business entity of unknown form;
SMCP USA, INC., a business entity of unknown form; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV32610 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., Dec. 10, 2024), is brought against the Defendants
violation of the California Labor Code and applicable Wage Orders
as a result of failure to pay proper compensation.
Class Members consistently worked at Defendants behest without
being paid all wages due. Class Members were either not paid by
Defendants for all hours worked or were not paid at the appropriate
minimum, regular and overtime rates. The Plaintiff also contends
that Defendants failed to pay Class Members all wages due and
owing, including by requiring off the clock work, failing to
incorporate non-discretionary bonuses into the regular rate of pay
used to calculate and pay for overtime pay, sick pay, and meal and
rest break premiums, failing to pay reporting time pay, failing to
provide meal and rest breaks, failing to furnish accurate wage
statements, failing to timely pay wages including final wages,
failing to maintain accurate records, and failing to reimburse
necessary business expenses all in violation of various provisions
of the California Labor Code and applicable Wage Orders, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt hourly
employee within the State of California.
SMCP USA is a business entity of unknown form.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Emil Davtyan, Esq.
David Yeremian, Esq.
Natalie Haritoonian, Esq.
Andrea A. Amaya Silva, Esq.
D.LAW, INC.
450 N Brand Blvd, Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (818) 962-6465
Facsimile: (818) 962-6469
Email: emil@d.law
d.yeremian@d.law
n.haritoonian@d.law
a.amaya@d.law
SPORTSBET: Faces Multimillion-Dollar Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Durkin, BOSS Deputy editor, in an article for Financial
Review, reports that gamblers who lost money betting on sporting
contests after they had started are suing Sportsbet for potentially
millions of dollars for allegedly breaching restrictions on
so-called in-game wagering.
Law firm Maurice Blackburn launched a class action in the Supreme
Court of Victoria on behalf of gamblers who used a Sportsbet's
feature called fast code.
"We believe that Sportsbet's use of the fast code service is not
just an attempt to circumvent important laws aiming to prevent
gambling harm, it is also illegal because key information about the
bet is communicated by punters otherwise than by a voice call,"
Maurice Blackburn principal Elizabeth O'Shea said.
Under laws aimed at limiting match-fixing and preventing harm to
people with gambling addictions, Australian gamblers cannot place
bets on sporting events after they have started, although bets can
be placed solely over the phone.
Ms O'Shea said the suit alleged that Sportsbet engaged in
misleading and deceptive conduct when it represented the fast code
service as legal to the plaintiffs -- including lead plaintiff
Jeremy Bergman, who allegedly lost $2307 using the service between
August 2019 and December 2021.
The class action, which does not extend to bets placed on horse,
harness or greyhound racing, could cover thousands of punters who
wagered millions of dollars on in-game bets using the agency's fast
code service over six years.
Sportsbet declined to comment.
In 2023, the Australian Media and Communications Agency ruled that
Sportsbet, Ladbrokes, Neds, and bet365 had flouted federal laws
restricting in-game betting by using their apps to support the
practice.
Financial crime regulator AUSTRAC launched a case in December
against British gambling giant Entain, the owner of bookies
Ladbrokes and Neds, alleging non-compliance with local anti-money
laundering and counter-terrorism financing laws.
The wagering industry was recently blindsided by the Albanese
government's decision to axe research and development tax
incentives for gambling and tobacco companies.
But long-promised gambling advertising restrictions promised by
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese have been delayed for more than 18
months. [GN]
SPROUTS FARMERS: Faces Class Suit Over Disposable Tableware Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit claims Sprouts Farmers Market and manufacturer
EcoSoul Home, Inc. have misrepresented certain disposable tableware
and cutlery sets as compostable, given the products contain
"forever chemicals" that do not break down into usable compost.
The 26-page lawsuit takes issue with EcoSoul's single-use cutlery
sets and tableware -- including plates, bowls, straws, cold
beverage cups and hot beverage cups with lids -- which are sold
under the Sprouts label and marketed as compostable. Per the class
action suit, independent testing has indicated that the products
contain "significant amounts" of per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS), a group of synthetic chemicals that resist
degradation and are linked to many adverse health and environmental
effects.
The case explains that PFAS are commonly added to paper plates,
bowls, food storage and packaging products because of the
substances' grease and water-resistant properties.
However, research warns against using PFAS in compostable product
packaging, the complaint says. According to the filing, if products
containing PFAS are placed into the compost stream, the chemicals
can leach into the compost itself and any organic matter grown
using the composted material.
"Compost is used as soil-conditioning material or fertilizer, so
when compost is itself contaminated with PFAS, the PFAS then
contaminate the soil treated or fertilized with that compost and
whatever grows or grazes on that soil," the lawsuit shares.
The Federal Trade Commission's "Green Guides" specifically prohibit
companies from labeling products as compostable if they release
toxins into the compost as they break down, the suit relays.
As such, the case alleges the supposedly compostable tableware at
issue is misrepresented, given that the PFAS the products contain
will "never become part of usable compost."
The complaint contends that the defendants have misled
environmentally conscious consumers who are willing to pay more for
products that are compostable or biodegradable. Customers would not
have bought the tableware had they known the items contained PFAS
and, therefore, would not break down into compostable material, the
filing claims.
"By encouraging consumers to dispose of the Products in compost
collection bins on the basis that the Products are allegedly
compostable, [the defendants] are contaminating entire compost
streams with PFAS materials that will not break down over time. The
Products are then mixed with composted and compostable materials in
an industrial composting facility and turned into soil fertilizer
for crops and other foods. However, the PFAS will remain
uncomposted, thus contaminating the crops grown in that soil.
Environmentally motivated consumers who purchase the Products in
the belief that such products are compostable are thus unwittingly
hindering sustainable composing [sic] efforts."
The Sprouts and EcoSoul lawsuit looks to represent anyone who
purchased the disposable tableware or cutlery sets at issue for
personal or household purposes in California within the applicable
statute of limitations period. [GN]
STARR RESTAURANTS: Gomberg Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Properties
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Gomberg, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Starr Restaurants Hotel Group GP, LLC, Case No.
2:25-cv-00302 (E.D. Pa., Jan. 17, 2025), is brought arising from
the Defendant's failure to make its digital properties accessible
to legally blind individuals, which violates the effective
communication and equal access requirements of Title III of the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").
Because Defendant's website, https://elvezrestaurant.com/ (the
"Website" or "Defendant's website"), is not equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA.
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. Defendants Website, and its online
information, is heavily integrated with its brick-and-mortar
location.
Upon visiting Defendant's website, https://elvezrestaurant.com/
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 access
barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users
to enjoy and learn about the services at
https://elvezrestaurant.com/ prior to entering Defendant's physical
location, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired person.
The Defendant operates the https://elvezrestaurant.com/ online
restaurant and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of
Pennsylvania and throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Glanzberg, Esq.
Robert Tobia, Esq.
GLANZBERG TOBIA LAW, P.C.
123 South Broad Street Suite 1640,
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Phone: +1 215-981-5400
Email: DGlanzberg@aol.com
robert.tobia@gtlawpc.com
STELLA MSO LLC: Elyashiv Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against STELLA MSO, LLC. The
case is styled as Joshua Elyashiv, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. STELLA MSO, LLC, Case No.
0:24-cv-62331-DSL (S.D. Fla., Dec. 10, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of Telephone Consumer
Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment.
Stella -- https://stellacenter.com/ -- is an interventional
psychiatry practice offering biological treatments that help
patients get relief from symptoms like panic attacks, anxiety and
more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq.
Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq.
Faaris Kamal Uddin, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1700
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (754) 444-7539
Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
faaris@jibraellaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Julie Singer Brady, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER
200 S Orange Avenue, Suite 2300
PO Box 112
Orlando, FL 32802-0112
Phone: (407) 649-4000
Fax: (407) 841-0168
Email: jsingerbrady@bakerlaw.com
STRATEGIC EDUCATION: Kearney Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Strategic Education,
Inc. The case is styled as Daniel Kearney, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Strategic Education,
Inc., a Maryland corporation, d/b/a WWW.CAPELLA.EDU, Case No.
25CU002567C (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., Jan. 15, 2025).
Strategic Education, Inc. -- https://www.strategiceducation.com/ --
is an education services holding company and is formerly known as
Strayer Education, Inc.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC
4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 706-6464
Fax: (949) 706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Agrees to Settle Shareholder Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. announces that the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York has approved the
following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that
would benefit purchasers of Class A common stock of Stronghold
Digital Mining, Inc. (NASDAQ: SDIG):
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES
To: All persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise
acquired Stronghold Digital Mining, Inc. ("Stronghold") Class A
common stock on or before December 20, 2021, pursuant and/or
traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with the
Class A common stock initial public offering in October 2021, and
were damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class")
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, that Class Representative
Allegheny County Employees Retirement System ("Plaintiff"), on
behalf of itself and all other members of the Settlement Class; and
Stronghold Digital Mining, Inc. ("Stronghold"), Gregory A. Beard,
William B. Spence (together with Stronghold, the "Stronghold
Defendants"), B. Riley Securities, Inc., Cowen and Company, LLC,
Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, LLC, D.A. Davidson & Co.,
Compass Point Research & Trading, LLC, and Northland Securities,
Inc. (collectively, the "Underwriter Defendants"), and Ricardo R.
A. Larroudé, (together with the Underwriter and Stronghold
Defendants, the "Settling Defendants"), have reached a proposed
settlement of the claims in the above-captioned class action (the
"Action") and related claims in the amount of $4,750,000 and 25
Bitcoins (the "Settlement").
A hearing will be held before the Honorable Ronnie Abrams on April
11 2025, at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 1506 at the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood
Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY
10007 (the "Settlement Hearing") to determine whether the Court
should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable,
and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in
the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated November 6,
2024; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for
distribution of the proceeds of the Settlement (the "Net Settlement
Fund") to Settlement Class Members; and (iv) approve Lead Counsel
for an award of attorneys' fees of up to one-third plus interest of
the Settlement Amount, reimbursement of litigation expenses of not
more than $250,000, plus interest, and a service payment of no more
than $10,000 to Lead Plaintiff. The Court may change the date of
the Settlement Hearing, or hold it remotely, without providing
another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to
receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A
MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a long-form Notice
and Claim Form, you may obtain copies by visiting the website for
the Settlement, www.strategicclaims.net/Stronghold, or by
contacting the Claims Administrator at:
Stronghold Securities Litigation
c/o Strategic Claims Services
P.O. Box 230
600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205
Media, PA 19063
info@strategicclaims.net
(866) 274-4004
Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of
a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel:
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
Jonathan Stern, Esq.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
www.rosenlegal.com
(212) 686-1060
If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than April 4,
2025. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit
a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless
be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court, whether
favorable or unfavorable.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for
exclusion in accordance with the instructions in the long-form
Notice so that it is received no later than March 21, 2025. If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court, whether
favorable or unfavorable, but you will not be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Lead Counsel's Fee and
Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be
filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to
counsel for the parties in accordance with the instructions in the
long-form Notice, so that they are received no later than March 21
2025.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL
REGARDING THIS NOTICE
DATED: DECEMBER 16, 2024
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK [GN]
SUNBRIDGE BRITTANY: Nahshal Labor Suit Filed in Calif. Super.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Sunbridge Brittany
Rehabilitation Center. The case is captioned as WASIA NAHSHAL, on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v.
SUNBRIDGE BRITTANY REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC DBA AMERICAN RIVER
CENTER, et al., Case No. 24CV024128 (Calif. Super., Sacramento
Cty., November 26, 2024).
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor
practices.
The suit is assigned to the Hon. Christopher E. Krueger.
A case management conference is scheduled for December 19, 2025.
Sunbridge Brittany Rehabilitation Center, LLC provides non-acute
medical and skilled nursing care services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Molly Desario, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
475 14th St, Ste 700
Oakland, CA 94612-1945
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
SYSTEM1 INC: Settles Auto-Renewals Class Action Lawsuit for $2.5MM
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that System1, Total
Security Limited and Protected.net LLC have agreed to pay a $2.5
million settlement to resolve a proposed class action lawsuit that
alleged the software companies enrolled consumers in automatically
renewing product subscriptions without first providing certain
disclosures required under state law.
The official website for the class action settlement can be found
at TotalSecuritySettlement.com.
According to the Total Security lawsuit, consumers are offered a
limited-time, low-cost trial of the companies' ad-blocking or
anti-virus software, including Total Adblock, TotalAV, Total
Password, PC Protect, ScanGuard, Total VPN and Total WebShield. The
class action suit claimed that following the trial period, the
defendants unlawfully enrolled consumers into auto-renewing
subscriptions and charged recurring fees without consent, and
without first presenting the offer's terms in a clear and
conspicuous way. In doing so, the companies violated California's
Automatic Renewal Law, among other state statutes, the case
contended.
The Total Security settlement covers any California residents who
were enrolled in and charged for an automatic renewal or continuous
service subscription for any of the software products listed above
between October 20, 2019 and June 30, 2024, and who did not receive
a full refund of any amount paid towards the subscription.
Only class members who submit a valid claim form online or by mail
by February 4, 2025 will be eligible to receive a share of the
$2,500,000 deal, the settlement website says.
To file a claim online for a Total Security settlement cash payout,
head to this page. You will need to provide your unique WebID,
which can be found in the settlement notice you should have
received via email.
Alternatively, you can download the PDF claim form or contact the
settlement administrator to request a paper copy to return by mail
by the deadline.
The agreement with System1, Total Security Limited and
Protected.net was granted preliminary court approval on November 8,
2024. It is now up to the court to decide whether to grant final
approval to the terms of the settlement at a hearing scheduled for
March 7, 2025 in San Diego.
If the deal is ultimately approved, and after any appeals are
resolved, cash payments will be issued to eligible class members
"[a]s soon as practicable" following the date the settlement goes
into effect, the website relays. The site states that each class
member who submits a valid claim will receive an equal, pro-rated
share of the $2.5 million settlement amount. [GN]
TOYOTA MOTOR: Flick Files Product Liability Suit in E.D. Tex.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Toyota Motor Corporation, et
al. The case is captioned as Paul Flick, Individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Toyota Motor
Corporation, et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-01055-ALM (E.D. Tex.,
November 26, 2024).
The suit is brought against the Defendants for motor vehicle
product liability.
The case is assigned to District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III, Esq.
Toyota Motor Corporation is a Japanese multinational automotive
manufacturer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Monica Litle Goff, Esq.
Edgar Leon Carter, Esq.
CARTER ARNETT BENNETT & PEREZ PLLC
8150 N. Central Expressway, Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75206
Telephone: (469) 638-6076
E-mail: mgoff@carterarnett.com
lcarter@carterarnett.com
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Must Oppose Class Cert. in BOAGF by Jan. 29
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOAGF HOLDCO LP, LAWRENCE
HANDORF, PHT HOLDING II LP, v. TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00032-CJW-MAR (N.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge Mark
Roberts entered an order extending the deadlines to the dates
proposed in the joint motion:
-- The Defendant's class certification expert Jan. 29, 2025
reports and resistance to class
certification:
-- Plaintiffs' resistance to Defendant's Jan. 29, 2025
motion for partial summary judgment:
-- Plaintiffs' rebuttal class certification Feb. 26, 2025
expert reports and reply in support of
class certification:
-- Defendant's reply in support of its motion Feb. 26, 2025
for partial summary judgment:
-- Plaintiffs' merits expert reports: March 4, 2025
-- Defendant's merits expert reports: March 31, 2025
-- Plaintiffs' merits rebuttal expert April 28, 2025
reports:
Transamerica offers permanent and term life insurance for a broad
range of needs, from tax-advantages to burial expenses.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 14, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gTqBr7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
TRANSMEDICS GROUP: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of TransMedics Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: TMDX) resulting
from allegations that TransMedics may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.
So What: If you purchased TransMedics 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=22793 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 January 10, 2025, Scorpion Capital issued a
report about TransMedics. In this report, Scorpion Capital stated
that in "20 years of shorting, TransMedics is the most extreme and
grotesque healthcare fraud we have encountered, not only for its
scale, but because it is predicated on the exploitation of the most
vulnerable patients – the terminally ill, desperate for an organ.
The 'lucky' patients who receive a diseased, damaged organ rejected
by reputable surgeons and centers [. . .] are oblivious to the
cesspool of perverse, secret incentives that steered the organ
their way. [Corruption pervades] every aspect of the business
model."
On this news, TransMedics stock fell 5.15% on January 10, 2025. On
January 13, 2025, TransMedics stock fell a further 6.9%.
Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS
Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class
action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4
each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438
million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was
named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's
attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
VIKING CLIENT: Freidman Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Viking Client
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Chaim Freidman, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Viking Client
Services, LLC, Case No. 7:24-cv-09848-PMH (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 20,
2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Viking Client Services -- https://www.vikingservice.com/ --
provides debt recovery services and collection solutions across
multiple industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
VIP INC: Faces Fedorchuk Suit Over Tire Maintenance Warranty Fee
----------------------------------------------------------------
MAKSYM FEDORCHUK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. V.I.P., INC., d/b/a VIP TIRES AND
SERVICE, Defendant, Case No. _______ (Mass. Comm., January 9, 2025)
is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract and
unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's practice of automatically and
deceptively charged its customers for a tire maintenance warranty
that it did not disclose, explain or provide any meaningful
benefit. As a result of the Defendant's wrongful conduct, the
Plaintiff and similarly situated customers suffered damages.
V.I.P. Inc., doing business as VIP Tires and Service, is a tire
company in Maine. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey S. Strom, Esq.
John P. Regan, Jr., Esq.
REGAN STROM, PC
185 Devonshire Street, Ste. 301
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (857) 277-0902
Facsimile: (857) 233-5287
Email: jregan@reganstrom.com
jstrom@reganstrom.com
VIVINO INC: Esparza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vivino, Inc. The case
is styled as Miguel Esparza, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Vivino, Inc. d/b/a WWW.VIVINO.COM,
Case No. 25CU002555C (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., Jan. 15,
2025).
Vivino -- https://www.vivino.com/US/en/ -- is a wine app, and the
largest online wine marketplace + community providing tools to help
people buy the right wine.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC
4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 706-6464
Fax: (949) 706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
VOLER INC: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------
Haron Cole, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Voler, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00569 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 17, 2025),
is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers
through https://store.voler.com (hereinafter "Store.voler.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, Store.voler.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 in Voler'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.
Voler provides to the public a website known as Store.voler.com
which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and
services, including, the ability to view sports clothing including
jackets, vests, jerseys, T-shirts, shorts, skinsuits, and
accessories such as arm and leg protection, caps, and gloves.[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
VPS of MI: Faces Bell Personal Injury Suit in Michigan
------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against VPS of MI, PLLC. The case is
captioned as Alexis Bell, on behalf of KW, a minor, and Tommie
Tipton v. VPS of MI, PLLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-13162-LVP-KGA (E.D.
Mich., November 26, 2024).
The suit arises from personal injury claims against the Defendant.
The case is assigned to District Judge Linda V. Parker.
VPS of MI, PLLC provides home health care service in Farmington
Hills, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Emily E. Hughes, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM
950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
E-mail: eeh@millerlawpc.com
- and -
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM
950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
ZILLION CONCEPTS: Allen Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shanda Allen, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
ZILLION CONCEPTS, LLC d/b/a RUMORS, a Georgia Domestic Limited
Liability Company, and NICK WHITE, an individual, Case No.
1:25-cv-00185-MHC (N.D. Ga., Jan. 15, 2025), is brought for damages
and other relief brought by Plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") as amended by the Tip Income Protection Act
of 2018 ("TIPA"), as a result of Defendants' failure to pay
Plaintiffs the minimum wage and overtime wages as required by
federal law.
The essence of Plaintiffs' claims are that Defendants:
misclassified Plaintiffs as independent contractors rather than
employees; failed to pay them at least the federal minimum wage for
each hour they worked at Rumors; failed to pay them at least one
and one half times their regular rate of pay for each hour they
worked at Rumors over 40 hours in a given workweek, constituting a
violation of the overtime wage provisions of the FLSA; and seized
their tips in violation of TIPA and the FLSA.
These causes of action arise from Defendants' willful actions while
Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants from 1996-2024. During their
time being employed by Defendants, Plaintiffs were denied minimum
wage payments and overtime wage payments as part of Defendants'
scheme to classify Plaintiffs and other bartenders as "independent
contracts," says the complaint.
The Plaintiff resides in this District and is a former employee of
Defendants, having been employed at Rumors from May 2016 to June
2022.
Rumors was an enterprise engaging in interstate commerce by having
multiple employees regularly selling alcoholic beverages produced
and shipped from outside of the State of Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan P. Rose, Esq.
Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600
Winter Park, FL 32789
Phone: (407) 574-4999
Facsimile: (833) 423-5864
Email: cleach@theleachfirm.com
jrose@theleachfirm.com
ppalmer@theleachfirm.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 ***