/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/211001.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, October 1, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 191
Headlines
1320 YORK: Fails to Pay Gourmet Deli Workers' Wages, Martinez Says
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Fink Claims
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Harmful to Human Health, Windholz Claims
3M COMPANY: Behunin Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Beninger Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Bouchard Alleges Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Bryan Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Davis Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Exposed AFFF Products' Users to PFAS, Schrier Alleges
3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to Toxic Products, Pineda Says
3M COMPANY: Faces Muller Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Components
3M COMPANY: Friedmann Sues Over Harmful Effects of AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: York Sues Over AFFF Products' Effects to Human Health
ABBVIE INC: Faces Suit Over Cryolipolysis CoolSculpting System
ACCU-TIME SYSTEMS: Franchini BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
ADIDAS AMERICA: Sexual Misconduct Suit Get Class Action Status
AERA ENERGY: Dickerson Suit Removed to E.D. California
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Lyon Sues Over 27% Decline of Stock Price
AMERICAN TECHNOLOGY: Shoemaker Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pa.
ANNOVIS BIO: ClaimsFiler Reminds of October 18 Deadline
APPLE INC: Crypto Investors File Class Action Over Phishing App
APPLE INC: Faces Almeida Suit Over Defective MacBook Air Laptops
AURORA CANNABIS: Faces Fraud Class Lawsuit, Closes Alberta Facility
AUS DECKING: Valdez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: Mason's Automotive Files Suit in W.D. Ark.
AVIVA INSURANCE: Class Action Over Covid-19 Coverage Can Proceed
BARRETTS MINERALS: Underwood Sues Over Asbestos-Containing Products
BEAR MOUNTAINS: Underpays Medical Schedulers, Marceau et al. Say
BED BATH: Court Dismisses Turnier Class Suit With Leave to Amend
BEN HOGAN GOLF: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BERGAILA & ASSOCIATES: Underpays Field Inspectors, Tollefson Claims
BOOZ ALLEN: Contractors Ensnared in No-Poach Class Action Lawsuit
BRANDON NURSING: Green FMLA Suit Claims Interference & Retaliation
BUILD-A-BEAR: Ruby TCPA Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
CALIFORNIA: ADA Suit Filed in N.D. California
CALIFORNIA: Quair's Bid to Appoint Counsel in Suit v. Jail Denied
CANADA: Black Federal Workers File Racism Class Action Lawsuit
CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Minor Abuse in Government Care
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Loera Sues Over Denied Breaks, Unpaid Wages
CLARWESTERN DIETRICH: Rueda Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
COINBASE GLOBAL: Fails to Secure Fund Transfers, Zubin Suit Says
COINMARKETCAP LLC: Faces Crypto Class Action Lawsuit in Arizona
COWORX STAFFING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Larsen Alleges
COWORX STAFFING: Galvez Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Salone Suit Moved From S.D. Ohio to E.D. Mo.
CYTODYN INC: Bylaws' Removal Provision Violates DGCL, Schielke Says
DANIEL FLEISCHMAN: Wilson Files Suit in E.D. Louisiana
DANISCO USA: Fails to Provide Proper Wage Pay, Gray Suit Alleges
DIRECT ENERGY: Newman Files TCPA Suit in D. Maryland
DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES: Ronquillo Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
DT EMPLOYER: Rosales Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
EARGO INC: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action
EDWARD SLOAN: Long Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
ELEKTA INC: Harrington Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
ENTERGY CORP: Faces Class Action Over Power Grid Deficiency
ENTERGY CORP: Stays Silent After Negligence Suit From Hurricane
EQUIFAX CANADA: Ontario Court Tosses Cyber Attack Class Action
EYM GROUP: Walden Files ADA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
FAMILLE MARIE-JEUNESSE: Judge Okays Spiritual Abuse Class Action
FEDERAL EXPRESS: Faces Taito Suit Over Breach of Contract
FREEDOM FOREVER: Rairdon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
FRIENDS FOR LIFE: Reed Seeks Unpaid Wages for Home Health Aides
GABRIEL BROS: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
GOLDEN STATE AG: Ambriz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
GRAXCELL PHARMACEUTICALS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Guevara Says
GROUP HEALTH: Midthun-Hensen Files ADA Suit in W.D. Wisconsin
HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Deputies File Class Action Over Understaffing
HONEST COMPANY: ClaimsFiler Reminds of November 15 Deadline
HONEST COMPANY: Faces Dixon Suit Over Drop in Share Price
HONEST COMPANY: Faces Securities Class Action in California
HONEST COMPANY: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of November 1 Deadline
HUDSON'S BAY: January 11, 2022 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
HUNTER WARFIELD: Powe Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Alabama
I.D. JEWELRY: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ICON PLC: Miller Labor Code Suit Removed to N.D. California
INTERSECT ENT: Lawrence Enjoins Vote on Medtronic Merger Deal
JCC LOGISTICS: Pacheco Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Garfield Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to D.N.J.
KESTREL FIELD: Mitchell Suit Alleges Unpaid Overtime for Inspectors
KIMPTON HOTEL: Thomas Data Breach Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Walters Suit removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
LIBERTY HOME: Silverman Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
LIBERTY MEDIA: Stock Repurchase Scheme Harms Investors, Fishel Says
LOUISIANA: Class Action Over Wade Correctional Prison Abuse OK'd
LUCKIN COFFEE: Settles U.S. Securities Class Action Lawsuit
MARTIN JUGENBURG: Certification of Privacy Class Action Discussed
MATERRA LLC: Guerra Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MIDLAND CREDIT: Ehrenreich Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
MISSOURI: ACLU Asks Court to Intervene in Mask Mandate Lawsuit
MOLSON COORS: Faces Class Action Over Vizzy Misleading Campaign
MOREY CORPORATION: Perez Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
NEBRASKA MEDICINE: Final Order & Judgment Entered in Chacon Suit
NEW BEST: Fails to Pay Fish Market Workers' Wages, Lazaro Says
NEW YORK DOH: Coalition Of Citizens Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
OATLY GROUP AB: Faces Kostendt Suit Over Share Price Drop
OLD DOMINION: Mendez Seeks Unpaid Wages for Tractor Operators
ONE BE EXPRESS: Pinula Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
PASSAIC COUNTY, NJ: May Close Jail That Has Been Subject of Suits
PB FLORIDA LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Belsanti Alleges
PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA: Hunter-Blank Files Suit in D. Kansas
PLAN BENEFIT: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Reset to November 9
PRUDENTIAL SECURITY: Cowley Slams Unpaid Wages, Missed Breaks
QMENU INC: Obento Class Suit Moved From N.D. Ill. to N.D. Ga.
RALPH LAUREN: Cota Sues Over Deceptive Product Marketing
RICOH USA: Sarabia Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class
RIVERA SERVICES: Bermudez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SECURUSTECH.NET: California Court Recommends Dismissal of Lira Suit
SNAP FINANCE: Court Certifies Class in Wesley TCPA Suit
SODEXO INC: Faces Arias Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
ST. LOUIS, MO: Bid to Amend Class Definition in Dixon Suit Denied
STA MANAGEMENT: Court Tosses Mata Class Certification Bid as Moot
STICKER MULE: Bonefort Class Action Settlement Gets Initial OK
STROKIN LLC: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SUGAR CREEK: Class Cert. Response Extended to Oct. 12
SUNSHINE RAISIN: EEOC Suit Alleges Gender-Based Sexual Harassment
T-MOBILE USA: Faces Lomax Class Suit Over Cyberattack & Data Breach
T-MOBILE USA: Galvez-Galvan Suit Removed to C.D. California
T-MOBILE USA: Shanmukh Suit Removed to C.D. California
TEXAS: Federal Judge Hears Foster Care System Class Action
TOTAL AGGREGATE: Isaacs Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
TOYOTA MOTOR: Goussev Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
TRANSUNION LLC: Bradley Arant Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
TWITTER INC: Settles Securities Class Action for $809.5 Million
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Suit Over Driver Misclassification Certified
UC SAN DIEGO HEALTH: Hartley Sues Over Data Breach, Seeks Damages
UNDERWEST WESTSIDE: Class Settlement in Hilaire Suit Has Prelim. OK
UNITED STATES: Class Action Against USCIS Settled in July
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Loses Bid to Decertify Surgical Fee Suit
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach
WACHTER INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Decosta Suit Alleges
WATCH GANG: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Brenner Suit Claims
WELLA OPERATIONS: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
WILCREST FIELD: Faces Wilkerson Suit Over Unpaid OT for Inspectors
WYNDHAM VACATION: Nolen Seeks Class Cert. Brief Extension
[*] California Judge Trims Class Claims in Hard-Disk Antitrust Suit
[*] INDIA: Class Suit Can Be Filed Only With Consumer Forum Nod
[*] Kroll Discusses Settlement Using Unique Class Member IDs
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Still Faces Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Sues Trust Over Disputed Claims
*********
1320 YORK: Fails to Pay Gourmet Deli Workers' Wages, Martinez Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID REI MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. 1320 YORK DELI CORP. (D/B/A RIVER EAST GOURMET DELI),
and ANTONIO BUTSIKARES, Case No. 1:21-cv-07950 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 23,
2021) seeks to recover for unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York
Labor Law.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff Martinez worked for the Defendants in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he
worked.
Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Martinez appropriately
for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium, the suit says.
Plaintiff Martinez was employed as a griller, deli worker and salad
preparer at the deli located at 1320 York Avenue, New York.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a deli, located at 1320
York Avenue, New Yor under the name "River East Gourmet Deli".
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Fink Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN FINK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC;
KIDDE PLC INC.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITYAMERICA'S, INC; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CORTEVA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-03128-RMG (D.S.C., September 24, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, defective
design, failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical monitoring
trust, and violations of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and
California Unfair Competition Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and military members, including the Plaintiff, who they
knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products.
The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (760) 479-5404
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Harmful to Human Health, Windholz Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARK ALLEN WINDHOLZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03118-RMG
(D.S.C., September 24, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS, which are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products are dangerous as 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. Further, the Defendants failed to warn
public entities, firefighter trainees who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or
firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers
that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products
containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular cancer due to his
exposure to the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products during
the course of his training and firefighting activities.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Behunin Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BLAKE ROBERT BEHUNIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03120-RMG
(D.S.C., September 24, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, and wantonness.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and military members, including the Plaintiff, who they
knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products.
The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Beninger Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW MARK BENINGER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03121-RMG
(D.S.C., September 24, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from a personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming
foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or
exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due
to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals
and was diagnosed with kidney cancer and skin cancer, alleges that
suit.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Bouchard Alleges Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT JOSEPH BOUCHARD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03122-RMG
(D.S.C., September 24, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
aqueous film forming foam products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS, which
are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The Defendants'
PFAS-containing AFFF products are dangerous as 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. Further, the Defendants failed to warn public
entities, firefighter trainees who they knew would foreseeably come
into contact with their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by
either civilian and/or military employers that use of and/or
exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or
its precursors would pose a danger to human health. Due to
inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the Defendants'
PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without
significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff relied
on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer due to his exposure
to Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products during the course of
his training and firefighting activities.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Bryan Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP BRYAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC;
KIDDE PLC INC.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITYAMERICA'S, INC; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CORTEVA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-03081-RMG (D.S.C., September 23, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, defective
design, failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical monitoring
trust, and violations of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and
California Unfair Competition Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and military members, including the Plaintiff, who they
knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products.
The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular cancer.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (760) 479-5404
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: Davis Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT EUGENE DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03123-RMG
(D.S.C., September 24, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, and wantonness.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of serious medical conditions and complications
sustained as a direct result of his exposure to the Defendants'
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS at various locations during the course of his training and
firefighting activities. The Defendants failed to use reasonable
and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
their PFAS-containing AFFF products. Further, the Defendants failed
to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including the
Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by either civilian
and/or military employers that use of and/or exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors
would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the
Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer, bladder cancer, and
skin cancer due to his exposure to Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF
products during the course of his training and firefighting
activities.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Exposed AFFF Products' Users to PFAS, Schrier Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL LEE SCHRIER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03127-RMG
(D.S.C., September 24, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, and wantonness.
The Plaintiff brings this action for damages arising out of serious
medical conditions and complications sustained as a direct result
of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF)
products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances collectively known as PFAS at various locations during
the course of his training and firefighting activities. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products. Further, the Defendants failed to warn public entities
and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew
would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or
firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers
that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products
containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. The
Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of
exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products, the suit alleges.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to Toxic Products, Pineda Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES FRANK PINEDA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03126-RMG
(D.S.C., September 24, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, and wantonness.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of serious medical conditions and complications
sustained as a direct result of his exposure to the Defendants'
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS at various locations during the course of his training and
firefighting activities. The Defendants failed to use reasonable
and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
their PFAS-containing AFFF products. Further, the Defendants failed
to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including the
Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by either civilian
and/or military employers that use of and/or exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors
would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the
Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular cancer due to his
exposure to the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products during
the course of his training and firefighting activities.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Faces Muller Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Components
------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTHUR ROBERT MULLER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03125-RMG
(D.S.C., September 24, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS, which are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products are dangerous as 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. Further, the Defendants failed to warn
public entities, firefighter trainees who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or
firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers
that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products
containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular cancer due to his
exposure to the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products during
the course of his training and firefighting activities.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Friedmann Sues Over Harmful Effects of AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL STEVE FRIEDMANN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03124-RMG
(D.S.C., September 24, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, and wantonness.
The Plaintiff brings this action for damages arising out of serious
medical conditions and complications sustained as a direct result
of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF)
products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances collectively known as PFAS at various locations during
the course of his training and firefighting activities. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products. Further, the Defendants failed to warn public entities
and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew
would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or
firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers
that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products
containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. The
Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure
to the Defendants' AFFF products, alleges the suit.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: York Sues Over AFFF Products' Effects to Human Health
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN JOHN YORK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03119-RMG
(D.S.C., September 24, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, and wantonness.
The Plaintiff brings this action for damages arising out of serious
medical conditions and complications sustained as a direct result
of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF)
products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances collectively known as PFAS at various locations during
the course of his training and firefighting activities. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products. Further, the Defendants failed to warn public entities
and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew
would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or
firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers
that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products
containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. The
Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of
exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products, alleges the suit.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
ABBVIE INC: Faces Suit Over Cryolipolysis CoolSculpting System
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aesthetics reports that a proposed class action lawsuit in the US
has alleged that AbbVie's cryolipolysis CoolSculpting system can
cause permanent deformities to a person's body by damaging tissue
in the targeted area.
The complaint claims the company has been aware since 2011 that its
non-surgical device can cause patients to develop paradoxical
adipose hyperplasia, creating the opposite effect of the device's
advertised purpose. The complaint alleges that the use of the
device can create a deformity on a patient's body larger in size
than the intended stubborn fatty area.
According to the lawsuit, AbbVie has received thousands of reports
of users developing the condition since the device went on the
market but decided to carefully choose its words to disclose the
dangers to patients and providers. Furthermore, it has been alleged
in the complaint that AbbVie downplayed the seriousness of the
condition to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
The lawsuit looks to represent all individuals with the US who
purchased a cycle or cycles of the CoolSculpting procedure, as well
as those in the US who underwent the procedure and suffered tissue
damage in the form of paradoxical adipose hyperplasia.
Allergan were approached for a statement but were unable to provide
Aesthetics with a comment. [GN]
ACCU-TIME SYSTEMS: Franchini BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled EDNA FRANCHINI and VALERIE SEALS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ACCU-TIME SYSTEMS,
INC., Case No. 2021-CH-04156, was removed from the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on September 24, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-05075 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Biometric Information Privacy Act.
Accu-Time Systems, Inc. is a provider of workforce management
solutions, with its principal place of business in Windsor,
Connecticut. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Sonya Rosenberg, Esq.
Alexis M. Dominguez, Esq.
Alissa Griffin, Esq.
NEAL, GERBER & EISENBERG LLP
Two North LaSalle Street, Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60602-3801
Telephone: (312) 269-8000
E-mail: srosenberg@nge.com
adominguez@nge.com
agriffing@nge.com
ADIDAS AMERICA: Sexual Misconduct Suit Get Class Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
desmoinesregister.com reports that a judge's order clears the path
for potentially hundreds of former youth basketball players to
bring claims for sexual misconduct by former coach Greg Stephen.
A longtime coach with the Iowa Barnstormers youth basketball
program, Stephen was sentenced to 180 years in prison after he was
found to have collected explicit images and videos of more than 400
boys over two decades, and to have physically molested more than a
dozen. Stephen recorded some using hidden cameras and procured
others by posing as a teenage girl on social media and encouraging
boys to send him sexual material.
Many of the victims were players in the Barnstormers or the Iowa
Mavericks, another youth basketball club.
In addition to criminal charges, Stephen and the Barnstormers face
a lawsuit by an unnamed former player who is suing the
Barnstormers; team sponsor Adidas; and tournament organizer the
Amateur Athletic Union. The suit claims the organizations were
negligent in hiring and supervising Stephen and had inadequate
policies in place to protect young athletes.
The plaintiff had asked the court to certify the case as a class
action, meaning one brought on behalf of the plaintiff and others
in similar situations. U.S. District Court Judge John Jarvey
granted that request, ruling the case can proceed on behalf of all
Barnstormers participants who were affiliated with the team between
2005 and 2018 and who were victimized by Stephen.
"The order of the court is good news for the more than 400 victims
of the despicable conduct of Gregory Stephen and the failures of
Barnstormer Basketball," said Guy Cook, the lead attorney for the
class.
Des Moines Attorney Guy Cook announces a class-action lawsuit Nov.
5, 2018, against the Iowa Barnstormers and Amateur Athletics Union
related to misconduct by former Barnstormers coach Greg Stephen.
Athletics company Adidas, which sponsored the organization, was
later added as an additional defendant.
It's not clear exactly how many people could be eligible. Not all
of the victims have been identified, and some encountered Stephen
through the Mavericks or other organizations. A previous attempt to
certify a broader class was rejected by the court.
But in his order, Jarvey noted the largest group of victims were
affiliated with the Barnstormers, creating a pool of potentially
hundreds of class members who might otherwise swamp the courts with
duplicative lawsuits or be reluctant to seek redress at all.
"The Court notes that prospective class members may be unwilling to
bring their claims individually based on the nature of the
victimization in the criminal case," Jarvey wrote.
In the coming weeks, the parties will negotiate a notice to be sent
to potential class members informing them about the case. The
lawsuit is scheduled to go to trial in January, and Cook noted the
deadline has already passed for the defendants to file any motions
seeking dismissal or summary judgment.
Attorneys for the defendants couldn't immediately be reached for
comment. [GN]
AERA ENERGY: Dickerson Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Aaron Dickerson, as an individual and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. AERA ENERGY, LLC, a California
limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. BCV-21-101646 was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Kern, to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California on Sept. 16, 2021, and
assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-01384-NONE-JLT.
The Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint alleges the following
causes of action against Defendant: (1) Failure to Pay Minimum
Wages; (2) Failure to Pay Overtime; (3) Failure to Provide All
Mandated Meal Periods or Pay Additional Wages in Lieu Thereof; (4)
Failure to Authorize and Permit All Mandated Rest Periods or Pay
Additional Wages in Lieu Thereof; (5) Failure to Issue Accurate
Wage Statements; (6) Failure to Timely Pay Wages Due at
Termination; and (7) Unfair Competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Adam Levin, Esq.
Jeremy Mittman, Esq.
Stephen Franz, Esq.
MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
2049 Century Park East, 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3120
Phone: (310) 312-2000
Facsimile: (310) 312-310
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Lyon Sues Over 27% Decline of Stock Price
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN R. LYON III, derivatively on behalf of AMC Entertainment
Holdings, Inc., Plaintiff v. ADAM M. ARON, CRAIG R. RAMSEY, CHRIS
A. COX, LINCOLN ZHANG, JACK Q. GAO, LLOYD L. HILL, GARY F. LOCKE,
HOWARD W. KOCH, JR., KATHLEEN M. PAWLUS, ANTHONY J. SAICH, MAOJUN
ZENG, PHILIP LADER, LEE E. WITTLINGER, and ADAM J. SUSSMAN,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-07940 (S.D.N.Y., September 23, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary
duty, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment/constructive
trust, and contribution and indemnification under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, AMC filed a materially false and
misleading Form S-3 registration statement with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) about the company's newly-acquired
Carmike Cinemas and Odeon businesses. Specifically, AMC failed to
identify and disclose known trends, events, demands, commitments
and uncertainties that were then having, and were reasonably likely
to continue to have, a material adverse effect on AMC's operating
performance, commitments and uncertainties; failed to disclose that
Carmike's protracted lack of investment in its theaters caused them
to be in a state of significant disrepair, and that AMC had been
unable to retain or convert Carmike's loyalty program members
following the acquisition; and misleadingly stated that Odeon was
seasonally stronger in the summer months, when, in fact, Odeon's
business had traditionally been slower during that period, says the
suit.
When the truth started to disclose to the public on August 1, 2017,
AMC's stock price declined approximately 27 percent, losing $5.60
per share.
AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. is a company that engages in the
theatrical exhibition business, with its corporate headquarters in
Leawood, Kansas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melinda A. Nicholson, Esq.
Nicolas Kravitz, Esq.
Alayne Gobeille, Esq.
KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
1100 Poydras Street – Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163
Telephone: (504) 455-1400
Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
E-mail: Melinda.Nicholson@ksfcounsel.com
Nicolas.Kravitz@ksfcounsel.com
Alayne.Gobeille@ksfcounsel.com
- and –
J. Ryan Lopatka, Esq.
KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
250 Park Ave., Suite 2040
New York, NY 10177
Telephone: (212) 696-3730
Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
E-mail: j.lopatka@ksfcounsel.com
AMERICAN TECHNOLOGY: Shoemaker Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Technology
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Shoemaker, Richard
Gindin, Demya Johnson, Kimberly Starling, Matthew McCormick,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons
v. American Technology Services, LLC, Richard Zeitlin, Unified Data
Services, LLC, Compliance Consultants, LLC, Wired 4 Data, LLC, John
Does 1-10 corporate entities and individuals presently unknown,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01668-CCC (M.D. Pa., Sept. 27, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
American Technology Services, LLC -- https://networkats.com/ --
provides managed cloud services in Fairfax.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David S. Senoff, Esq.
FIRST LAW STRATEGY LAW, LLC
121 S. Broad Street, Suite 300
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: (215) 258-4700
Email: dsenoff@firstlawstrategy.com
- and -
Eric H. Weitz, Esq.
THE WEITZ FIRM
1528 Walnut Street, 4th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: (267) 587-6240
Fax: (215) 689-0875
Email: eric.weitz@theweitzfirm.com
ANNOVIS BIO: ClaimsFiler Reminds of October 18 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:
Annovis Bio, Inc. (ANVS)
Class Period: 5/21/2021 - 7/28/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: October 18, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nyse-anvs/
Sesen Bio, Inc. (SESN)
Class Period: 12/21/2020 - 8/17/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: October 18, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-sesn/
PayPal Holdings, Inc. (PYPL)
Class Period: 2/9/2017 - 7/28/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: October 19, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-pypl-2/
Cassava Sciences, Inc. (SAVA)
Class Period: 9/14/2020 - 8/27/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: October 26, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-sava/
If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About ClaimsFiler
ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.
To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com [GN]
APPLE INC: Crypto Investors File Class Action Over Phishing App
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Daily Hodl reports that Apple is facing a class-action lawsuit
from crypto investors over an application that allegedly allowed
hackers to steal their coins.
According to a report from civil litigation media outlet Courthouse
News Service, hackers used the tech giant's app store to place a
phishing application disguised as a crypto wallet called "Toast
Plus" and lured users into installing a criminal portal onto their
devices.
The app was meant to look like a version of popular crypto wallet
Toast Wallet, but in fact, had no connection to it.
The suit -- filed on behalf of Hadona Diep by Joshua Whitaker of
Baltimore law firm Aldelphi Law -- says that Apple is liable for
the victims' losses due to a failure to properly vet the
application before putting it on the App Store.
"While the App Store does have terms and conditions, including
limitations on liability, those terms and conditions are the
product of adhesion, in that consumers have no other practical
ability to access applications for the iPhones and iPads if they do
not use the App Store; those terms and conditions are therefore not
applicable to this case . . .
The fact that Toast Plus was not an actual application, but instead
a medium for the commission of fraud, makes any existing contract
using it as subject matter void."
According to the report, Diep linked her private XRP key or seed
phrase into Toast Plus only to find out later that all her crypto
assets were gone.
Court documents show that on top of compensation, the plaintiffs
also request that Apple be held back from allowing similar schemes
from operating in their app store in the future.
"Plaintiff, therefore, requests that Defendant be enjoined and
restrained from distributing such 'phishing' or 'spoofing'
applications in the App Store, and that this Court retain
jurisdiction over this matter to monitor compliance with such an
order." [GN]
APPLE INC: Faces Almeida Suit Over Defective MacBook Air Laptops
----------------------------------------------------------------
NESTOR ALMEIDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:21-cv-07109-SVK (N.D. Cal., Sept. 14, 2021) is an action alleging
that the Defendant manufactures, markets and sells defective Apple
M1 MacBook Air and M1 MacBook Pro.
According to the complaint, the Defendant markets and sells the M1
MacBook as a top-of-the-line computer, debuting on November 10,
2020 with a hefty price tag of $999 for the M1 MacBook Air and
$1,299 for the M1 MacBook Pro. But the M1 MacBook is defective, as
the screens are extraordinarily fragile, cracking, blacking out, or
showing magenta, purple and blue lines and squares, or otherwise
ceasing to function altogether, the suit says.
Thousands of users from across the globe have reported this issue
directly to Apple and on Apple sponsored forums. Nonetheless,
consumers who have attempted to secure replacements or repairs have
been rebuffed by Apple, often forced to pay out of pocket upwards
of between $600 and $850 for repairs themselves or to secure
replacements without Apple's assistance. Others who have secured
repairs or replacements from Apple have quickly experienced the
problem reappearing on the repaired or replaced laptop.
Apple Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets personal computers
and related personal computing and mobile communication devices
along with a variety of related software, services, peripherals,
and networking solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Sean L. Litteral, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
slitteral@bursor.com
AURORA CANNABIS: Faces Fraud Class Lawsuit, Closes Alberta Facility
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Schiller at Canada News reports that Canadian cannabis
giant Aurora Cannabis is grabbing headlines this month due to a
class-action lawsuit and news that the company will shutter its
Aurora Polaris facility in Edmonton, Alberta.
The suit, originally filed in late 2019 and amended in a U.S.
District Court in New Jersey on Sept. 7, alleges that Aurora
employed a fraudulent scheme to inflate one of its 2019 quarterly
earnings results. This scheme, the plaintiffs claim, involved
Aurora selling millions of dollars' worth of cannabis back to
itself through Radient Technologies, an Edmonton-based cannabis
extraction company that Aurora had "significant influence over,"
according to the complaint.
Aurora has a 12% ownership stake in Radient Technologies, as well
as a seat on its board, as noted in the complaint.
In a June 2019 deal with Radient Technologies that "lacked
commercial substance," according to the complaint, Aurora allegedly
sold $21.7 million worth of dried cannabis to Radient Technologies
and then repurchased that same amount of product back from the
company in a scheme that the plaintiffs claim artificially inflated
Aurora's 2019 fourth quarter adjusted earnings.
The lawsuit claims that Aurora then continued to misrepresent the
true condition of the business, "causing the prices of Aurora's
common stock to be artificially inflated," according to the
complaint.
Aurora's stock has since plunged by more than 90% since mid-2019,
according to a BNN Bloomberg report.
The complaint claims that Aurora has violated the U.S. Exchange Act
and requests a trial by jury.
A spokesperson for Aurora told Cannabis Business Times that the
company does not comment on legal matters, but said, "We maintain
our standard of business practice is in accordance with all
relevant securities law and fulfill any obligation to respond
accordingly."
Meanwhile, the company announced Sept. 22 that it will shutter its
Aurora Polaris facility in Edmonton in an effort to consolidate
operations, according to a CBC report.
"While we've made substantial progress transforming Aurora, the
company continues to make tough yet responsible changes to further
optimize our business," the company spokesperson said. "That is why
Aurora announced the difficult decision to streamline our
operations in Edmonton, Alberta. While our Aurora Sky facility will
continue to operate, we will be closing Aurora Polaris."
The nearly 30,000-square-foot Aurora Polaris facility housed
product manufacturing, warehousing and distribution operations, CBC
reported, adding that the property, which is adjacent to the Aurora
Sky facility at the Edmonton International Airport, cost an
estimated $50 million to build.
Medical cannabis distribution from the Aurora Polaris facility will
move to the company's adjacent Aurora Sky facility, while
manufacturing from this site will move to the Aurora River facility
in Ontario.
"Our corporate office will continue to be located in Alberta and we
remain committed to the province and Canada," the spokesperson
said.
Eight percent of Aurora's global workforce will be impacted by the
closure of the Aurora Polaris facility, CBC reported.
"Employees affected by this change will be fully supported by the
company and we thank them for their valuable contributions," the
spokesperson said. "We remain committed to our patients and
consumers and will continue meeting their needs with our realigned
network of core sites."
RELATED: Aurora Cannabis Breaks Ground on Production Facility at
Edmonton International Airport Amidst Canada's Expanding Industry
Aurora announced in June 2020 that it would cease operations at
five facilities, CBC reported, including Aurora Prairie in
Saskatchewan, Aurora Mountain in Alberta, Aurora Ridge in Ontario,
and Aurora Vie and Aurora Eau in Quebec.
"This decision was not taken lightly," the spokesperson said
regarding the company's latest closure in Edmonton. "After
painstaking review and thorough consideration, we are taking the
necessary steps to strengthen our core operations to meet current
and future demand. We aspire to be a leaner, more agile
organization that keeps pace with our competition and is on a path
to profitability. We believe these changes are imperative for our
future success." [GN]
AUS DECKING: Valdez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AUS Decking, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Junior Valdez, on behalf of himself, and
all others similarly situated, aggrieved employees, and State of CA
as a Private Attorneys General v. AUS Decking, Inc., Does 1-50,
Case No. 34-2021-00307786-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento
Cty., Sept. 14, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited."
AUS Decking, Inc. -- http://ausdecking.com/-- offers construction
services. The Company provides gyp-crete, sound-mat, concrete,
waterproofing, deck coating, and repair services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
KOUL LAW FIRM
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010-2003
Phone: 213-761-5484
Fax: 818-561-3938
Email: nazo@koullaw.com
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: Mason's Automotive Files Suit in W.D. Ark.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Auto-Owners Insurance
Company. The case is styled as Mason's Automotive Collision Center,
LLC, on behalf of itself and all similarly situated persons and
entitities v. JCC Logistics, Inc., a California Corporation,
Christina Tessaro, Case No. 2:21-cv-02153-PKH (W.D. Ark., Sept. 24,
2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Personal Injury.
Auto-Owners Insurance Group -- https://www.auto-owners.com/ -- is a
mutual insurance company that provides life, home, car and business
insurance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip J. Milligan, Esq.
MILLIGAN MEDLOCK GRAMLICH LLP
500 So. 16th Street
P.O. Box 2347
Fort Smith, AR 72902
Phone: (479) 783-2213
Fax: (479) 783-4329
Email: patsylund@sbcglobal.net
AVIVA INSURANCE: Class Action Over Covid-19 Coverage Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that an Ontario court has certified a
third class-action lawsuit against Aviva Insurance Company of
Canada on behalf of policyholders who suffered business
interruption losses as a result of COVID-19.
Judge Edward Belobaba certified a $300-million Canada-wide lawsuit
on behalf of representative plaintiffs Nordik Windows Inc. and
Nordik Cash and Carry Inc., along with two other companies.
The case is in addition to one certified on behalf of the
Denturists Association of Ontario and another by the Royal Canadian
Legion.
Aviva was singled out because it offers more coverage related to
situations like the pandemic than the other 14 insurers being sued
in a separate class-action.
"We are pleased the court has allowed the claims to move forward,"
stated Nordik Windows' CEO Philippe Bechard.
"COVID-19 has hit a lot of businesses pretty hard. It seems Aviva
wants to fight us at every step. All we want is for Aviva to honour
its insurance policy"
Law firms representing the Nordik plaintiffs said about 28,000
Canadian businesses purchased the relevant Aviva policies.
Plaintiffs' lawyers say Aviva denied coverage on the basis that the
policies "do not provide cover for global pandemics."
"As is the case with all major insurers, we have always maintained
that there is no coverage for business interruption losses caused
by the COVID-19 pandemic under our standard policies but respect
the legal process that is currently underway," the company wrote in
an email.
"Aviva has never discouraged policyholders from making claims and
will continue to work with impacted parties in accordance with the
court process."
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 20,
2021. [GN]
BARRETTS MINERALS: Underwood Sues Over Asbestos-Containing Products
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cristina Underwood and David Underwood and others similarly
situated v. BARRETTS MINERALS INC.; BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA, INC.
(sued individually and as successor-in-interest to MINERAL PIGMENT
SOLUTIONS, INC. and as successor-in-interest to WHITTAKER CLARK &
DANIELS, INC.); BRENNTAG SPECIALTIES LLC f/k/a BRENNTAG
SPECIALTIES, INC. f/k/a MINERAL PIGMENT SOLUTIONS, INC. (sued
individually and as successor-in-interest to WHITTAKER CLARK &
DANIELS, INC.); CHANEL, INC.; CHATTEM, INC. a subsidiary of
SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC (sued individually and as
successor-in-interest to BLOCK DRUG CORPORATION,
successor-in-interest to THE GOLD BOND STERILIZING POWDER COMPANY
a/k/a THE GOLD BOND COMPANY); CONOPCO, INC. d/b/a UNILEVER HOME&
PERSONAL CARE USA (sued individually and as successor-in-interest
to ELIZABETH ARDEN, INC.) for its White Diamonds and Elizabeth
Arden lines of products; ELIZABETH ARDEN, INC., a division of
REVLON, INC. and f/k/a FFA FRAGRANCES, for its White Diamonds and
Elizabeth Arden lines of products; GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC (sued
individually and as successor-in-interest to BLOCK DRUG
CORPORATION, successor-in-interest to THE GOLD BOND STERILIZING
POWDER COMPANY); a/k/a THE GOLD BOND COMPANY); HIMMEL MANAGEMENT
CO. LLC a/k/a HIMMEL GROUP formerly d/b/a MARTIN HIMMEL, INC. (sued
individually and as successor-in-interest to BLOCK DRUG
CORPORATION, successor-in-interest to THE GOLD BOND STERILIZING
POWDER COMPANY a/k/a THE GOLD BOND COMPANY); L'OREAL USA, INC.
d/b/a LANCOME (sued individually and as successor-in-interest to
COSMAIR INC) for its Lancome, Lauren and L'Oreal lines of products;
MAYBELLINE LLC; NOXELL CORPORATION, a subsidiary of COTY INC. and
f/k/a NOXZEMA CHEMICAL COMPANY, for its CoverGirl line of products;
PFIZER INC.; THE POLO/LAUREN COMPANY L.P., a subsidiary of RALPH
LAUREN CORPORATION, for its Lauren line of products; PRL USA, INC.,
a subsidiary of RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION, for its Lauren line of
products; THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY (sued individually and as
successor-in-interest to NOXZEMA CHEMICAL COMPANY) for its
CoverGirl line of products; PTI UNION, LLC a/k/a PHARMA TECH
INDUSTRIES for its Gold Bond line of products; PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS,
INC.; PUIG USA, INC. (sued individually and as
successor-in-interest to MYRURGIA) for its Maja Myrurgia line of
products; REVLON CONSUMER PRODUCTS CORPORATION for its Revlon,
White Diamonds and Elizabeth Arden lines of products; SPECIALTY
MINERALS INC. (sued individually and as a subsidiary of MINERALS
TECHNOLOGIES INC.); UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC. (sued individually
and as successor-in-interest to CHESEBROUGH MANUFACTURING COMPANY
a/k/a CHESEBROUGH-PONDS) for its Elizabeth Arden and White Diamonds
lines of products; and WHITTAKER CLARK & DANIELS, INC., Case No.
134554966 (Fla. 11th Judicial Cir. Ct., Dade Cty., Sept. 14, 2021),
is brought as a result of the Defendant's concealment of the
dangers of asbestos in their Products from the Plaintiffs within
and outside the State of Florida.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have, through their
agents, officers and representatives operated, conducted, engaged
in and carried on a business venture in this State or maintained an
office or agency in this State; committed a tortuous act within the
State by designing, manufacturing, distributing or selling to the
public an inherently dangerous product, to-wit: raw asbestos fiber
of various kinds and grades, and/or asbestos-containing products,
and/or asbestos-containing talc and/or chalk, and/or other finished
and unfinished asbestos-containing talcum powder products, and/or
any other powder like product, and/or asbestos-containing cosmetics
(the "Defendants' Products").
The Defendants concealed the dangers of asbestos from the
Plaintiffs, without properly testing the Defendants' Products to
determine the harmful effects to persons exposed to asbestos from
the use of the Defendants' Products; failed to take any reasonable
precautions or to exercise reasonable care to adequately or
sufficiently warn the Plaintiffs of the risks, dangers and harms,
to-wit: contracting diseases and suffering injuries such as
asbestos pleural disease, asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma or
other forms of cancers to which the Plaintiff was exposed by
personally using, coming in contact with, handling, sweeping,
removing, and exposure to the asbestos dust and fibers from the
Defendants' Products resulting from their ordinary and foreseeable
use, application and removal of Defendants' Products, and said
tortuous conduct is continuing and presently existing.
The Defendants' Products caused Plaintiff to contract mesothelioma,
which arose out of the acts and omissions which occurred in the
State of Florida during the relevant period of time, at which time
the Defendants were engaged in solicitation or service activities
within the State of Florida, resulting in the Plaintiff acquiring
the disease mesothelioma, and during which time the Defendants'
Products were designed, manufactured, distributed and sold by
Defendants, or during which time the Defendants concealed the
dangers of asbestos from the Plaintiffs within and outside the
State of Florida, and were used in the ordinary course of commerce
and trade, and said use resulted in Plaintiff acquiring the disease
mesothelioma. Therefore, jurisdiction properly lies in this Court,
as to the Plaintiffs' action, pursuant to Florida law, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs are legal residents of Miami, Florida who have been
exposed to asbestos in the Defendants' Products.
The Defendants are engaged in the design, manufacture, distribution
or sale of raw asbestos fiber of various kinds and grades and/or
asbestos-containing talc.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel O'Shea, Esq.
O'SHEA & REYES, LLC
5599 South University Drive, Suite 202
Davie, FL 33328
Phone: (954) 252-2599
- and -
Dawn Besserman, Esq.
Suzanne M. Ratcliffe, Esq.
MAUNE RAICHLE HARTLEY FRENCH & MUDD, LLC
1015 Locust Street, Suite 1200
St. Louis, MO 63101
Phone: (314) 241-2003
Facsimile: (314) 621-5990
- and -
Frank Wathen, Esq.
SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER, PC
1201 Elm Street, Suite 3400
Dallas, TX 75270
Phone: (214) 276-7680
Facsimile: (214) 276-7699
BEAR MOUNTAINS: Underpays Medical Schedulers, Marceau et al. Say
----------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTEN MARCEAU and COLLEEN SMITH, Plaintiff v. BEAR MOUNTAIN
STAFFING SOLUTIONS and BEAR MOUNTAIN MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC, and
BEAR MOUNTAIN HEALTHCARE LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-30095
(D. Mass., September 17, 2021) brings this complaint against the
Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as a "Medical
Schedulers" at the Defendant's office in West Springfield,
Massachusetts.
The Plaintiffs claim that they regularly worked more than 40 hours
per week. However, the Defendant did not pay them overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.
Specifically, the Defendants owed Plaintiff Marceau a total of
$4,978.13 and Plaintiff Smith a total of $8,905.90 in unpaid wages.
The Defendants also refused to include the Plaintiffs' bonus pay as
part of their regular rate in computing overtime pay, the
Plaintiffs assert.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are unequivocally entitled to full
payment for overtime hours worked, and they do not qualify for any
of the recognized exemptions from the protections of the FLSA.
The Corporate Defendants provide medical services. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Arnold J. Lizana III, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ARNOLD J. LIZANA III
1175 Peachtree St. NE, 10th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30361
Tel: (877) 443-0999
E-mail: alizana@attorneylizana.com
BED BATH: Court Dismisses Turnier Class Suit With Leave to Amend
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT TURNIER, et al., Plaintiffs v. BED BATH &
BEYOND INC., Defendant, Case No.: 3:20-cv-00288-L-MSB (S.D. Cal.),
Judge M. James Lorenz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss
with leave to amend.
Background
The Plaintiffs filed the action in state court. The Defendant
removed it to the Court. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. section 1332.
The Defendant is a New York corporation that markets and sells
household merchandise. It sells merchandise in its stores and
online. For $29 a year, customers can enroll in Beyond + (also
referred to as "the membership"), which offers them a 20% discount
on all purchases and "free" shipping. Beyond + automatically renews
each year.
On Aug. 11, 2018, Plaintiff Turnier purchased an item from the
Defendant on its website and enrolled in Beyond +. The enrollment
cost was $31.25 (the $29 fee plus taxes). Turnier was charged that
amount again in 2019 and 2020.
On Aug. 12, 2019, Plaintiff Beatrice Moran purchased an item from
the Defendant. The Defendant did not disclose it enrolled Moran in
Beyond +. On Aug. 10, 2020, Defendant charged Moran $31.97.
The Plaintiffs allege the Defendant failed to disclose information
on Beyond +'s autorenewal terms as required under California's
Automatic Renewal Law ("ARL") (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section
17600).
Pending before the Court in the putative class action is the
Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs opposed, and the
Defendant replied. Judge Lorenz decides the matter without oral
argument.
Discussion
The Defendant argues the Plaintiffs failed to state a plausible
claim under California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"),
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), or False Advertising Law ("FAL").
A. Consumers Legal Remedies Act
CLRA prohibits businesses from engaging in certain unlawful acts or
practices. It applies to transactions for "goods" or "services."
The Defendant argues the membership is neither.
"Goods" means tangible chattels bought or leased for personal,
family, or household purposes, including certificates or coupons
exchangeable for those chattels. "Services" means work, labor, and
services for other than a commercial or business use, including
services furnished in connection with the sale or repair of goods.
The Plaintiffs argue the membership is a "coupon," and therefore a
"good" under CLRA. But, Judge Lorenz finds, as alleged, the
membership (and its 20% discount) is not exchanged for tangible
items. Instead, it provides members with a set discount on all
purchases.
The Plaintiffs also argue the membership is a "service" because
members receive "free" standard shipping for all purchases. Judge
Lorenz agrees that shipping might be considered a service. Even so,
as alleged, that service is not provided under the membership.
Instead, it eliminates the cost to members. For these reasons, the
Judge dismisses the CLRA claim.
B. Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law
The available remedies under UCL and FAL include injunctive relief
and restitution. The Defendant argues the Plaintiffs failed to
allege a plausible entitlement to that relief. (
Judge Lorenz explains that the difference between what the
plaintiff paid and the value of what the plaintiff received is a
proper measure of restitution. In the case, the Judge cannot infer
from the factual allegations that the Plaintiffs lacked access to
the membership's benefits or knowledge about their re-enrollment.
And the membership at renewal had some value (access to discounts
on all purchases and "free" shipments). The Plaintiffs also do not
argue the ARL violations altered the value of the renewed
memberships. Overall, the Judge holds that the factual allegations
fail to support a plausible claim for restitution. For that reason,
he dismisses the UCL and FAL claims. The laintiffs need to set
forth a plausible claim for restitution supported with factual
allegations.
C. Judicial Notice
The Defendant requests judicial notice of terms and conditions that
purportedly relate to the Beyond + enrollment. Judge Lorenz's
ruling does not rely on that document. Therefore, the request is
denied.
D. Leave to Amend
Judge Lorenz holds that the Plaintiffs might cure the deficiencies
if given leave to amend. He therefore grants their request. The
Plaintiffs have leave to amend their allegations to support the
CLRA, UCL, and FAL claims.
Conclusion
For the reasons he stated, Judge Lorenz grants the Defendant's
motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The Plaintiffs have until
Oct. 1, 2021, to file an amended complaint. The Defendant will have
the time set forth under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3)
to file a response.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 15, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2m2ph9uc from Leagle.com.
BEN HOGAN GOLF: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ben Hogan Golf
Equipment Company, LLC. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
v. Ben Hogan Golf Equipment Company, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-05342
(E.D.N.Y., Sept. 27, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ben Hogan Golf Equipment Company -- https://benhogangolf.com/ --
manufactures premium golf clubs and golf bags.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
BERGAILA & ASSOCIATES: Underpays Field Inspectors, Tollefson Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES TOLLEFSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BERGAILA & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 7:21-cv-00171 (W.D. Tex., September 23, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated field inspectors overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a field inspector in
Odessa, Texas from approximately July 2019 to March 2020.
Bergaila & Associates, Inc. is a staffing company that operates in
the oil and gas industry, headquartered in Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Don J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP
4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
BOOZ ALLEN: Contractors Ensnared in No-Poach Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
jdsupra.com reports that for many federal government contractors,
their skilled and experienced workforce may be their most valuable
asset. A recent "ice breaker" settlement of a class action lawsuit,
however, demonstrates the wrong way to protect that asset. The
settlement underscores the significant difference between
permissible no-hire and non-solicitation provisions that are
ubiquitous in teaming agreements and subcontracts, on the one hand,
and illegal "no poach" agreements that may violate the antitrust
laws, on the other. No-poach cases and enforcement actions are on
the rise, and this most recent settlement provides a helpful
example of practices that can lead to substantial litigation risk.
The settlement is also a good illustration of how poorly conceived
emails can provide enforcement authorities and plaintiffs with
ammunition to aggressively pursue their claims.
The Case
A proposed class of current and former employees alleges that
prominent government contractors Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. ("Booz
Allen"), Mission Essential Personnel, LLC ("Mission Essential"),
and CACI International Inc. ("CACI") entered into an illegal
agreement not to recruit or hire one another's employees working on
certain contracts to provide intelligence services to the U.S.
Government at a former Royal Air Force base in Molesworth, England
("JAC Molesworth"). The Plaintiffs' lawsuit seeks treble or triple
damages and injunctive relief, and is brought on behalf of a
proposed class of all persons employed by CACI, Mission Essential,
or Booz Allen at JAC Molesworth, beginning January 1, 2015 through
the present. A federal court in Ohio refused to dismiss the
allegations and the Plaintiffs have filed a motion asking the court
to certify the proposed class of plaintiffs. The latest development
in this ongoing litigation is that CACI recently agreed to settle
with the Plaintiffs, leaving Booz Allen and Mission Essential to
continue to defend themselves against the Plaintiffs' antitrust
claims.
According to the Complaint, before entering into the alleged
agreement, the three Defendant contractors competed with one
another to attract qualified workers to provide intelligence
services funded by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency ("DIA") and
Department of Defense ("DOD") at JAC Molesworth. Each of the three
contractors purportedly held multi-year Indefinite
Duration/Indefinite Quantity ("IDIQ") contracts to provide
intelligence services and support under the U.S. Government's
Solutions for Intelligence Analysis II program, which authorizes up
to $5.6 billion in defense intelligence spending. The IDIQ
contracts enabled the contractors to bid on specific task orders
and requests for proposals to provide certain services and products
required to execute the Solutions for Intelligence Analysis II
program. Consequently, the employees working on the particular task
orders awarded to each of the three Defendants often worked
side-by-side to provide similar or related services. Plaintiffs
allege that, in this environment, the risk that one contractor
might hire — or "poach" — another contractor's employees
already working at JAC Molesworth was particularly attractive
because the employee is already resident at the non-U.S. location
and, thus, hiring that employee means the new employer will not
have to pay relocation expenses for the employee to move from the
U.S. to England.
In addition, Plaintiffs allege that employees providing
intelligence services at JAC Molesworth were required to be U.S.
citizens and to have top-secret security clearances, which are
expensive, administratively burdensome, and time-consuming to
obtain and maintain. Thus, the pool of possible candidates was
limited, and competition between the three Defendants to recruit
and retain these specific contractors led to increased salary and
other employment costs. Plaintiffs allege that in order to minimize
these costs, Booz Allen, CACI, and Mission Essential agreed not to
recruit or hire one another's employees working on contracts for
intelligence services at JAC Molesworth. Such agreements, often
referred to as "no-poach agreements," have been a significant focus
of recent antitrust litigation – both by the federal competition
authorities and in private litigation.
The Complaint includes detailed and specific allegations regarding
the purported agreement and directly quotes from email
communications sent by Defendants' representatives to employees
impacted by the alleged no-poach agreements. For example, the
allegations claim that in August 2018, Booz Allen invited Mission
Essential employees to a job fair at JAC Molesworth. The Complaint
specifically quotes from a Mission Essential supervisor's email to
his employees regarding the job fair, writing "DO NOT go. The no
poaching agreement is still in place so they are not allowed to
talk to you." Additionally, named Plaintiffs Sarah Hunter and David
Youtz, both former Mission Essential employees, allege that they
applied for and were denied new jobs with Booz Allen and CACI, and
were informed, either verbally or via email, that they were not
hired because of no-poach agreements in place between the three
companies.
CACI's Icebreaker Settlement
On September 17, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a motion announcing a
settlement with CACI. Under the terms of the settlement, CACI will
pay $200,000 to resolve all claims against it. The proposed
Settlement Class is all persons employed by the Defendants at JAC
Molesworth from January 1, 2015 through June 1, 2021, which is the
date the settlement agreement was executed. The motion does not
reveal how the parties calculated the $200,000 settlement amount
and states that the settlement was reached through mediation with a
court-appointed mediator. As the likely "icebreaker settlement" –
i.e., the first settlement in the litigation – CACI's settlement
amount is likely much lower than what Plaintiffs will be willing to
settle with Booz Allen or Mission Essential should they too decide
to resolve the claims. Indeed, the settlement agreement
specifically states that CACI's settlement does not impact
Plaintiffs' ability to continue to pursue their claims against
remaining Defendants, Booz Allen and Mission Essential, who are
jointly and severally liable for the alleged damages resulting from
the purported agreement. In class action litigation, it is common
for the first settling defendant to receive the best deal.
Class Certification is Pending
CACI's settlement comes on the heels of the completion of class
certification briefing and the upcoming October hearing date for
Plaintiffs' argument in favor of class certification. The Complaint
estimates that there are as many as 300 people in the proposed
class. A win on class certification would certainly bolster the
potency of the Plaintiffs' case. In contrast, if class
certification is denied, the litigation will have to proceed only
on behalf of the two named plaintiffs and the scope of potential
damages will be significantly reduced. It is not uncommon for
plaintiffs' counsel to withdraw lawsuits following denial of class
certification.
In addition to this matter, there has been a proliferation of
no-poach class action lawsuits filed in the past couple of years
and many in the antitrust bar will be monitoring closely the
outcome and underlying reasoning of the Plaintiffs' class
certification motion. A key question is whether the alleged
anticompetitive impact and corresponding damages can be reasonably
calculated on a class-wide basis or are more individualized. In
their opposition to the Motion for Class Certification, the
Defendants argue that each company had its own unique compensation
structure and that any alleged impact on employees resulting from
the purported no-poach agreement cannot be calculated on a
class-wide basis, but would instead require individualized
determinations that are not appropriate for a class action.
What This Means For You
There is no doubt that no-poach cases and enforcement actions are
on the rise. Just in the past year, the Department of Justice's
Antitrust Division has obtained four criminal indictments charging
companies and individuals with criminal violations of the antitrust
laws for purported no-poach agreements. So far, the public
indictments have all been connected to the health care space.
However, public disclosures have revealed grand jury no-poach
investigations are reportedly underway in a variety of other
industries. In 2016, the Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade
Commission jointly announced that the criminal prosecution of
no-poach conduct would be a top enforcement priority going forward.
Approximately four years later in 2020, that prioritization seems
to be coming to fruition in the form of multiple criminal no-poach
cases and investigations. Further, the Biden Administration's
recent Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American
Economy doubled down on no-poach agreements and non-compete
restrictions as areas of heightened scrutiny and enforcement.
As the emails quoted in the Complaint against CACI, Booz Allen, and
Mission Essential illustrate, many companies, individual managers,
and supervisors do not realize that no-poach agreements violate the
antitrust laws and are illegal. Educating company leadership, human
resource professionals, and other employees with hiring and
recruiting responsibility is essential to minimizing criminal
antitrust exposure and private lawsuits targeting no-poach conduct.
Penalties for no-poach violations can be severe. Companies
convicted of no-poach crimes may face statutory fines of up to $100
million, and possibly more. Individual employees face imprisonment
of up to ten years and $1 million fines. And in the civil and
private litigation context, damages for antitrust violations,
including no-poach conduct, are subject to trebling and to joint
and several liability.
Corporate compliance training and policy revisions are of utmost
importance now that the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division
has signaled that it will take compliance efforts into account when
deciding whether to charge a company with antitrust crimes. [GN]
BRANDON NURSING: Green FMLA Suit Claims Interference & Retaliation
------------------------------------------------------------------
LATASHA GREEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BRANDON NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER,
LLC, and AURORA CARES, LLC d/b/a TARA CARES, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-00610-TSL-RPM (S.D. Miss., September 23, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for interference and retaliation in
violation of the Family Medical Leave Act.
Ms. Green worked for Defendant Brandon Nursing & Rehabilitation
Center as a certified nursing assistant instructor from March 2018
until her termination in 2020.
Brandon Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, LLC is a company that
operates a long-term care nursing facility located in Brandon,
Mississippi.
Aurora Cares, LLC, doing business as Tara Cares, is a provider of
administrative support services and oversight for multiple nursing
home facilities in Mississippi, headquartered in Orchard Park, New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan B. Fairbank, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN B. FAIRBANK
5760 I-55 North, Suite 450
Jackson, MS 39211
Telephone: (601) 956-8999
E-mail: jonfairbanklaw@gmail.com
- and –
Rocco Calamusa, Jr., Esq.
Rachel L. McGinley, Esq.
WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS, FISHER & GOLDFARB, L.L.C.
The Kress Building
301 19th Street North
Birmingham, MS 35203
Telephone: (205) 314-0500
E-mail: rcalamusa@wigginschilds.com
BUILD-A-BEAR: Ruby TCPA Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Benjamin Ruby, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc., Case No.
21sl-cc03859 was removed from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County
to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri on Sept. 24, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-01152 to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc. -- https://www.buildabear.com/ -- is an
American retailer headquartered in Saint Louis, Missouri that sells
teddy bears and other stuffed animals and characters.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Edward T. Pivin, Esq.
LEWIS RICE LLC - St Louis
Suite 2500
St. Louis, MO 63101
Phone: (314) 444-7851
Fax: (314) 612-7851
Email: epivin@lewisrice.com
CALIFORNIA: ADA Suit Filed in N.D. California
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the State of
California, et al. The case is styled as E. E. by and through her
guardian ad litem A.J., L. N. by and through his guardian ad litem
K.N., on behalf of themselves and a class of those similarly
situated, Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund v. State of
California, California State Board of Education, California
Department of Education, Case No. 3:21-cv-07585-AGT (N.D. Cal.,
Sept. 28, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
California -- https://www.ca.gov/ -- is a western U.S. state that
stretches from the Mexican border along the Pacific for nearly 900
miles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melinda Ruth Bird, Esq.
Lauren Misako Lystrup, Esq.
Robert John Borrelle, Jr., Esq.
DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA
350 South Bixel Street, Suite 290
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 213-8000
Fax: (213) 213-8001
Email: melinda.bird@disabilityrightsca.org
lauren.lystrup@disabilityrightsca.org
robert.borrelle@disabilityrightsca.org
- and -
Claudia Center, Esq.
DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION AND DEFENSE FUND
3075 Adeline Street, Suite 210
Berkeley, CA 94703
Phone: (510) 644-2555
Fax: (510) 841-8645
Email: ccenter@dredf.org
- and -
David W German, Esq.
VANAMAN GERMAN LLP
14001 Ventura Boulevard
Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
Phone: (818) 990-7722
Fax: (818) 501-1306
Email: dgerman@vanamangerman.com
CALIFORNIA: Quair's Bid to Appoint Counsel in Suit v. Jail Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SAMMY R. QUAIR, SR., Plaintiff v. DAVE ROBINSON, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01214-EPG (PC) (E.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California denied the Plaintiff's motion to
appoint counsel.
Background
The Plaintiff is an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
in the civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section
1983. On Aug. 11, 2021, the Plaintiff filed the complaint
commencing the action. He alleges claims related to Kings County
Jail's COVID-19 protocols. The complaint is currently awaiting
screening.
On Sept. 6, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a motion requesting leave to
amend his complaint in order to plead a class action. According to
the motion, the Plaintiff has "submitted his tablet pin number" to
the Court for investigation regarding the COVID-19 rules
violation(s) in the Kings County Jail. He has also submitted his
pin number to "Department of Justices" in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, Sacramento, California, and Fresno, California, to
investigate 135 grievances the Plaintiff has filed since 2019.
In his motion, the Plaintiff explains that he seeks leave to amend
because he "has not seen any changes in the 'quarantine' section(s)
of the jail and the rise of covid 19 and more inmates have
contracted covid 19 in this jail and the Plaintiff has not seen
medical for further covid 19 testings as the Plaintiff's last test
was negative."
The Plaintiff requests that he be appointed counsel "based on the
severe nature of a 'global pandemic' covid 19." He also requests
that he be granted leave to amend "to correct any errors, flaws or
mistakes in the initial filings" of the case and to add two Kings
County Jail detainees as the Plaintiffs in the case.
One individual, Roul Rodriguez, caught COVID-19 while in custody at
the Kings County Jail due to not sanitizing quarantine pods and was
hospitalized. Brian Sharp caught COVID-19 two times while in
custody and was assaulted by staff while deathly sick and pleading
for help. The Plaintiff "was moved from C2 #7 to ad-seg for
'retaliation' in C6 #52" and the cell was not sanitized accordingly
by sheriff's deputy Mr. Van Ness when forewarned that the Plaintiff
has valley fever and hepatitis C and contracting Covid-19 can
possibly kill Plaintiff at the age of 51 years old. The Plaintiff
also seeks to increase his damages request from $1.5 million to
$3.5 million.
Discussion
A. Motion to Appoint Counsel
Judge Grosjean finds that the Plaintiff does not have a
constitutional right to appointed counsel in the action, and the
Court cannot require an attorney to represent the Plaintiff
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(1). However, in certain
exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary
assistance of counsel pursuant to Section 1915(e)(1).
Judge Grosjean will not order appointment of pro bono counsel at
this time. She says, the complaint is currently awaiting screening
and she is unable to make a determination at this time that the
Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims.
Additionally, there is no indication that the Plaintiff is unable
to adequately articulate his claims. The Plaintiff is not precluded
from renewing his motion for appointment of pro bono counsel at a
later stage of the proceedings.
B. Motion for Leave to Amend
Judge Grosjean will recommend that the Plaintiff's motion for leave
to amend be denied because amendment would be futile. She finds
that the Plaintiff states that he seeks leave to amend in order to
include class action allegations. However, the Plaintiff is not
entitled to file a class action lawsuit, or assert claims on behalf
of anyone except himself, because he is appearing pro se. The
Plaintiff may only represent himself pro se (without a lawyer), not
others. Therefore, the Judge finds that amendment would be futile
and recommends denying the motion.
The Plaintiff also requests that he be granted leave to correct any
mistakes in the complaint. However, the complaint is currently
awaiting screening. Once the Court has screened the complaint, the
Plaintiff will be given options on how to proceed, including the
ability to amend his complaint to fix any deficiencies in the
allegations if appropriate.
Conclusion
Accordingly, Judge Grosjean denied the Plaintiff's motion to
appoint counsel. The Clerk of Court is directed to randomly assign
a District Judge to the action. Further, Judge Grosjean recommended
that the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint be
denied.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the assigned
United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of
28 U.S.C. Section 636 (b)(1)(B). Within 14 days after service of
the findings and recommendations, the Plaintiff may file written
objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned
"Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation." The
assigned United States District Court Judge will then review the
Magistrate Judge's ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
636(b)(1)(C). The Plaintiff is advised that failure to file
objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal
the District Court's order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 15, 2021 Findings &
Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/235mvva9 from
Leagle.com.
CANADA: Black Federal Workers File Racism Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Day, writing for Global Government Forum, reports that after
the polls close in the Canadian federal election scheduled for 20
September, the newly-formed government will have to decide its next
steps on a C$900m (US$711m) class action lawsuit brought by its
black federal workers. Alleging decades of systematic and
institutional racism, the class action -- filed in the Federal
Court of Canada in December last year -- has grown from 12 initial
claimants to more than 520. The case has been brought on behalf of
all black federal employees that have experienced discrimination
and racism in their employment since 1970, and could cover 300,000
past and present workers.
Prime minister Justin Trudeau has acknowledged that institutional
racism is rife within the country's public sector. "Systematic
racism is an issue across the country, in all our institutions," he
said in June. During the election campaign, he has pledged that a
re-elected Liberal government would establish a fund to support the
"mental health of black Canadians in the public service". The
pledge was viewed as a softening in stance, after the government
had maintained that it already had systems in place to help black
workers.
Liberal Party spokesperson Alex Wellstead recently commented that
"Black Canadians face unique challenges in the workplace," adding:
"That is why we've committed to work on the design and
establishment of this fund, which directly responds to calls from
black employees in the public service and will ensure that black
public servants are supported,' CBC reported.
However, claimants vowed to press on with the action. Black Class
Action, which is co-ordinating the suit, said it hopes that
whichever party forms the next government will work with black
civil servants to address their concerns. "If they do, then they
will have a willing partner," said Hugh R. Scher, a Black Class
Action lawyer. "If they don't, they will have a worthy adversary in
court."
The asks
The action states that it is seeking "long-term solutions to
permanently address racism and discrimination" in Canada's public
sector. Alongside the creation of a C$900m financial compensation
fund to address the "pain, suffering and financial losses" of black
workers over the past 50 years, it asks for the creation of a Black
Equity Commission charged with investigating the challenges faced
by black workers, implementing solutions and holding other public
bodies to account. It is also seeking an "equitable representation"
policy, to ensure the number of black federal employees at least
equals that of the general population, and an apology from the
prime minister. In addition, it wants an external reporting
mechanism so workers can report racism and harassment; and an
option for people to declare themselves as ‘black' in employee
monitoring forms rather than ‘visible minority'.
The next potential step for the case is for it to be certified. As
the landmark suit brings together three initial claims, a court
judge must approve it as a class action, thereby binding all the
claimants together. There is no set timetable for this yet. This
approval would then pave the way for court proceedings. Any new
government will have to decide whether to continue negotiations, or
challenge the certification in court.
In the final days of election campaigning, several of the claimants
spoke out about their experiences. Carol Sip, a former employee of
the Canada Revenue Agency, said her time there became a
"nightmare". She reported multiple incidents of racism and
harassment by her supervisor, but only two of her complaints were
upheld. She told CBC that she felt blacklisted for complaining, and
in 26 years was never promoted beyond her clerical position. "I
look at the young children growing up and I don't want them to go
through what I personally went through, or the others have gone
through," she said. [GN]
CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Minor Abuse in Government Care
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Ballard, writing for CBC News, reports that two B.C. women who
say they suffered varying forms of abuse while they were minors and
under the care of the government are representatives in a
class-action lawsuit that is open to victims of abuse over the past
four decades.
The Ministry of Child Development and Family [MCDF], the Ministry
of Justice [MOJ], the Public Guardian and Trustee [PGT], and the
Worker's Compensation Board [WCB] are all named as defendants.
On Sept. 17, a B.C. Supreme Court judge certified the class action
lawsuit, allowing it to proceed. It targets multiple provincial
ministries and public institutions, alleging they failed to protect
vulnerable children who were victimized while in government care.
The class-action suit is open to people who suffered injury as a
result of crime or tort either before or while they were under the
guardianship of the B.C. child welfare system between July 1, 1972
and Sept. 17, 2021.
Compensation for victims of crime
The lawsuit arises out of the alleged failure of the defendants to
inform the plaintiffs that they were eligible for compensation and
other benefits due to the crimes they experienced.
One of the plaintiffs, referred to in court documents as K.S., says
she suffered sexual abuse at the age of four and five and further
emotional abuse afterwards.
When the MCFD became aware of the situation, K.S. was brought into
the foster system. She later became a permanent ward of the Crown
and began to live independently at the age of 15, while still under
the care of the government, the documents say.
At 17, she says she was assaulted by a classmate.
"At no time prior to this litigation did those social workers or
anyone else inform K.S. that as a result of these events, she could
make claims for benefits or compensation under crime victim
legislation or through a civil suit for damages," says her notice
of civil claim.
K.S. also alleges she was never informed, as a minor, whose
interests the government was supposed to protect and that she was
eligible for counselling and other benefits due to the crime that
was committed against her when she was a child.
The second representative plaintiff, M.C., was sexually abused at
the age of 14.
"The Injurious Crime caused M.C. injury, including psychological
injury, which necessitated and entitled M.C. to benefits and
compensation," the claim said.
M.S. claims the MCFD and its agents were aware of the crime
committed against her, but never informed her that she was entitled
to anything.
In B.C., victims of crimes are entitled to financial benefits to
help offset losses and assist in recovery.
Class action certification
In order for a class action to proceed it needs to be certified by
the court. But certification does not determine the merit of the
allegations.
"Nonetheless, this application was presented and argued,
particularly by the defendants, as though it were a summary trial
with considerable emphasis on the merits of the proposed defences,"
wrote B.C. Supreme Court Justice Ronald Skolrood.
To certify a class-action lawsuit, a judge must determine whether
it has five components needed to continue: a cause of action; a
class of two or more people; common issues to be argued; a
representative plaintiff and a determination that a class action is
more appropriate than individual claims.
Skolrood found there was reasonable cause of action in negligence
and breach of fiduciary duty against the MCFD and PGT.
He also found a reasonable cause of action for a claim of
negligence against the Justice Ministry and the WCB.
In the end, the judge was satisfied that the class action met all
five required components, according to court documents.
None of the claims have been proven in court. [GN]
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Loera Sues Over Denied Breaks, Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Loera, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Cellco Partnership and Does 1 through 100,
Defendants, Case No. 21-CV386962 (Cal. Super., September 22, 2021),
seeks redress for Defendants' failure to authorize or permit
required meal periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide
accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the form of
continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages
due upon separation of employment, non-reimbursement of
business-related expenses, failure to maintain time-keeping
records, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable
attorney's fees, costs and interest under California Labor Code and
applicable Industrial Wage Orders.
CELLCO operates as Verizon Wireless where Loera worked as a as an
hourly-paid, non-exempt employee, from approximately July 2011 to
April 2021. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Tel: (818) 265-1020
Fax: (818) 265-1021
CLARWESTERN DIETRICH: Rueda Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clarwestern Dietrich
Building Systems LLC, et al. The case is styled as Gilberto Rueda,
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Clarwestern Dietrich
Building Systems LLC, Does 1-20, Case No.
34-2021-00307823-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Sept.
14, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited."
Clarwestern Dietrich Building Systems --
https://www.clarkdietrich.com/ -- is the largest manufacturer of
cold-formed steel framing in North America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
9811 Irvine Center Drive Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: (949) 379-6250
Fax: (949) 379-6251
Email: swong@aegislawfirm.com
COINBASE GLOBAL: Fails to Secure Fund Transfers, Zubin Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN ZUBIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC., COINBASE, INC.,
PHILLIP MARTIN, MATTHEW MULLER, and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-07478 (N.D. Cal., September 24, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Electronic Funds
Transfer Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to take
appropriate actions to remedy unauthorized electronic fund
transfers on the Coinbase exchange. Coinbase's failure to protect
its affected users from unauthorized electronic funds transfers is
a breach of its duty of reasonable care to safeguard Coinbase
users' accounts, which has resulted in substantial economic loss to
Coinbase users. Coinbase has essentially turned a blind eye to the
systemic breaches of security on its exchange, leaving affected
Coinbase users without recourse, short of litigation, to correct
these issues, says the suit.
Coinbase Global, Inc. is a company that operates cryptocurrency
exchanges and other related businesses around the world.
Coinbase, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Coinbase Global,
Inc., with its principal place of business in San Francisco,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew D. Carlson, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW D. CARLSON
3959 N. Buffalo Road, Suite 29
Orchard Park, NY 14127
Telephone: (716) 242-1234
E-mail: mdcarlson@mdcarlsonlaw.com
COINMARKETCAP LLC: Faces Crypto Class Action Lawsuit in Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------------
A group of holders of the HEX decentralized crypto token, who call
themselves "Hexicans," on Sept. 20 announced that they have joined
forces in a class action lawsuit against ranking site
CoinMarketCap. In Cox v. CoinMarketCap OpCo, LLC et al., filed on
September 13 in the United States District Court for the District
of Arizona (§ 3:21-CV-08197), the plaintiff Ryan Cox, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated, alleges that
CoinMarketCap, unlawfully suppressed the value of HEX.
CoinMarketCap had been an independent entity but was later acquired
by Binance Capital Management. The HEX owners allege that its
crypto community was unfairly censored and "gatekept" by its
competitors. Plaintiffs are represented by George Wentz, Jr.,
Alexander Kolodin and Christopher Viskovic of The Davillier Law
Group, LLC in Phoenix.
CoinMarketCap.com, (CMC) now owned by Binance, was absorbed into
one of the largest digital asset companies in the crypto universe,
and has "not only illegally suppressed Hex's ranking but also is
engaging in clear, anti-trust violations as a monopolistic
enterprise," according to the complaint. HEX is arguing that CMC is
propping up competing coins while suppressing its competitors,
including HEX in that pool of digital asset companies.
Effectively, HEX holders see Binance's purchase of a ranking site
as a conflict of interest. An example in traditional financial
markets might be if the top three ratings agencies, i.e., Moody's,
Standard & Poor's, and Fitch, were to buy a controlling interest in
companies they themselves ranked, giving their newly purchased
companies an unfair and biased advantage. The acquisition is
detrimental to the cryptocurrency currency community, given the
conflict of interest between the individual missions of CMC, a
ranking site, and CMC's parent company Binance, a cryptocurrency
exchange.
"Hexicans filed a ‘Cease and Desist' order that was received by
CMC and Binance," said spokesperson and HEX investor, Timothy
Benjamin. "CMC ignored the court documents, placing HEX in the
position of reaching out and petitioning CMC for over a year. Yet
CMC still ignored HEX and our investor community. We have had
enough. Now it is time to act and escalate the case."
Benjamin continued, "Experts in the cryptocurrency community, such
as Adel de Meyer have warned the crypto community that CMC (under
the control of Binance) has the ability to ‘hide cryptocurrency
at will,' leaving CMC's dominance in the industry open to
collusion, corruption and coercion."
For more information go to https://twitter.com/tbdunamis?s=21
George Wentz, Jr., Esq.
The Davillier Law Group, LLC
+1 208-920-6140 [GN]
COWORX STAFFING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Larsen Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
CLIFFORD LARSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COWORX STAFFING SERVICES, LLC; COWORX
PERSONNEL, LLC; BULGARI CORPORATION OF AMERICA; CHANEL, INC.;
BLOOMINGDALE'S, LLC; BLOOMINGDALES.COM, LLC; BLOOMINGDALE'S THE
OUTLET STORE, LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 37-2021-00039021-Cu-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty.,
Sept. 14, 2021) is an action against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal
and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.
Plaintiff Larsen was employed by the Defendants as staff.
COWORX STAFFING SERVICES, LLC is a staffing agency providing
warehouse jobs and clerical jobs. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
Kashif Haque, Esq.
Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 379-6250
Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
COWORX STAFFING: Galvez Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LYSETTE GALVEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. COWORX STAFFING SERVICES LLC, MICHAEL
EPSTEIN, ROBERT BADOLATO, TIM HARTNETT, KEN SUDNIKOVICH, and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. CGC-19-578983, was removed from the
Superior Court in the State of California, San Francisco County, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
September 23, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-07435 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay
minimum and regular wages, failure to make timely final wage
payments, failure to provide proper itemized wage statements,
failure to reimburse expenses, unfair competition, and failure to
timely produce wage statements and personnel files.
CoWorx Staffing Services LLC is a temporary staffing agency
providing warehouse jobs and clerical jobs, headquartered in
Morristown, New Jersey. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
David R. Ongaro, Esq.
ONGARO PC
1604 Union Street
San Francisco, CA 94123
Telephone: (415) 433-3900
Facsimile: (415) 433-3950
E-mail: dongaro@ongaropc.com
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Salone Suit Moved From S.D. Ohio to E.D. Mo.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GARY SALONE, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD U.S., INC.; CUSHMAN &
WAKEFIELD, INC.; and JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, Case No.
2:21-cv-00414, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri on September 24, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-01151-RWS to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and
the Ohio Prompt Pay Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and
similarly situated maintenance technicians overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
Cushman & Wakefield U.S., Inc. is a provider of facility
maintenance, cleaning, and related services, headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois.
Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. is a commercial real estate services
firm, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: 614-386-9964
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
CYTODYN INC: Bylaws' Removal Provision Violates DGCL, Schielke Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Robert Schielke and Lois J. Schielke, as Joint Tenants, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated stockholders
of CytoDyn, Plaintiff, v. Cytodyn Inc., Scott A. Kelly, M.D., Nader
Z. Pourhassan, Ph.D., Gordon A. Gardiner, Jordan G. Naydenov, Samir
R. Patel, M.D. and Alan P. Timmins, Defendants, Case No. 2021-0818,
(Del. Ch., September 22, 2021), seeks a declaratory judgment that
the Removal Provision of Cytodyn's certificate of incorporation
violates Section 141(k) of the Delaware General Corporation Law
(DGCL).
CytoDyn is a biotechnology company based in Vancouver, WA.
According to the Cytodyn's bylaws as currently effective, directors
may be removed only in the manner provided in its certificate of
incorporation. Plaintiffs insists, under Section 141(k) of the
DGCL, any director or the entire board of directors may be removed,
with or without cause, by the holders of a majority of the shares
then entitled to vote at an election of directors, unless an
exception applies.
CytoDyn did not obtain the number of votes required for the
stockholders to approve the amendment to the Removal Provision. In
the years since, the Board has taken no further action to remedy
the Removal Provision and remains part of the company's presently
effective certificate of incorporation, says the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian P. Murray, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave., Suite 358
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Email: bmurray@glancylaw.com
- and -
Werner R. Kranenburg, Esq.
KRANENBURG
80-83 Long Lane
London EC1A 9ET
United Kingdom
Telephone: +44-20-3174-0365
Email: werner@kranenburgesq.com
DANIEL FLEISCHMAN: Wilson Files Suit in E.D. Louisiana
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Daniel Fleischman, et
al. The case is styled as Vance Keith Wilson, Jr., Frank William
Beckendorf, III, Michael Joseph Singer, Clint John Roberson, on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Daniel Fleischman, Randy
Smith, J. Smith Cpl., Stephanie Atkins, J. Ham, individually and in
their official capacity, Case No. 2:21-cv-01700-LMA-KWR (E.D. La.,
Sept. 15, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Petitions for Prisoner
Civil Rights.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appear pro se.
DANISCO USA: Fails to Provide Proper Wage Pay, Gray Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
RUSSELL E. GRAY III, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DANISCO USA, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:21-cv-00346-JRS-DLP (S.D. Ind., Sept. 15, 2021) seeks to
recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as staff.
Danisco USA Inc. operates in the food industry. The Company
produces enzymes, ingredients, and bio-based solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq.
HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP
100 Cherry Street
Terre Haute, IN 47807
Telephone: (812) 232-9691
Facsimile: (812) 234-2881
E-mail: kondras@hkmlawfirm.com
DIRECT ENERGY: Newman Files TCPA Suit in D. Maryland
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Direct Energy, LP.
The case is styled as Holly Newman, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Direct Energy, LP, Case No.
1:21-cv-02446 (D. Md., Sept. 24, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Direct Energy -- https://www.directenergy.com/ -- offers
electricity, natural gas and home services across the U.S. and
Canada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
5101 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 305
Washington, DC 20016
Phone: (202) 429-2290
Fax: (202) 429-2294
Email: gmason@masonllp.com
DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES: Ronquillo Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Doctor's Associates
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Mariel Ronquillo, individually,
and on Behalf of all others similarly situated v. Doctor's
Associates LLC, HP Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04903 (N.D. Ill., Sept.
15, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Doctor's Associates Inc., doing business as SUBWAY --
https://www.subway.com/ -- is an American fast food restaurant
franchise that primarily sells submarine sandwiches, salads and
beverages.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
WOLF HALDSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
111 W. Jackson St., Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 984-0000
Email: malmstrom@whafh.com
DT EMPLOYER: Rosales Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rocio Rosales, as an individual and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. DT EMPLOYER LLC, a Virginia Corporation; HILTON
EMPLOYER INC., a Virginia Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Case No. 30-2021-01221604-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.,
Sept. 16, 2021), is brought for violations of Labor Code and Wage
Order 5 for the Defendants failure to provide the Plaintiff and
other aggrieved employees all minimum and overtime wages for hours
worked.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees
were regularly required to use their personal cell phones for work
purposes and required to purchase their own uniform, which included
shoes for work purposes and not reimbursed for this expense
incurred in order to perform their job duties in violation of
California Labor Code section 2802 and the applicable California
Industrial Welfare Commission wage order(s). Moreover, the
Defendants had a policy, pattern or practice of requiring or
pressuring its employees to take late, short, on-premises, on-call,
interrupted, or no 10-minute rest breaks and/or 30-minute meal
breaks at a reasonably practicable time. The Defendants would not
compensate the Plaintiff for all of their missed, short, late,
on-premises or interrupted meal breaks or rest periods throughout
their employment nor were they paid all of premium wages for the
missed, short, late, on-call, on-premises or interrupted meal
breaks and rest periods that should have been paid.
Furthermore, throughout the Plaintiff's employment, her paystubs
did not accurately reflect her applicable total hours worked, net
wages earned, gross wages earned and actual applicable wage rate
all in violation of California Labor Code Section 226(a). During
the Plaintiff's employment, the Defendants had a policy where it
did not pay minimum wages and overtime wages that should have been
paid. These monies were supposed to be paid out to the Plaintiff
and the other employees at the time the wages were earned or upon
termination, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a nonexempt employee
associated with housekeeping tasks associated with cleaning rooms
for customers at the Defendants' hotel.
DT Employer, LLC is a Virginia corporation doing business in the
State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Armond M. Jackson, Esq.
JACKSON APC
2 Venture Plaza, Ste. 240
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: (949) 281-6857
Fax: (949) 777-6218
EARGO INC: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
it is investigating potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Eargo, Inc. (NASDAQ: EAR) resulting from
allegations that Eargo may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Eargo 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
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2162.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On September 22, 2021, after market hours,
Eargo disclosed that "it is the target of a criminal investigation
by the U.S. Department of Justice (the 'DOJ') related to insurance
reimbursement claims the Company has submitted on behalf of its
customers covered by federal employee health plans." The Company
further stated that "[a]s previously disclosed, the Company has
been the subject of an ongoing claims audit by an insurance company
that is the Company's largest third-party payor. The Company has
been informed by the insurance company that the DOJ is now the
principal contact related to the subject matter of the audit."
Finally, the Company announced that it "is withdrawing its
financial guidance for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2021."
On this news, Eargo's shares fell approximately 60% during
after-hours trading on September 22, 2021 and pre-market trading
September 23, 2021, damaging investors.
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. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. 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.[BN]
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]
EDWARD SLOAN: Long Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Edward Sloan and
Associates Inc. The case is styled as David A. Long, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Edward Sloan and
Associates Inc., Case No. 5:21-cv-00204-H (N.D. Tex., Sept. 28,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Edward Sloan and Associates -- https://www.esacollections.com/ --
is a collection agency located in Winnsboro, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Ann McLaughlin, Esq.
Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
Omar Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq.
Victor Thomas Metroff, Esq.
Marwan R. Daher, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (331) 307-7646
Fax: (630) 575-8188
Email: jennifer.a.filipiak@gmail.com
mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com
vmetroff@sulaimanlaw.com
mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com
ELEKTA INC: Harrington Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Elekta, Inc. The case
is styled as Deborah Harrington, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Elekta, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-03997-SDG (N.D. Ga., Sept. 28, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Fiduciary Duty.
Elekta -- https://www.elekta.com/ -- is a Swedish company that
provides radiation therapy, radiosurgery, related equipment and
clinical management for the treatment of cancer and brain
disorders.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexios J. Dravillas, Esq.
SEGAL McCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY, LTD.-IL
233 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 5500
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 645-7800
Email: adravillas@smsm.com
- and -
David Christopher Sawyer, Esq.
GRAY RUST ST. ARMAND MOFFETT & BRIESKE, LLP
Suite 1700, Salesforce Tower Atlanta
950 East Paces Ferry Rd., N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30326
Phone: (404) 870-7439
Fax: (404) 870-1048
Email: dsawyer@grsmb.com
ENTERGY CORP: Faces Class Action Over Power Grid Deficiency
-----------------------------------------------------------
WBRZ reports that a lawsuit filed on behalf of Entergy customers
accuses the massive power provider of failing to prepare its system
for a major hurricane, leaving hundred of thousands in the dark
after Hurricane Ida.
The suit, filed in Orleans Parish, alleges "grossly inadequate
maintenance and inspection" of Entergy's system. Nearly one million
of the company's Louisiana customers lost power after the storm
pounded the southeast region of the state Aug. 29. Many homes and
business were left without electricity for weeks.
The storm knocked out several major electrical structures,
including a transmission tower in New Orleans that provided power
to eight different transmission lines, leaving the city totally in
the dark.
"We are standing up for people and businesses who have been injured
as a result of Entergy's negligence and failure to transmit energy
to its customers," Attorney Juan LaFonta said. "From the families
who have lost a freezer of food to businesses who have been
shuttered as a result of power loss in hard hit communities, to
those with serious injuries or hyperthermia-related wrongful death
due to the power loss, our intent is that all Hurricane
Ida-impacted residents are represented in this class action
lawsuit."
The lawsuit goes as far to say Entergy lied about the stability of
its power grid, citing interviews featuring the company's CEO on
local news outlets. CEO Phillip May was quoted as saying the tower
was "very robustly engineered" and that it did not need to be
replaced, despite the structure being covered in rust, according to
WWL-TV.
"The Entergy corporation knew of the deficiencies in their
infrastructure yet failed to act upon them," Attorney Harang said
in a statement. "This is gross negligence."
Parts of the state remained without power for weeks after the
storm. The state health department reported that nine people died
in Orleans Parish from excessive heat during extended power outages
after the hurricane. [GN]
ENTERGY CORP: Stays Silent After Negligence Suit From Hurricane
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Welty, writing for WGNO, reports that Entergy is staying mum
after a class action lawsuit was filed in the wake of Hurricane
Ida.
The storm left nearly one million people in the dark, but several
attorneys believe Entergy failed to protect its system.
So far, 17 Entergy customers are suing, but more are expected to
join. The class action accuses the company of "grossly inadequate
maintenance and lying to the city, the state and its customers."
"If you're going to make money off of this city, you damn sure
better give the deliverables," said Attorney Juan Lafonta.
Lafonta is one of several attorneys who filed suit. He says Entergy
"chose profits over the people they serve."
The group of attorneys believe the utility company created a system
that failed because of gross negligence of its equipment.
Lafonta said, "How do you rebuild a city if you have contracts that
are supposed to give you deliverables, but they're not meeting the
standards that they're supposed to have?"
The suit maintains that Entergy did not invest money from its
customers to "harden the system" by burying utilities or by making
sure there were proper backup systems. During the storm, an Entergy
transmission tower collapsed and seven other transmission towers
also failed.
"Where we're located, they were not supposed to come down with that
type of wind gusts," Lafonta said. "You have almost a
half-a-billion dollars and you're telling me that this rusted
system is robust and the rate payers of New Orleans should continue
to pay for you to make those kinds of profits without any
accountability? That's not going to happen."
Lafonta said in part that Entergy needs to be held accountable for
uninhabitable homes, mold and mildew as well as the wrongful death
of at least ten people because of the power outage.
"I'm tired of the days in New Orleans of, 'oh, yeah, I'm used to
not having, or we're used to not being able to access the system,
or holding people accountable.' It's time people are held
accountable because it is affecting lives," Lafonta said. [GN]
EQUIFAX CANADA: Ontario Court Tosses Cyber Attack Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel J. Michaluk, Esq., of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, in an
article for Mondaq, reports that the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice has dismissed another class action in which the plaintiff
used 'intrusion upon seclusion' to claim damages for a cyber
attack.
Justice Perell's decision in Del Giudice v Thompson (Thompson)
reinforces recent findings in similar cases where the intrusion
upon seclusion tort was not upheld and organizations were not found
vicariously liable for their employees. Thompson also shows how
important carefully drafted contract and privacy policy terms can
be to an organization's cyber risk management.
The context
Organizations and their insurers have been carefully watching
plaintiff counsel's use of the intrusion upon seclusion tort,
especially its application to data loss claims and resulting class
actions, since the Court of Appeal for Ontario recognized the tort
in 2012. While plaintiff counsel can rely on many causes of action
when seeking a remedy for the consequences of data loss, intrusion
upon seclusion was a novel way to attempt to obtain a sizeable
award for moral damages when there was no compensable injury.
Almost immediately after the tort was recognized, plaintiff counsel
began using it to claim that organizations intentionally or
recklessly "intruded" upon the privacy of affected individuals when
personal information was compromised by those outside the
organization. In cases involving a malicious insider, plaintiff
counsel began to allege that organizations were vicariously liable
for the insider's intentional intrusion.
Fast forward to early 2021, when the Divisional Court issued a
significant favorable decision for Ontario organizations and
insurers in Owsianik v Equifax Canada Co (Owsianik). This decision
held that custodians of personal data cannot be liable for
intrusion upon seclusion when third parties steal or access that
data. The Divisional Court's majority decision was brief and
focused on the lack of wrongful intent held by organizations who
fall victim to attack. The decision did not address the issue of
vicarious liability.
The Thompson case: Attack and data theft by a former insider
Thompson is about the theft of credit card application data by a
former employee of a bank's cloud service provider. The former
employee, who faces criminal charges in the United States, is
alleged to have used the understanding she developed while working
for the service provider to exploit system misconfigurations and
perpetrate her attack.
The plaintiff sued the bank, the service provider and the former
employee (among others) and sought certification. She pleaded 19
causes of action, including intrusion upon seclusion and vicarious
liability. She alleged that the bank:
-- collected application information for one purpose and retained
and used it for other purposes;
-- continued to retain the information despite increasing security
risks (including risks arising from its outsourcing to a service
provider in the United States);
-- failed to warn of the increasing security risks; and
-- lost the information in breach of various duties.
The Thompson decision on intrusion upon seclusion and vicarious
liability
The Court struck the claim in Thompson without leave to amend
because the claim did not set out a reasonable cause of action.
In disposing of the intrusion upon seclusion claim, the Court
adopted and reinforced the key finding from Owsianik: "A failure to
prevent an intrusion, even a reckless failure to prevent, is not an
intrusion." It also stated that recklessness should take its
meaning from established criminal and civil law jurisprudence -
jurisprudence that defines recklessness as conceptually distinct
from negligence and involving a state of mind exhibiting conscious
indifference to risk.
The Court went further. While the Owsianik panel found that the
organizational loss of data was "highly offensive," Justice Perell
did not. He said:
As pleaded against them, [the bank's and the service provider's]
conduct amounts to making mistakes in safeguarding not particularly
sensitive information that largely consists of information to
identify the applicant for a credit card and to provide means to
contact them. [The defendants'] conduct, which might be wrongful
and expose them to some other cause of action, is not offensive in
the requisite legal sense that would constitute the tort of
intrusion on seclusion.
In dismissing the plaintiff's vicarious liability claim, it was of
no consequence to the Court that the former employee was alleged to
have used the knowledge she gained while working for the service
provider to perpetrate her attack. It said it would be "absurd and
unfair" to impose liability on a defendant for the actions of a
former employee.
The Court quoted the bank's credit application terms, privacy
policy, and cardholder and credit card agreement in detail and used
the terms to invalidate numerous causes of action, including
intrusion upon seclusion. It then struck the action without leave
to amend based on a finding that the plaintiff's entire case
theory, which focused on data misuse, "imploded" based on the
contract terms.
Conclusion
Cyber attacks are inevitable, and even the best-defended
organizations can expect to suffer cyber attacks and data loss. The
degree to which organizations and insurers are exposed to
third-party civil liability will be influenced heavily by whether
the law provides a remedy on a strict basis and without proof of
negligence and compensable loss. The law in Ontario has taken a
noticeable turn with the Owsianik and Thompson decisions because
they limit the degree of exposure. It remains to be seen how the
Court of Appeal for Ontario will treat these types of cyber attack
claims, however.
Thompson also illustrates the importance of contractual terms. Data
misuse claims, in particular, will put the focus on notifications,
privacy policies and other "contractual" documentation that define
the scope of an organization's authorized use of data. Thompson
shows how careful attention to these documents will help limit all
kinds of privacy violation claims, including claims that follow a
cyber attack.
About BLG
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide
to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about
your specific circumstances. [GN]
EYM GROUP: Walden Files ADA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EYM Group Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Kern Walden, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. EYM Group Inc., EYM Pizza of
Wisconsin LLC, EYM Realty of Wisconsin LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-01116-WED (E.D. Wis., Sept. 24, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
EYM Group, Inc. -- https://www.eymgroup.com/ -- was founded in 2008
and is a multi-brand franchisee company of Denny's, Burger King,
Pizza Hut, KFC, and Panera Bread restaurants.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Denise L. Morris, Esq.
Guri Ademi, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
ADEMI LLP
3620 E Layton Ave
Cudahy, WI 53110
Phone: (414) 482-8000
Fax: (414) 482-8001
Email: dmorris@ademilaw.com
gademi@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
FAMILLE MARIE-JEUNESSE: Judge Okays Spiritual Abuse Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Catholic Spirit reports that a Quebec Superior Court judge
authorized a class action against a Catholic religious group once
heralded for its ability to foster vocations, opening the way for
people who claim to have been physically, spiritually, or
psychologically abused within the organization to join the legal
case.
Judge Alicia Soldevila decided in favor of class action involving
Famille Marie-Jeunesse, (Family of Mary's Youth), which was founded
in the 1980s.
Pascal Perron, a member of the group for 17 years, will represent
those who join the class action. He left the religious community in
2014, at age 36, after having lived in the group's community houses
in Quebec and on Reunion Island, a French department in the Indian
Ocean.
Perron blames the group and its leaders for putting in place rules
that were "so strict and rigorous" that they had the effect of
"destroying the identity of the individuals who were part of it,"
preventing their development, and making "their reintegration into
civil society extremely difficult."
He also claimed to be a victim of spiritual abuse, which an expert
defined as the use of a person's spiritual need "for the purpose of
manipulating and controlling him or her for bad purposes,"
Soldevila's ruling explained. In the case of Perron, the abuse
resulted in "a loss of faith," the judge wrote.
Father Réal Lavoie, identified as the group's founder and who was
ordained in 2005, was mentioned several times in Soldevila's Sept.
13 ruling. The priest is accused of having "developed and
implemented a closed system or sectarian scheme that had the effect
of making the members of the group completely vulnerable and
enslaved to its leaders and to the sect," it said.
In her 39-page judgment, Soldevila concluded that it is
inappropriate to evaluate the rules regarding membership in a
religious community. The ruling determined, however, that a future
trial will examine whether a system existed "that deprived the
plaintiff of his freedom to choose freely to join the community,"
kept him for 17 years against his will and did not provide
assistance for reintegrating into civil society.
Soldevila also limited participation in the class action to
"internal members" of the religious group who lived in community
houses in Quebec since 1986. Internal members who joined the
community on Reunion Island, in Belgium or in Tahiti, where the
congregation had houses until December 2017, are not eligible to
join the class action.
The congregation also has external members who live outside of
community houses. A third category of members are priests who come
under "the competent ecclesiastical authority," the judge wrote,
and thus are outside the community.
The group currently has 21 members living at its home in
Sherbrooke, explained Father Jean-François Pouliot, the
congregation's spokesperson. However, an unspecified number of
members live outside the community, he said.
During the hearings in February to obtain authorization for the
class action, it was mentioned that since its founding Famille
Marie-Jeunesse has counted "more than a hundred members" who would
have pronounced "final commitments," notably in Quebec and
Belgium.
In February 2019, an unknown number of members with "temporary or
definitive commitments," whose departures from the congregation
"may have been more painful," were invited by the Archdiocese of
Sherbrooke for "support and mediation."
In 2002, the archdiocese recognized the group as a "new community
type" public association of the faithful and because of that
decision the archdiocese has been named as a plaintiff in the case.
The court will have to decide if the archdiocesan authorities took
"reasonable measures to put an end to the abuses" that the victims
reported to them or if they "knowingly and consciously chose to
ignore said abuses," the ruling said.
"I am very pleased with the judgment," said Jean-Daniel Quessy,
Perron's lawyer. "The courts are sending a strong message. That the
victims in the Marie-Jeunesse case have a defensible case and that
they are right to move forward."
Regarding Soldevila's determination about the rules that religious
groups can adopt, Quessy said it is not his intention to "put the
group's rules on trial."
"Rather, we are looking at this from the perspective of spiritual
abuse. How are the rules applied and lived in the day to day? We
feel that rules have caused damage and are wrong. To us, that's
abuse," Quessy said.
Eliane Thibault, archdiocesan spokesperson, said that "while the
court accepts favorably the plaintiffs' request at this stage of
the proceedings, the Archdiocese of Sherbrooke intends to maintain
its efforts to collaborate with the justice system and to ensure
its defense in the next stages of the case."
"Abuse of any kind is unacceptable," she said. "Through this
judicial process, we hope that the alleged victims can find peace
and that these people can live a life that meets their
expectations."
The religious organization continued to review the ruling and was
considering what steps to take, said Father Pouliot.
Gloutnay is a staffer for Présence info, Montreal. [GN]
FEDERAL EXPRESS: Faces Taito Suit Over Breach of Contract
---------------------------------------------------------
SIALA TAITO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 2:21-cv-02599-JPM-cgc (W.D. Tenn., September 23, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for breach of contract.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to deliver the express
package on time according to the speed for which the Plaintiff
paid, thereby breaching its contract. Further, the Defendant failed
to refund Mr. Taito any portion of the amount he paid for the
express package service. Mr. Taito was unaware of the existence of
any purported terms and conditions for the service at the time the
contract was formed because he was never presented with any
document purporting to contain the terms and conditions of service
or any summary thereof when he purchased the express package
service at the Defendant's office store, says the suit.
Federal Express Corporation is a shipping company offering express
package delivery services, with its principal place of business in
Memphis, Tennessee. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert L. J. Spence, Jr., Esq.
Andrew M. Horvath, Esq.
SPENCE PARTNERS
65 Union Avenue, Suite 900
Memphis, TN 38103
Telephone: (901) 312-9160
E-mail: rspence@spencepartnerslaw.com
ahorvath@spencepartnerslaw.com
- and –
Paul D. Malmfeldt, Esq.
Mark D. Liston, Esq.
MALMFELDT LAW GROUP P.C.
120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2000
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 606-8625
E-mail: pdm@malmfeldt.com
mdl@malmfeldt.com
FREEDOM FOREVER: Rairdon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Freedom Forever LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Sean Rairdon, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. Freedom Forever LLC, Does 1-100, Case
No. 34-2021-00308059-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty.,
Sept. 16, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited."
Freedom Forever -- https://freedomforever.com/ -- is a residential
solar panel installation company that provides engineering,
procurement, and construction (EPC) for independent solar dealer
partners.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8880 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Phone: (310) 432-0000
Fax: (310) 432-0001
Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
FRIENDS FOR LIFE: Reed Seeks Unpaid Wages for Home Health Aides
---------------------------------------------------------------
NAOMI REED, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. FRIENDS FOR LIFE HOME CARE SERVICES OF BABYLON, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-05293 (E.D.N.Y., September 23, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to
pay minimum wages, failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to
pay overtime, failure to timely pay wages, failure to compensate
spread-of-hours pay, and failure to provide wage notice and wage
statements.
Ms. Reed was employed by the Defendant as a home health aide from
approximately April 2019 until March 5, 2021.
Friends For Life Home Care Services of Babylon, LLC is a company
that owns and operates a home health care service, with its
principal place of business at 99 Deer Park Avenue, Babylon, New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Samuel, Esq.
THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
1441 Broadway, Suite 6085
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 563-9884
E-mail: michael@samuelandstein.com
GABRIEL BROS: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gabriel Bros, Inc.
The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. Gabriel Bros, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-05368 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 27, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Gabriel Brothers, Inc. -- https://www.gabesstores.com/ -- operates
a chain of off-price casual family fashion stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10014
Phone: (646) 770-3775
Fax: (646) 867-2639
Email: brad@markslawfirm.net
GOLDEN STATE AG: Ambriz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Golden State AG
Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Armando Ambriz, on
behalf of himself and for all similarly situated persons v. Golden
State AG Services, Inc., a California Corporation; HELENA
AGRI-ENTERPRISES, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; COASTAL
EMPLOYMENT SERVICES LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; Case No.
BCV-21-102274 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Sept. 27, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited."
Golden State Agriculture Inc. is located in Modesto, California and
is part of the Lawn and Garden Equipment and Supplies Stores
Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Farah Mirabel, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF FARRAH MIRABEL
1070 Stradella Rd.
Los Angeles, CA 90077
Phone: 714-972-0707
Fax: 949-417-1796
Email: fmesq@fmirabel.com
GRAXCELL PHARMACEUTICALS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Guevara Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE GUEVARA; and DAVID MURILLO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRAXCELL PHARMACEUTICALS,
LLC; and SATYA KALAGOTLA, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-05128
(E.D.N.Y., Sept. 15, 2021) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and
permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and
reimburse necessary business expenses.
Plaintiff Guevara was employed by the Defendants as machine
operator. Plaintiff Murillo was employed as blender.
GRAXCELL PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC specializes in the manufacturing and
distribution of various types of medication or drugs. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew Madzelan, Esq.
BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard Suite 208
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 280-3008
E-mail: Matthew.M@Belllg.com
GROUP HEALTH: Midthun-Hensen Files ADA Suit in W.D. Wisconsin
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Group Health
Cooperative of South Central Wisconsin, Inc. The case is styled as
Angela Midthun-Hensen and Tony Hensen, as representatives of their
minor daughter, K.H., and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Group Health Cooperative of South Central Wisconsin,
Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00608 (W.D. Wis., Sept. 27, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Group Health Cooperative of South Central Wisconsin (GHC-SCW) --
https://ghcscw.com/ -- is a non-profit, member-owned health plan
providing high-quality health care services, including primary care
and specialty care to over 75,000 members living in and around Dane
County, Wisconsin.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul A. Kinne, Esq.
GINGRAS, CATES & LUEBKE, S.C.
8150 Excelsior Dr.
Madison, WI 53701
Phone: (608) 833-2632
Fax: (608) 833-2874
Email: kinne@gcwlawyers.com
HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Deputies File Class Action Over Understaffing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Groogan, writing for Fox 26 Houston, reports that David Cuevas
represents more than 3,000 Harris County Sheriff's Office Deputies
and Detention Officers -- men and women who've collectively
reached a "breaking point."
"We cannot continue to overwork and burden our personnel," said
Cuevas in an exclusive interview with FOX 26. "People are
exhausted, They are quitting by the hundreds at what point do you
stop the bleeding?"
"The ship is sunk," he continued. "We do not have enough personnel
to adequately respond to crimes. Ladies and Gentleman of Harris
County, if you get robbed, raped, or shot hold your breath and pray
because we don't know if we have the personnel to respond."
At issue, far too few patrol units to respond to escalating crime
and a chronically jam-packed jail with not nearly enough officers
to operate it safely.
"Let me tell you how bad it is, we have detention officers that are
soiling themselves and urinating on themselves because there are
not enough personnel to give them a break," said Cuevas. "That is
absolutely wrong and it falls at the feet of Commissioners Court."
Cuevas says years of pleading with County leaders, both Democrat
and Republican, have fallen on what he calls "deaf ears".
"Year after year of failed jail inspections," he said. "2004, 2005,
2002, 2006, 2009, 2017. What else are we going to do? They do not
care! They have failed at every level. They just don't give a
damn."
Cuevas reserved his harshest criticism for the current County
Judge.
"Lina Hidalgo and the Commissioners Court under her direction is
worse than any variant that's hit Harris County," he said.
With the full backing of its membership, the Harris County Deputies
Organization is filing a major class-action lawsuit in federal
court against the entire Commissioners Court and Sheriff Ed
Gonzalez.
"Enough is enough," he said. "We are sick and tired of it and now
it's time to take action."
Formal complaints have also been lodged with the Texas Commission
on Jail Standards and the U.S. Department of Justice.
"We will be asking the federal government to intervene and force
Commissioners Court to do their damn job," Cuevas said.
FOX 26 has learned that hundreds of deputies and detention officers
have been interviewed on the record in preparation for legal
action. [GN]
HONEST COMPANY: ClaimsFiler Reminds of November 15 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:
The Honest Company, Inc. (HNST)
Class Period: purchase of shares issued either in or after the May
2021 Initial Public Offering
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 15, 2021
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaqgs-hnst/
The Boston Beer Company, Inc. (SAM)
Class Period: 4/22/2021 - 9/8/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 15, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nyse-sam/
Waterdrop Inc. (WDH)
Class Period: purchase of shares issued either in or after the May
2021 Initial Public Offering
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 15, 2021
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nyse-wdh/
If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About ClaimsFiler
ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.
To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com [GN]
HONEST COMPANY: Faces Dixon Suit Over Drop in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------
CODY DIXON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE HONEST COMPANY, INC.; NIKOLAOS VLAHOS;
KELLY KENNEDY; JESSICA WARREN; KATIE BAYNE; SCOTT DAHNKE; ERIC
LIAW; JEREMY LIEW; AVIK PRAMANIK; MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC; J.P.
MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; JEFFERIES LLC; BOFA SECURITIES, INC.;
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC.; WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C.;
GUGGENHEIM SECURITIES, LLC; TELSEY ADVISORY GROUP LLC; C.L. KING &
ASSOCIATES, INC.; LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS LLC; PENSERRA SECURITIES
LLC; and SAMUEL A. RAMIREZ & COMPANY, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-07405 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 15, 2021) is a class action on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Honest common stock pursuant and traceable to the registration
statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration
Statement") issued in connection with the Company's May 2021
initial public offering ("IPO" or the "Offering"), the Plaintiff
seeking to pursue claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act").
According to the complaint on May 6, 2021, the Company filed its
prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC, which forms part of the
Registration Statement. In the IPO, the Company sold 6,451,613
shares of common stock, plus an additional 3,871,050 shares of
common stock pursuant to the underwriter's option to purchase
additional shares at a price of $16.00 per share.
Approximately two months after the IPO, on August 13, 2021, before
the market opened, Honest issued a press release titled "The Honest
Company Reports Second Quarter 2021 Financial Results." Therein,
Honest reported a net loss of $20 million for the second quarter of
2021, as compared to a net loss of only $0.4 million for the second
quarter of 2020. Honest disclosed that its revenue grew only 3% as
compared to the second quarter of 2020, because it was negatively
impacted by "an estimated $3.7 million COVID-19 stock-up impact
primarily in Diapers and Wipes in the prior year period."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.98 per share, or
28%, to close at $10.07 per share on August 13, 2021, on unusually
heavy trading volume. On August 19, 2021, the Company's stock price
closed at an all-time low of $9.16 per share, a nearly 43% decline
from the $16.00 per share IPO price.
The Registration Statement was allegedly materially false and
misleading and omitted: (1) that, prior to the IPO, the Company's
results had been significantly impacted by a multimillion-dollar
COVID-19 stock-up for products in the Diapers and Wipes category
and Household and Wellness category; (2) that, at the time of the
IPO, the Company was experiencing decelerating demand for such
products; (3) that, as a result, the Company's financial results
would likely be adversely impacted; and (4) that, as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and
lacked a reasonable basis.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the suit added.
THE HONEST COMPANY, INC. operates an online retail stores. The
Company offers diapers and wipes, healing balms, diaper rash
creams, shampoos, body wash, and conditioners. Honest serves
customers in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
HONEST COMPANY: Faces Securities Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anna Bradley-Smith, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that The
Honest Company lied to investors about the prospects of its
business during the COVID-19 pandemic, hiding already present
threats ahead of its IPO, resulting in tumbling stock prices and
investor damages, a new class action lawsuit alleges.
The lawsuit was filed in California on September 15 by lead
Plaintiff Cody Dixon who alleges that the company and its
leadership violated the Securities Exchange Act by making false and
misleading statements in its Registration Statement.
Honest describes itself as a "digitally-native, mission-driven
brand focused on leading the clean lifestyle movement, creating a
community for conscious consumers and seeking to disrupt multiple
consumer product categories." Its three product categories are
diapers and wipes, skin and personal care, and household and
wellness.
The Honest Company Stock Price Inflated By False Statements About
Demand
Dixon says in the claim that, prior to the IPO, the company's
results had been significantly impacted by a multimillion-dollar
COVID-19 stock-up for products in the diapers and wipes category
and household and wellness category; that it was already
experiencing decelerating demand for such products; that, as a
result, its financial results would likely be adversely impacted;
and, because of those factors, its positive statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and
lacked a reasonable basis.
The company sold more than 10 million shares at $16 each when it
went public on May 6, 2021, and it received proceeds of around
$91.1 million.
According to the claim, the company said that the proceeds from the
IPO would go towards general corporate purposes, including
"operating expenses, working capital and capital expenditures for
future growth, including marketing and direct-to-consumer
advertising investments, innovation and adjacent product category
expansion, international growth investment and organizational
capabilities investments."
Honest further claimed that it "may also use a portion of the net
proceeds . . . to acquire complementary businesses, products,
services or technologies."
However, only two months after the IPO, Honest issued a press
release titled "The Honest Company Reports Second Quarter 2021
Financial Results," where it reported a net loss of $20 million for
the second quarter of 2021, as compared to a net loss of only $0.4
million for the second quarter of 2020.
On this news, The Honest Company stock price fell $3.98 per share,
or 28 percent, to close at $10.07 per share. Then, on August 19,
the company's stock price closed at an all-time low of $9.16 per
share, a nearly 43 percent decline from the $16 IPO offering.
Dixon says in the claim that the company's "wrongful acts and
omissions" are to blame for "the precipitous decline in the market
value of the Company's securities."
"Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages," he adds.
He is suing for violations of the Securities Act and seeks
certification of the Class, damages, legal fees and costs, and a
jury trial.
Dixon is represented by Robert V. Prongay, Charles H. Linehan and
Pavithra Rajesh of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.
The Honest Company Stock Class Action Lawsuit is Dixon v. The
Honest Company, Inc, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-07405 in the U.S.
District Court Central District of California. [GN]
HONEST COMPANY: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of November 1 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a federal
securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired The
Honest Company, Inc. ("Honest" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: HNST)
common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration
statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration
Statement") issued in connection with the Company's May 2021
initial public offering ("IPO" or the "Offering").
All investors who purchased The Honest Company, Inc. and incurred
losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.
If you have incurred losses in the shares of The Honest Company,
Inc., you may, no later than November 1, 2021, request that the
Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please
contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an
investor in The Honest Company, Inc.
PLEASE CLICK HERE TO JOIN CASE
On May 6, 2021, Honest completed its IPO, selling approximately 26
million shares of common stock for $16.00 per share.
Approximately two months after the IPO, on August 13, 2021, before
the market opened, Honest announced its second quarter 2021
financial results, reporting a net loss of $20 million, compared to
a net loss of only $0.4 million for the second quarter of 2020.
Honest disclosed that its revenue grew only 3% as compared to the
second quarter of 2020, because it was negatively impacted by "an
estimated $3.7 million COVID-19 stock-up impact primarily in
Diapers and Wipes in the prior year period."
Honest also disclosed that its Diapers and Wipes category revenue
declined 2% compared to the second quarter of 2020. Honest further
disclosed that "Household and Wellness revenue declined 6% from the
second quarter of 2020 as consumer and customer demand for
sanitization products decreased as consumers became vaccinated and
customers managed heavy levels of inventory."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.98 per share, or
28%, to close at $10.07 per share on August 13, 2021, on unusually
heavy trading volume.
On August 19, 2021, the Company's stock price closed at an all-time
low of $9.16 per share, a nearly 43% decline from the $16.00 per
share IPO price.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. [GN]
HUDSON'S BAY: January 11, 2022 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Analytics, the claims administrator for the Hudson's Bay Company
Data Security Incident Consumer Litigation, on Sept. 20 announced
the following:
You Could Be Eligible to Receive Payment from a Class Action
Settlement if you used a credit, debit or other payment card at a
Saks, Saks OFF 5TH, or Lord & Taylor store
This Notice provides information about a class action lawsuit
pending in the District Court for the Southern District of New York
("Litigation") that may affect your rights. The Litigation claims
that Hudson's Bay Company ULC, Saks Incorporated, Saks Fifth Avenue
LLC, Saks & Company LLC, and Lord & Taylor LLC ("Defendants") were
responsible for a data breach that affected Saks, Saks OFF 5TH, and
Lord & Taylor stores between May 1, 2017 and April 1, 2018 ("Data
Breach"). Defendants deny all claims and say they did not do
anything wrong. The Court did not decide in favor of either side.
Instead, both sides agreed to the Settlement.
Are you eligible for a payment? You are a "Settlement Class Member"
if you used your credit, debit or prepaid debit card (other than a
Saks First branded credit card) at a Saks, Saks OFF 5TH, or Lord &
Taylor store in the United States and in U.S. territories between
May 1, 2017 and April 1, 2018.
Your options: If you are a Settlement Class Member, you have three
options:
1. You Can Accept the Settlement: You are eligible for $30.00 for
time spent monitoring or addressing the Data Breach. You are also
eligible for reimbursement of actual documented unreimbursed
out-of-pocket expenses caused by the Data Breach, up to $5,000.
Defendants will fund these benefits on approved claims in a total
amount of up to $2 million.
To get your cash payment, you must submit a Claim Form by
January 31, 2022. Claim Forms are available at
www.HBCsettlement.com or by calling 1-877-805-1278.
2. You Can Object to the Settlement: You can stay in the
Settlement, but you can tell the Court that you do not agree with
the Settlement or some part of it, including the plaintiffs'
request for attorneys' fees, expenses and service awards, by
objecting by November, 19, 2021.
You can't ask the Court to order a larger settlement; the Court can
only approve or deny the settlement as agreed to by the parties. If
the Court denies approval, no settlement payments will be sent out
to anyone and the lawsuit may continue to be litigated on the
merits. If that is what you want to happen, you may want to object.
You may hire your own lawyer to appear in Court for you if you
wish; however, you will be responsible for paying your lawyer.
3. You Can "Opt Out" (i.e. exclude yourself) from the Settlement:
If you exclude yourself from the Class – which is sometimes
called "opting-out" of the Class – you won't get a payment from
the settlement but won't be barred from asserting claims against
Defendants in a separate lawsuit. If you do not want to be legally
bound by the Settlement, you must exclude yourself from it by
November 19, 2021.
The Long Notice, available at www.HBCsettlement.com, explains how
to exclude yourself from the Settlement or object to the Settlement
and describes the released claims in detail.
When Will The Settlement Be Approved?
The Court will hold a hearing in this case (In re Hudson's Bay
Company Data Security Incident Consumer Litigation, Case No.
1:18-cv-08472, S.D.N.Y.) on January 11, 2022, at 2:30 p.m. to
consider whether to approve the Settlement, and Class Counsel's
request for attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and service
awards. You or your own lawyer may ask to appear and speak at the
hearing at your own cost, but you do not have to.
Who Represents Settlement Class Members?
The Court appointed Timothy J. Peter of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP and
Janine Pollack of Calcaterra Pollack LLP as Class Counsel to
represent the Settlement Class. Class Counsel will ask the Court
for an award of attorneys' fees, costs and expenses up to
$1,400,000, and service awards up to $1,000 each for the
Representative Plaintiffs Debbie Carthan, Bernadette Beekman, Julia
A. Harris, Cassondra Joseph, Margo Kyler Knight, Jane Lefkowitz,
Leslie Levitt-Raschella, Kelly Whitaker, Dennis Meduri, Giorgina
Meduri, Greta Moss, Alexandria Rudolph, Jeanne Sacklow, Erika
Targum, and Mark Wade. If you want to be represented by your own
lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense.
www.HBCsettlement.com
Toll-free phone number: 1-877-805-1278 [GN]
HUNTER WARFIELD: Powe Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Alabama
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hunter Warfield, Inc.
The case is styled as Lorian Powe, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Hunter Warfield, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-00398-TFM-N (S.D. Ala., Sept. 15, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Hunter Warfield --
https://www.residentinterface.com/hunter-warfield -- provides
efficient and effective third-party collections.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eliyahu Babad, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: ebabad@steinsakslegal.com
I.D. JEWELRY: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against I.D. Jewelry, LLC.
The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. I.D. Jewelry, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-05367 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 27, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
I.D. Jewelry -- https://idjewelry.com/ -- is an established
retailer offering engagement rings & other diamond jewelry,
including custom pieces.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10014
Phone: (646) 770-3775
Fax: (646) 867-2639
Email: brad@markslawfirm.net
ICON PLC: Miller Labor Code Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHRYSTAL L. MILLER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ICON PLC, LYNDA HOLCROFT, DOCS
GLOBAL, INC., ICON CLINICAL RESEARCH LLC, and DOES 1 - 100, Case
No. 20-CIV-01732, was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of San Mateo, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on September 23, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-07431 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide
meal and rest periods; failure to provide accurate, itemized wage
statements; failure to timely pay all final wages; and unlawful and
unfair business acts and practices.
Icon plc is a medical device company headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.
Docs Global, Inc. is a functional service provider based in North
Wales, Pennsylvania.
Icon Clinical Research LLC is provider of clinical research
services, headquartered in North Wales, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher J. Banks, Esq.
Nicole L. Antonopoulos, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 442-1000
Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
E-mail: christopher.banks@morganlewis.com
nicole.antonopoulos@morganlewis.com
- and –
Andrew P. Frederick, Esq.
Miranda M. Rowley, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1400 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: (650) 843-4000
Facsimile: (650) 843-4001
E-mail: andrew.frederick@morganlewis.com
miranda.rowley@morganlewis.com
INTERSECT ENT: Lawrence Enjoins Vote on Medtronic Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD LAWRENCE v. INTERSECT ENT, INC., KIERAN T. GALLAHUE, THOMAS
A. WEST, TERESA L. KLINE, CYNTHIA L. LUCCHESE, DANA G. MEAD, JR.,
NEIL A. HATTANGADI, and ELISABETH SANDOVAL-LITTLE, Case No.
3:21-cv-07405 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 23, 2021) is brought on behalf of
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated against Intersect
ENT and the members of Intersect ENT's Board of Directors for their
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and to enjoin the vote on
a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Intersect ENT will be
acquired by Medtronic, Inc. through Medtronic's subsidiary Project
Kraken Merger Sub, Inc.
On August 6, 2021, Intersect ENT and Medtronic issued a joint press
release announcing that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger dated August 6, 2021 (the "Merger Agreement"). Under the
terms of the Merger Agreement, each Intersect ENT stockholder will
receive $28.25 in cash for each share of Intersect ENT common stock
they own (the "Merger Consideration"). The Proposed Transaction is
valued at approximately $1.1 billion.
On September 7, 2021, Intersect ENT filed a Schedule 14A Definitive
Proxy 18 Statement with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which
recommends that Intersect ENT stockholders vote in favor of the
Proposed Transaction, allegedly omits or misrepresents material
information concerning the Company's financial projections.
In short, unless remedied, Intersect ENT's public stockholders will
be irreparably harmed because the Proxy Statement's material
misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a
sufficiently informed voting or appraisal decision on the Proposed
Transaction, says the sui.
The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed
Transaction unless and until such Exchange Act violations are
cured.
The Plaintiff is, and has been at all times relevant hereto, a
continuous stockholder of Intersect.
Intersect ENT is a global ear, nose and throat ("ENT") medical
technology leader dedicated to transforming patient care. Intersect
ENT's common stock trades on the Nasdaq Global Market under the
ticker symbol "XENT." The Individual Defendants are directors of
the company.
Medtronic is among the world's largest medical technology, services
and solutions companies. Headquartered in Dublin, Ireland,
Medtronic was founded in 1949 and serves hospitals, physicians,
clinicians, and patients in more than 150 countries worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
611 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 808
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (310) 208-2800
Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com
JCC LOGISTICS: Pacheco Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JCC Logistics, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Anthony A. Pacheco, an individual and
on behalf of all others similarly situated and aggrieved v. JCC
Logistics, Inc., a California Corporation, Christina Tessaro, Case
No. BCV-21-102266 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Sept. 24, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited."
JCC Logistics Transportation -- https://jcclogisticsinc.com/ -- is
a service cargo & freight company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
8484 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243
Phone: (310) 438-5555
Fax: (310) 300-1705
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Garfield Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to D.N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DUANE GARFIELD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. 2:21-cv-07049, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey on September 24, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
3:21-cv-17476 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged strict liability for
failure to warn, strict liability for design defect-risk-benefit,
negligence, deceit by concealment, loss of consortium, wrongful
death, survival, fraud, and violation of California Business and
Professions Code.
Johnson & Johnson is a manufacturer of consumer products,
headquartered in New Jersey.
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. is a company that
engages in the research and development of consumer products,
headquartered in New Jersey. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael F. Healy, Esq.
Emily M. Weissenberger, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
555 Mission Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 544-1900
Facsimile: (415) 391-0281
E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com
eweissenberger@shb.com
- and –
Michael C. Zellers, Esq.
Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
515 South Flower Street, 42nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223
Telephone: (213) 430-3400
Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com
amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com
KESTREL FIELD: Mitchell Suit Alleges Unpaid Overtime for Inspectors
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DUSTIN MITCHELL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KESTREL FIELD SERVICES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 4:21-cv-03100 (S.D. Tex., September 23, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Colorado Wage Claim Act by failing to
compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
inspectors overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an inspector in Colorado
from approximately February 2019 to October 2019.
Kestrel Field Services, Inc. is a commercial support service
company, headquartered in Houston, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Don J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP
4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
KIMPTON HOTEL: Thomas Data Breach Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAKE THOMAS, SALVATORE
GALATI and JONATHAN MARTIN, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, v. KIMPTON HOTEL & RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, Case
No. 3:19-cv-01860-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting class certification in this matter on the
grounds that all the prerequisites of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 have been
satisfied.
The Plaintiffs assert five sub-classes in their Third Amended
Complaint. Because the breach of contract claim, which was raised
as to all five sub-classes, survived Defendant's Motion to Dismiss,
Plaintiff seeks certification of all six sub-classes. The classes
are:
-- The California Class: All persons residing in California
who booked rooms at any of Defendant's hotels from the time
period of June 11, 2016 to March 9, 2017.
-- The Colorado Class: All persons who booked rooms at any of
Defendant's hotels in Colorado from the time period of June
11, 2016 to March 9, 2017.
-- The Maryland Class: All persons who booked rooms at any of
Defendant's hotels in Maryland from the time period of June
11, 2016 to March 9, 2017.
-- The Pennsylvania Class: All persons who booked rooms at any
of Defendant's hotels in Pennsylvania from the time period
of June 11, 2016 to March 9, 2017.
-- The New York Class: All persons who booked rooms at any of
Defendant's hotels in New York from the time period of June
11, 2016 to March 9, 2017.
-- The Texas Class: All persons who booked rooms at any of
Defendant's hotels in Texas from the time period of June
11, 2016 to March 9, 2017.
Between August 10, 2016 and March 9, 2017, Defendant Kimpton Hotel
suffered a data breach which resulted in a loss of valuable
personal data for thousands of customers.
The Plaintiffs have filed the instant class action against Kimpton
alleging that Kimpton breached its contracts with its customers and
violated state consumer protection laws by failing, through its
ostensible agent, Sabre GLBL, Inc. to institute basic minimum
protections for its systems, such as by requiring multi-factor
authentication.
The Plaintiffs and the Class Members claimed that they were
damaged. They contend that they were subject to an increased risk
of identity theft, for which they had to purchase costly credit
monitoring services, and spend time on credit monitoring.
Additionally, Plaintiffs and the Class Members lost the value of
the Personal Identifying Information (PII), which has a
recognizable value, as it is traded on both black markets and
legitimate markets. Finally, Plaintiffs lost the benefit of their
bargain.
Kimpton Hotel is a San Francisco, California, based hotel and
restaurant brand owned by the Intercontinental Hotels Group.
Founded in 1981 by Bill Kimpton and led by Chief Executive Officer
Mike DeFrino.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Sept. 21,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FaoWhg
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
Robert J. Dart, Esq.
Jesse Chen, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com
thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
rdart@wilshirelawfirm.com
jchen@wilshirelawfirm.com
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Walters Suit removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Joseph Walters, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., Philips
North America LLC, Philips Holdings USA, Inc., Philips RS North
America LLC, Case No. GD-21-009382 was removed from the Allegheny
County Court to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 24, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01277-MRH to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. -- https://www.philips.com/global -- is a
Dutch multinational conglomerate corporation that was founded in
Eindhoven.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq.
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 322-9243
Fax: (412) 231-0246
Email: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
eavery@carlsonlynch.com
glynch@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
John P. Goodrich, Esq.
429 Fourth Avenue
900 Law & Finance Building
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: (412) 261-4663
Fax: (412) 232-4545
Email: peyton@goodrichpc.com
- and -
Lauren Renee Nichols, Esq.
Law & Finance Building
429 Fourth Avenue, Suite 900
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Email: auren@goodrighpc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John P. Lavelle, Jr., Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
Phone: (215) 963-4824
Fax: (215) 963-5001
Email: john.lavelle@morganlewis.com
LIBERTY HOME: Silverman Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
JEROME SILVERMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIBERTY HOME MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01790-PAB (N.D. Ohio, September 17,
2021) is a collective and class action complaint brought against
the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a loan officer
assistant from approximately July 2020 until approximately June
2021. He was then promoted to a Production Manager until his
employment ended around July 12, 2021.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated Loan Officer Assistants regularly worked more than 40
hours a week throughout their employment with the Defendants.
However, the Defendant allegedly implemented a company-wide policy
of not paying its LOAs for off-the-clock work that was routinely
performed early in the mornings and late into the evenings although
this work was integral and indispensable to the work they are hired
to do. In addition, the Defendant did not include non-discretionary
compensation into their regular rates for purposes of calculating
overtime compensation. As a result, the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated LOAs were not properly compensated for all hours
worked, including overtime hours at the rate of one and one-half
times his regular rate of pay, says the suit.
Liberty Home Mortgage Corporation provides residential home
mortgages. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
1360 E. 9th St., Suite 808
Cleveland, OH 44114
Tel: (216) 230-2955
Fax: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
- and –
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7266 Portage St., N.W. Suite D
Massillon, OH 44646
Tel: (330) 470-4428
Fax: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
LIBERTY MEDIA: Stock Repurchase Scheme Harms Investors, Fishel Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
VLADIMIR FISHEL, derivatively on behalf of SIRIUS XM HOLDINGS INC.
and directly on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
stockholders of SIRIUS XM HOLDINGS INC., Plaintiff v. LIBERTY MEDIA
CORPORATION, GREGORY B. MAFFEI, JAMES E. MEYER, JENNIFER WITZ, EVAN
D. MALONE, DAVID A. BLAU, ROBIN P. HICKENLOOPER, MICHAEL RAPINO,
DAVID ZASLAV, EDDY W. HARTENSTEIN, JAMES P. HOLDEN, JONELLE
PROCOPE, KRISTINA M. SALEN, and CARL E. VOGEL, Defendants and
SIRIUS XM HOLDINGS INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2021-0820
(Del. Ch., September 23, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty.
The case arises from Liberty Media's stock repurchase scheme to use
billions of dollars of Sirius XM's own funds to improperly and
unfairly provide valuable benefits to itself. These benefits
include: (a) tax-free dividends for Liberty Media and (b) the
ability to effectuate a short-form merger and in turn, shield the
controller's and directors' conduct from fiduciary review. The
board of directors should have negotiated for protections for
Sirius XM's minority stockholders in connection with approving the
upsized repurchase program, which clearly benefits Liberty Media to
the detriment of Sirius XM and its minority stockholders.
Sirius XM Holdings Inc. is an audio entertainment company with its
principal place of business in New York, New York.
Liberty Media Corporation is a mass media company headquartered in
Englewood, Colorado. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
Andrew E. Blumberg, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 364-3600
- and –
Thomas A. Uebler, Esq.
Joseph L. Christensen, Esq.
McCOLLOM D'EMILIO SMITH UEBLER LLC
Little Falls Centre II
2751 Centerville Road, Suite 401
Wilmington, DE 19808
Telephone: (302) 468-5960
- and –
Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
Daniel Meyer, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
LOUISIANA: Class Action Over Wade Correctional Prison Abuse OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin McGill, writing for Associated Press, reports that a federal
lawsuit in which several inmates at a north Louisiana state prison
allege harsh treatment of the mentally ill was granted class action
status on Sept. 20 by a federal judge.
U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Foote's decision means the criminal
justice advocates who filed the lawsuit in 2018 can potentially
seek relief for hundreds of prisoners over alleged inhumane
treatment at the Wade Correctional Center in Claiborne Parish.
Exactly how many is unclear but the ruling by Foote, of Shreveport,
says there were 366 people being held at the buildings in question
in March 2020.
The lawsuit says some inmates at the Wade center have been held in
isolation, confined in cells for 23 to 24 hours per day, for months
and sometimes years, causing or exacerbating mental health
problems. It alleges that some seeking mental health treatment have
been placed in isolation in a disciplinary area, and that inmates
have resorted to self mutilation and attempts at suicide to escape
brutal conditions.
Prisoners allege the conditions at the prison violate the Americans
with Disabilities Act and also Eighth Amendment protections against
cruel punishment. The suit was filed in the federal court system
for the Western District of Louisiana.
State officials denied the lawsuit's allegations when it was filed.
They fought efforts to have the court grant class action status to
the lawsuit and didn't immediately respond to a query on whether
they would appeal Foote's ruling. [GN]
LUCKIN COFFEE: Settles U.S. Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Luckin Coffee Inc. (in Provisional Liquidation) ("Luckin Coffee" or
the "Company") (OTC: LKNCY) on Sept. 21 disclosed that it has
entered into a binding term sheet (the "Term Sheet") with the Lead
Plaintiffs in the provisionally certified class action In re Luckin
Coffee Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.1:20-cv-01293-JPC-JLC
(SDNY) (the "Class Action") to fully resolve all claims that have
been or could be filed on behalf of a class of purchasers of the
Company's ADS between May 17, 2019 through July 15, 2020,
inclusive, that has been certified for settlement purposes.
Pursuant to the Term Sheet, the settlement is subject to entering
into definitive documentation and obtaining approvals from the
Cayman Court in the first instance (who has oversight of the
provisional liquidation proceedings), and the U.S. Court overseeing
the Class Action. The Term Sheet provides that the U.S. Class
Action settlement amount will be calculated based on a Global
Settlement Amount of $187.5 million, which will be reduced on a
pro-rata basis based on the valid opt-out notices received pursuant
to the U.S. Court's prior order approving dissemination of a notice
of pendency. The final report of valid opt-out notices received
will be provided to the U.S. Court on or before October 8, 2021.
Dr. Jinyi Guo, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Luckin
Coffee, commented, "Upon final approval, this settlement will
resolve a significant contingent liability and enable Luckin Coffee
to move forward with a greater focus on our operations and the
execution of our strategic plan. We are working diligently to enter
into formal settlement agreements and obtain the necessary court
approvals." [GN]
MARTIN JUGENBURG: Certification of Privacy Class Action Discussed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
canliiconnects.org reports that a plastic surgeon alleged to have
filmed his patients with surveillance cameras faced a privacy class
action case.
In GC v. Jugenburg (2021 ONSC 3119), the Ontario Superior Court
certified a privacy breach class action against Dr. Martin
Jugenburg, but declined to certify a class
action for patients whose images were posted on the internet,
published, or otherwise displayed in a public setting, allegedly
without their consent.
Background
The defendant operated a plastic surgery clinic in Toronto.
In January 2017, the clinic completed installation of 24
continuously-operating cameras. The cameras were located across the
clinic except for the washrooms. They were not hidden, but were
also not overly noticeable. Between January 2017 and December 2018
there was only one sign, located in an operating room that
disclosed the presence of a surveillance camera. Clinic staff did
not let patients know there were cameras throughout the premises.
Dr. Jugenburg maintained that the cameras were installed for
security purposes, not for patient care or any nefarious or
voyeuristic purposes.
In 2016, the defendant began marketing himself on various social
media platforms. He shared photos and videos of clinic patients,
including ones taken during surgery. The patients were not named
and their faces were blurred or cropped out. The clinic had a
consent procedure with respect to posting of images on the internet
or social media.
Following exposure by CBC's Marketplace
in December 2018 , the media coverage and regulatory actions
resulted in the cameras being shut down and seized. Professional
disciplinary proceedings also began against Dr. Jugenburg.
Patients of the defendant brought a class action on behalf of two
classes:
-- Approximately 2,500 patients who attended the clinic when the
surveillance cameras were operational (the Surveillance Class);
and
-- An undetermined number of patients whose images were posted on
the internet, published or otherwise displayed publicly, and who
claimed they were published without their consent (the Internet
Class).
Class action certified for the Surveillance Class, but not the
Internet Class
Justice Perell certified a class action for the Surveillance Class
on common issues related to negligence, vicarious liability, breach
of trust and fiduciary duty, intrusion upon seclusion, and
damages.
However, Justice Perell did not agree there had been public
disclosure of private facts because this tort must be determined on
a case-by-case basis. He also did not find evidence that Dr.
Jugenburg had been unjustly enriched at the expense of the
patients, and did not certify the unjust enrichment claims.
Furthermore, Justice Perell declined to certify the Internet Class
altogether, holding that the "holy grail" issue relating to the
Internet Class is whether their informed consent was valid.
While the clinic had a policy for getting informed consent before
putting patient images and videos online, Justice Perell concluded
that whether valid informed consent was obtained is inherently an
individualistic issue. It depends on characteristics such as a
patient's understanding of what they were consenting to, which in
turn is based on their exposure to social media and the clinic's
presence on social media. Due to the varied nature of the
procedures, the degree of privacy breach was also individualistic.
In sum, Justice Perell found there was no basis in fact for any
common issue for the Internet Class .
Plaintiffs receive full agreed-on costs
Before the certification motion, the parties agreed to costs in the
amount of $ 150,000.
Following Justice Perell's decision, the defendant argued that
costs should not be paid because the plaintiffs were only partially
successful.
In a costs decision (2021 ONSC 5213), Justice Perell disagreed with
the defendant and awarded the full amount of the agreed-upon costs
to the plaintiff. According to Justice Perell, this was justified
because the parties came to an agreement when the claims of the
Surveillance Class and Internet Class were joined as a singular
action .
Takeaways
Privacy breach class actions remain viable in Ontario when they are
based on torts such as negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and
inclusion upon seclusion against defendants alleged to have
deliberately invaded plaintiffs' privacy. However, Justice Perell
confirmed that courts will carefully scrutinize the existence of
common issues where an element of informed consent is involved in
the exchange. Furthermore, Justice Perell confirmed that the tort
of "public disclosure of private facts" is individualistic and may
be unsuitable for a class action.[GN]
MATERRA LLC: Guerra Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MATERRA LLC, et al.
The case is styled as Jaime Espinoza Guerra, INDIVIDUAL AND CLASS
REPRESENTATIVE ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY
SITUATED NON-EXEMPT FORMER AND CURRENT EMPLOYEES v. MATERRA LLC, A
CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; MATERRA FARMING COMPANY LLC,
A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; BRAWLEY FARM LABOR
CONTRACTOR, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; JAIME A. NAVA; ALAN BOYCE;
Case No. BCV-21-102255 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Sept. 24,
2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited."
Materra -- https://materrafarming.com/ -- proudly grows food and
fiber for the world in a rapidly changing global marketplace.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shoham J. Solouki, Esq.
SOLOUKI | SAVOY, LLP
316 W 2nd St., Ste. 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90012-3537
Phone: 213-814-4940
Fax: 213-814-2550
Email: shoham@soloukisavoy.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Ehrenreich Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
----------------------------------------------------------------
HARRY EHRENREICH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.,
and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05177 (E.D.N.Y.,
September 17, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the
Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA).
The Plaintiff has an alleged debt incurred to creditor Capital One
Bank (USA), N.A. primarily for personal, family or household
purposes, specifically use of a credit card.
According to the complaint, the creditor purportedly sold the
alleged debt to Defendant MCM, who is collecting the alleged debt.
Subsequently on or about June 18, 2021, the Defendant sent the
Plaintiff a collection letter on or about June 18, 2021. Although
the Defendant's letter stated a current balance of $2,295.68 and
provide three payment options, it did not adequately explain the
third option which resulted in two different possible
interpretations and confused the Plaintiff, says the suit.
By failing to explain whether Option 3 is a settlement option or a
full pay option, the letter is allegedly false, deceptive and
misleading. As a result, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
individuals have been damaged. The Plaintiff seeks statutory and
actual damages, litigation costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and
expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the
Court may deem just and proper.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a debt collector. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext. 107
Fax: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
MISSOURI: ACLU Asks Court to Intervene in Mask Mandate Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Scott at newstalkkzrg.com reports that the American Civil
Liberties Union of Missouri has asked a state court to let it
intervene in state Attorney General Eric Schmitt's class-action
lawsuit seeking to prevent school districts from requiring masks.
A press release from the ACLU says under federal law, public
schools cannot exclude students with disabilities, deny them equal
access to their education, or segregate them unnecessarily. It says
schools are obligated to provide reasonable modifications to
procedures in order to give students an equal opportunity to
benefit from their public education, including requiring universal
masking.
While Schmitt says he wants to ban masks in schools to protect
children, the ACLU says he ignores children with disabilities.
Schmitt has said the risk of spread among children is low. The ACLU
says there has been a tenfold increase in hospitalizations among
children in recent months. [GN]
MOLSON COORS: Faces Class Action Over Vizzy Misleading Campaign
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kerana Todorov, writing for Wine Business, reports that a
class-action lawsuit has been filed in federal court against Molson
Coors Beverage Co. for allegedly leading a misleading campaign over
the hard seltzer Vizzy's health benefits.
A Menlo Park woman named Jennifer Marek alleged the beverage
company fortified its hard seltzer product called "Vizzy" with "an
insignificant amount of Vitamin C, and then blanketed the labels
and advertising with statements affirmatively promoting antioxidant
Vitamin C from a 'superfruit,'" according to the federal complaint
filed on Sept. 16 in the U.S. District Court for Northern
California.
That campaign, the complaint alleged, is both "misleading and
dangerous to consumers." The campaign is also allegedly "unlawful"
because the labels ignore the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and
Congressional policies "acknowledging such dangers," according to
the court filing.
Marek, who said she purchased Vizzzy Hard Seltzer variety packs in
2021, alleged Molson Coors sought to profit from consumers'
increasing interest into healthy food and drink, according to the
lawsuit. The company allegedly manufactured, labeled and advertised
Vizzy as a drink with "'antioxidant Vitamin C from Acerola
Superfruit,'" to "deceive consumers" into buying the drink,
according to the complaint.
The company sought to "cash in on the hard seltzer craze, according
to the complaint. Hard seltzer sales have dramatically grown, the
lawsuit noted. In 2018, hard seltzer sales were $210 million. A
year later, sales totaled $1.2 billion, "with no signs of slowing,"
according to the court filing.
"Intending to profit from consumers' increasing desire to consumer
healthy food and drink, (Molson Coors Beverage) fortified its
alcoholic beverage by sprinkling nutrients into a beverage that is
lawfully required to disclose harmful health effects. Of course,
adding an insignificant amount of nutrients to an alcoholic
beverage will do little to overcome the harmful effects of
alcohol," according to the lawsuit.
Alcohol abuse leads to more than 95,000 deaths a year in the United
States, according to the lawsuit, citing data from the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. "Attempting to overcome the
deleterious health impact of its (products), (Molson Coors
Beverage) added Vitamin C" to Vizzy, according to the lawsuit.
Marek seeks unspecified damages for a number of alleged violations
for false advertising, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, unfair
businesses and unjust enrichment.
MillerCoors, a division of Molson Coors, launched Vizzy late in
2019, according to a company news release. MillerCoors has invested
"millions" behind Vizzy, "the first hard seltzer made with acerola
cherry, the superfruit high in the antioxidant vitamin C,"
according to the written statement released in December 2019
Vizzy attempted to attract health-conscious consumers. "Aimed
squarely at the health and wellness trends fueling the
food-and-beverage industry, Vizzy represents MillerCoors' biggest
big yet on the ascendant hard seltzer segment, which is estimated
to reach $2 billion in sales next year," according to the press
release issued Dec. 9, 2019.
The company launched Vizzy nationwide during the pandemic in April
2020, according to a news release. "Vizzy is hitting the market at
a time when hard seltzers continue unprecedented growth, despite
widespread disruption in consumer spending habits," according to
the company's news release.
Vizzy's flavors include blackberry lemon, raspberry tangerine,
blueberry pomegranate and others.
Molson Coors' seltzer portfolio is up 159 percent over the past 13
weeks, the company stated on Sept. 15 in a news release. Molson
Coors' seltzer brands, including Vizzy Hard Seltzer, have "grown at
an impressive pace" even through the industry's seltzer segment
overall has slowed over the summer, according to the company.
The company is investing "tens of millions of dollars" in a new
facility at its Fort Worth brewery to package hard seltzer products
and other beverages, according to the company.
The complaint also named the U.S.-based division of the beverage
company, Molson Coors Beverage Co. USA LLC. That division is
headquartered in Chicago. Molson Coors is a publicly traded
company. [GN]
MOREY CORPORATION: Perez Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA PEREZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE MOREY CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
2021L001009 (Ill. Cir. Ct., 18th Jud. Ct., Dupage Cty., September
23, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's recording, collection, and
storage of its employees' fingerprints without informing them in
writing that their biometric data was being recorded, obtained,
collected, and/or stored and the specific purpose and length of
term for which their biometric data would be collected, stored,
and/or used.
The Morey Corporation is an electronics company in Woodridge,
Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
William H. Beaumont, Esq.
BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
107 W. Van Buren, Suite 209
Chicago, IL 60605
Telephone: (773) 831-8000
E-mail: rlc@beaumontcostales.com
whb@beaumontcostales.com
NEBRASKA MEDICINE: Final Order & Judgment Entered in Chacon Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN CHACON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; and LEONARD BRADLEY, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NEBRASKA MEDICINE,
Defendant, Case No. 8:21CV70 (D. Neb.), Judge Robert F. Rossiter,
Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska
granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion for Attorney Fees, Costs,
and Service Awards; and Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement.
Background
The Plaintiffs previously reported that they entered into a
Settlement Agreement with Defendant Nebraska Medicine on May 25,
2021. On June 4, 2021, the Court entered an order granting
preliminary approval of the class-action settlement between the
Plaintiffs and Nebraska Medicine.
The Plaintiffs now request that the Court grants final approval of
the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate. They further
maintain the fees, costs, and service awards they request are
reasonable given the significant benefits they have obtained for
members of the class.
The Court held a hearing on the settlement and attorney-fee request
on Sept. 15, 2021. There were no objections.
Having reviewed and considered the Settlement Agreement and the
motion for final approval of the Settlement, as well as the fees
motion, the preliminary-approval motion, and all papers and
pleadings on file in this matter, and having held a Final Approval
Hearing, Judge Rossiter grants the relief upon the terms and
conditions set forth in his Final Order and Judgment. His findings
and conclusions are for the limited purpose of determining whether
the Settlement should be approved as being fair, reasonable,
adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement Class.
Order
Based on the foregoing, Judge Rossiter granted Plaintiffs John
Chacon and Leonard Bradley's Motion for Attorney Fees, Costs, and
Service Awards; and Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement.
The Settlement involves allegations in the Plaintiffs' Class Action
Complaint that Nebraska Medicine failed to safeguard and protect
the personally identifiable information and protected health
information of its patients and that the alleged failure caused
injuries to the Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class.
In the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and (e) and for settlement
purposes only, certified the Settlement Classes, defined as
follows:
a. Settlement Class: The approximately 125,106 persons who
were mailed notification that their PII was potentially impacted as
a result of the Data Incident that occurred between Aug. 27, 2020
and Sept. 20, 2020.
b. Credit Monitoring Subclass: The approximately 13,497
persons who were mailed notification that their Social Security
and/or driver's license numbers were potentially accessed as a
result of the Data Incident that occurred between Aug. 27, 2020 and
Sept. 20, 2020.
The Settlement Agreement provides, in part, and subject to a more
detailed description of the settlement terms in the Settlement
Agreement, for the following:
a. A process for Settlement Class Members to submit claims
for compensation that will be evaluated by a Claims Administrator
mutually agreed upon by Class Counsel and Nebraska Medicine and
approved by the Court.
b. Automatic provision of credit monitoring and identity
theft restoration services to members of the Credit Monitoring
Subclass.
c. Nebraska Medicine to pay all notice and Claims
Administration costs.
d. Nebraska Medicine to pay a Court-approved amount for
attorney fees, costs, and expenses of Class Counsel of $195,000.
e. Nebraska Medicine to pay a service award of $2,000 to each
of the named Plaintiffs.
Judge Rossiter finds that the terms of the Settlement Agreement are
fair, reasonable, and adequate and are approved, adopted, and
incorporated by the Court. The parties, their respective attorneys,
and the Claims Administrator are directed to consummate the
Settlement in accordance with the Final Order and Judgment and the
terms of the Settlement Agreement.
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Nebraska Medicine, the Claims
Administrator, and the Claims Referee will implement the Settlement
in the manner and time frame as set forth therein.
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Plaintiffs, and the
Settlement Class Members release claims against Nebraska Medicine
and all Released Persons, as defined in the Settlement Agreement.
Released Claims will not include the right of any Settlement Class
Member or any of the Released Persons to enforce the terms of the
Settlement contained in this Settlement Agreement and will not
include the claims of those persons identified in the Final Order
and Judgment as having timely and validly requested exclusion from
the Settlement Class.
On the Effective Date and in consideration of the promises and
covenants set forth in the Settlement Agreement, the Plaintiffs and
each Settlement Class Member, will be deemed to have, and by
operation of the Final Order and Judgment will have, fully,
finally, completely, and forever released and discharged the
Released Persons from the Released Claims.
The matter is dismissed with prejudice and without costs except
that the Court reserves jurisdiction over the consummation and
enforcement of the Settlement.
In accordance with Rule 23, the Final Order and Judgment resolves
all claims against all parties in the action and is a final order.
There is no just reason to delay the entry of final judgment in the
matter, and the Clerk of Court is directed to file the Final Order
and Judgment as the final judgment in the matter.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 15, 2021 Final Order &
Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/4en2zar7 from
Leagle.com.
NEW BEST: Fails to Pay Fish Market Workers' Wages, Lazaro Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANDY GARCIA LAZARO (A.K.A. DANIEL) individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, v. NEW BEST OF THE SEA INC. (D/B/A BEST
FISH MARKET), BEST FISH MARKET CORP. (D/B/A BEST FISH MARKET),
Nguyet Ong and JONG CHAN NAM, Case No. 1:21-cv-05305 (E.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 23, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York
Labor Law.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff Garcia worked for Defendants
in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he
worked.
Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the
hours worked, failed to pay Plaintiff Garcia appropriately for any
hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium, the suit adds.
Plaintiff Garcia was employed as a food preparer at the fish market
located at 31-01 30th Avenue, Astoria, New York.
The Defendants own, operate, or control the fish market where the
Plaintiff was employed under the name "Best Fish Market".
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
NEW YORK DOH: Coalition Of Citizens Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the New York State
Department Of Health (NYS DOH). The case is styled as Coalition Of
Citizens For Medical Choice, Inc., Stephanie Lee Allen C.S.T. On
Behalf Of Herself And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated,
Of Herself And etal Jessica M. Bond P.T.A. v. New York State
Department Of Health, Kathleen C. Hochul Governor Of New York, Case
No. 908359/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Albany Cty., Sept. 24, 2021).
The case type is stated as "ARTICLE 78."
The New York State Department of Health -- https://health.ny.gov/
-- is the department of the New York state government responsible
for public health.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hogan Willig, PLLC
2410 N Forest Rd Ste 301
Getzville, NY 14068
Phone: (716) 636-7600
OATLY GROUP AB: Faces Kostendt Suit Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Kostendt, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Oatly Group AB, Toni Petersson,
Christian Hanke, Fredrik Berg, Steven Chu, Ann Chung, Bernard
Hours, Hannah Jones, Mattias Klintemar, Po Sing (Tomakin) Lai, Eric
Melloul, Bjorn Oste, Frances Rathke, Yawen Wu and Tim Zhang,
Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-07904, (S.D. N. Y., September 22, 2021),
seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
Oatly is an international oatmilk company. It is organized under
the laws of Sweden. Its American Depositary Shares are listed and
trade on the NASDAQ Global Market under the ticker symbol "OTLY."
Oatly held its initial public offering in the United States on May
20, 2021, offering and selling 84,376,000 ADSs (including
19,688,000 from certain shareholders) at a price of $17.00 per
share.
Oatly was accused of improper accounting practices and greenwashing
to make its product appear more sustainable than it actually is,
among other issues. Following this news, the price of Oatly ADSs
fell 7.8% over two trading days, falling from a price of $21.13 on
July 13, 2021 to a price of $19.48 on July 15, 2021, on unusually
high trading volume.
Kostendt purchased Oatly securities and was economically damaged
thereby. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jack G. Fruchter, Esq.
ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
450 Seventh Avenue, 38th Floor
New York, NY 10123
Telephone: (212) 279-5050
Facsimile: (212) 279-3655
Email: JFruchter@aftlaw.com
OLD DOMINION: Mendez Seeks Unpaid Wages for Tractor Operators
-------------------------------------------------------------
RUSBER GONZALEZ MENDEZ, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-05289 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 23, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid
wages for work performed and overtime compensation including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs
under pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New
York Labor Law.
As a result of its alleged failure to compensate for all hours
worked and all overtime compensation, ODFL failed to pay Plaintiff
for all wages due and owing under the NYLL.
ODFL is one of the largest North American less-than-truckload motor
carriers, providing regional, inter-regional and national LTL
services through an expansive network of service centers located
throughout the continental United States.
From 2015 to present, all others similarly situated operated
tractors to move trailers to designated loading/unloading sites
within ODFL's yards located in New York.
The Plaintiff operated tractors to move trailers to designated
loading/unloading sites within ODFL's yard located in Brooklyn.
During his employment in Brooklyn, the Plaintiff did not drive
trucks or move the trailers on public roads.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven Bennett Blau, Esq.
Shelly A. Leonard, Esq.
BLAU LEONARD LAW GROUP, LLC
23 Green Street, Suite 105
Huntington, NY 11743
Telephone: (631) 458-1010
E-mail: sblau@blauleonardlaw.com
sleonard@blauleonardlaw.com
ONE BE EXPRESS: Pinula Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Liria Pinula, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. One Be Express Laundry, Inc., NY NK Express
Laundry Inc., BE Fulton Laundry Inc. and Boris Kariyev and Roman
"Doe," Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-05280 (E.D. N.Y., September 22,
2021) seeks unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, New York Labor Law, NY Wage Theft
Prevention Act and the "spread-of-hours" and overtime wage orders
of the New York Commission of Labor, including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.
Defendants own, operate, or control laundromat/dry cleaning
establishments in Brooklyn where Pinula worked as a as a laundry
worker. She usually works in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate compensation for the hours over 40 per week. Defendants
also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of their hours
worked and failed to pay Pinula the required "spread-of-hours" pay
for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day, asserts
the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
Aygul Charles, Esq.
Toneille Raglan, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL PC
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel: (212) 203-2417
Website: www.FightForUrRights.com
PASSAIC COUNTY, NJ: May Close Jail That Has Been Subject of Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Janoski, writing for NorthJersey.com, reports that for the
second time in a decade, Passaic County officials are weighing
whether to close the county jail, a 64-year-old facility with a
checkered past that sits in the heart of downtown Paterson.
Nothing is certain yet, said Passaic County Administrator Anthony
DeNova. County officials are waiting for the recommendation of a
jail assessment committee, formed last month, that will likely
determine the future of the Marshall Street building.
The committee may say the county should build a new jail, DeNova
said. Or it may say it's time to "regionalize" by ferrying
Passaic's 700 or so inmates to another jail somewhere in North
Jersey, along with shipments of money to cover the cost of housing
them.
But officials agree that something must be done, one way or
another. The building is decrepit, and its punishing conditions
have been the subject of several lawsuits over the years.
Plus, New Jersey's landmark 2017 bail reform law, which prohibits
courts from granting or denying bail based on who can pay, has
essentially emptied many of the cells that once teemed with more
prisoners than they could handle.
Passaic County Admisitrator Anthony J. DeNova
"Bail reform has driven this ship. It did what it was designed to
do -- it reduced the prison population," DeNova said during a
recent interview in his Grand Street office. "That's what causes
somebody in my position to look at what the options are."
The choice is clear to those such as Jenny-Brooke Condon, a law
professor at Seton Hall University's Center for Social Justice, who
worked on a 2008 class-action lawsuit filed by inmates over the
jail's conditions.
"The jail has a lot of core defects and problems that no amount of
reform or resources can really repair," Condon said. "I don't think
you would hear anybody who has visited Passaic County Jail, been
held at Passaic County Jail or spent any time there object to the
closure of that facility."
Even John Welsh, head of the corrections officers' union, is not
against the move -- provided county officials aren't planning to
push his members onto the unemployment line.
"I would rather them build a new jail," Welsh said. "But if we can
come up with a plan that's fiscally responsible for the taxpayers
that . . . will also save my members' jobs without them losing
their homes, we're for it."
The jail's annual budget has floated between $43 million and $48
million over the last five years, county officials said. About 80%
of that is devoted to salary and wages for the corrections
officers.
DeNova was hesitant to say how much money the county could save by
shuttering the lockup. Much of that depends on how many officers
stay on and in what capacity they would work.
But it would save on the building's upkeep and capital expenses,
which DeNova said have cost more than $20 million over the last two
decades.
A troubled past
The Passaic County Jail is one of the oldest operating county jails
in the state, officials have said.
Problems began not long after its 1957 opening. In 1978, inmates
sued then-Sheriff Edwin Englehardt over claims the jail was
overcrowded, unsanitary and segregated, according to a New York
Times report.
"The 300 inmates said they were given only plastic-covered foam
mattresses with no blankets, sheets or pillows and often lived in
cells with water on the floors," the Times story said.
Englehardt, in turn, sued the state of New Jersey, claiming it
failed to transfer inmates sentenced to state prison out of Passaic
County in a timely manner. This led to the overcrowding, he said.
County officials later agreed to a settlement that called for vast
improvements in living conditions, according to a brief history
published in 2008 by the American Civil Liberties Union of New
Jersey.
'Affront to human decency'
But conditions continued to deteriorate despite the agreement,
leading Gov. Thomas Kean to call the facility "an embarrassment"
during a 1982 tour, the ACLU said.
Chronic overcrowding plagued the jail, which was intended to hold
about 900 inmates but at times housed more than 2,000.
Rodent and insect infestations were common. One warden admitted
inmates had found their food eaten by mice, the ACLU said. Inmates
often stuffed their ears and nostrils with tissues to stop insects
from crawling in during the night.
Aside from the filthy settings, temperatures swung between too hot
in the summer and too cold in the winter, the ACLU said.
In 2008, eight inmates, the ACLU and Seton Hall University's Center
for Social Justice filed a class-action lawsuit that called the
jail's conditions "an affront to human decency."
It alleged a litany of problems, including rodent droppings in
inmates' food, sewage leaking through the floor drains and beatings
by corrections officers hidden from security cameras.
The county settled more than three years later when officials
agreed to a far-reaching overhaul that would improve ventilation,
safety equipment, sanitation and the treatment of inmates.
Bill Maer, a spokesman for the Sheriff's Office, said on Sept. 17
that the agency has tried to correct the issues brought up in the
2008 suit.
"We have had nearly impeccable inspections from state regulators
over the last several years," Maer said.
A lengthy process
The process of shutting down the jail could be lengthy, said John
Donnadio, executive director of the New Jersey Association of
Counties. But if Passaic went through with it, the county would
join the ranks of other counties that already send their prisoners
elsewhere.
Gloucester County sends its inmates to the Salem County jail, and
Hunterdon and Sussex counties use the Morris County lockup, he
said.
Mercer County has agreed to send its prisoners to Hudson, and
Cumberland County is looking to send inmates to Salem, Donnadio
said last fall. But those proposals are facing court challenges.
Bergen County would be the natural fit for such a deal, DeNova
said. He referred to it as Passaic's "sister county," with which it
already had other shared service agreements.
Plus, Bergen's jail in Hackensack is a straight shot down Route 80
from Paterson.
"It just makes plenty of sense," DeNova said. "That's not written
in stone, and it doesn't mean it will be Bergen County. That's just
the first one we reached out to."
Such a deal might even allow Bergen County to withdraw from its
controversial contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement to hold federal immigration detainees without leaving a
multimillion-dollar budget hole in its wake.
The Bergen County Jail, on River Street in Hackensack, has about
1,150 beds but only about 400 inmates and 24 detainees, the
Sheriff's Office said.
But during the height of the Trump administration, Bergen County
often backfilled the facility with hundreds of detainees, for whom
the federal government paid a fee of $110 per bed, per night.
This led to big windfalls. The county pulled in about $17 million
from the program in 2018 -- nearly a fifth of the sheriff's budget
-- and $13 million in 2019.
The numbers have dropped during the last two years to $7.3 million
in 2020 and $2 million this year, a spokeswoman said.
Still, activists and protesters have pilloried county officials
-- all of whom are Democrats -- for accepting money from a program
the protesters consider unjust.
Late last month, Gov. Phil Murphy signed a law barring New Jersey
jails from "entering into, renewing or extending immigration
detention agreements." But the law does not address current
contracts such as Bergen's, which the Sheriff's Office said is in
perpetuity and does not have to be renewed.
Bergen County officials were mostly mum when asked about both
Passaic County's proposal and how it might affect the ICE detainee
program.
"Passaic County did reach out to gauge our interest and we had a
preliminary conversation," Derek Sands, a spokesman for County
Executive Jim Tedesco, said in an email. "The county is always
looking for new opportunities that benefit Bergen County taxpayers,
but just like any other shared service agreement, the
administration has a responsibility to do our full due diligence."
Sheriff Anthony Cureton said through a spokeswoman that he was
waiting to hear more from Tedesco's office.
Failed first try
That Passaic County corrections officers are even considering a
proposal to close the jail is a testament to how much things have
changed during the last decade in the county of about 500,000.
In 2011, many of the same officers led an effort to torpedo a plan
that would have sent Passaic's inmates to jails in Bergen and Essex
counties.
At the time, DeNova said the move would save Passaic County about
$20 million annually.
The union contended that it would hurt law enforcement's
effectiveness countywide and end an array of specialized services,
such as K-9 units, hazmat, the bomb squad and hostage negotiation.
Many of the volunteers for these units came from the corrections
officers' ranks. Welsh, the union president, said they still do.
But the opposition eventually grew beyond the officers.
Church congregations, community leaders and minority groups joined,
complaining about the perceived threat to public safety and the
toll it would exact on officers as well as inmate families, who
would have to travel farther to see their incarcerated relatives.
Sheriff Richard Berdnik also dismissed the idea, saying it would
lead to more crime and force local officers from stretched
departments to deliver inmates to distant jails in Newark and
Hackensack.
Officials from Bergen and Essex counties were enthusiastic about
the prospect of being paid to take Passaic's prisoners.
Passaic's commissioners were less elated.
By late July, the plan was dead.
Different times?
DeNova is determined to avoid a repeat of 2011.
That's why the county set up the committee, which includes
commissioners, the sheriff, judges, community activists and
representatives from the corrections officers' union, PBA 197.
"We felt it was important to have complete transparency," DeNova
said. "It's a big issue, it affects a lot of people, it affects
jobs and it affects the community. I learn by my mistakes, and I
knew the only way to have an honest discussion was to put everybody
around the table."
Ensuring that corrections officers either keep their jobs or find
new ones would be a key part of any consolidation plan, DeNova
said. This might involve moving them into new roles, retraining
them as sheriff's officers or something else. It's still too early
to tell.
Those statements -- and the fact that DeNova invited union leaders
into the committee -- have engendered some goodwill, according to
Welsh and Ricky Rosario, president of the 54-member Superior
Officers' Association within PBA 197.
"I'm extremely happy that they're reaching across the aisle to pull
us in to participate, unlike 2011," Rosario said.
Perhaps most importantly, Berdnik has not opposed the plan.
His office did not comment on the issue directly. But a spokesman
referred to an August letter the sheriff sent to all employees just
before the commissioners introduced the resolution to create the
assessment committee, on which Berdnik now sits.
He promised officers that he would "never support any policy that
does not benefit the employees of the Sheriff's Office" and that
saving jobs would be of paramount importance.
It is, of course, possible that the county will elect to build a
new jail instead. But that brings its own set of problems,
officials said.
Few mayors want a jail in their town, DeNova said. But if the
county chose to build anew on the same Marshall Street site, the
prisoners would likely have to be housed somewhere else during
construction.
A new facility would also cost "tons of money," which means higher
taxes, said county commissioner Theodore "T.J." Best.
Best, who supports closing the jail, said rebuilding would also
make job losses much more likely.
"If we build it, we're going to build it smarter to accommodate
less prisoners," he said. "That actually means there's going to be
layoffs. If we close the jail today and merge with another county,
we have the ability to save every job."
None of Passaic County's six other commissioners, all of whom are
Democrats, responded to requests for comment.
DeNova said there is no deadline for the assessment committee to
make a recommendation. But the commissioners' August resolution
said the administrator should be ready to present his findings no
later than Dec. 31.
Local support
Several county mayors said they support closing the jail, including
Woodland Park Mayor Keith Kazmark, Passaic Mayor Hector Lora and
Paterson Mayor Andre Sayegh.
In an email sent to commissioners last November, Sayegh said the
move would push along burgeoning redevelopment in the city's
downtown.
"Optimizing land use and giving people something more aesthetically
appealing to view after exiting Route 19 and entering our historic
city is vitally important," Sayegh said.
Mike Powell, the city's economic development director, said the
same thing in more plain terms.
The city has more than $200 million worth of private redevelopment
underway, he said. Closing the Passaic County Jail would send the
message that things are finally changing.
"The jail is directly at the entrance to our city," Powell said.
"It's like having a rotten tooth in front of your mouth." [GN]
PB FLORIDA LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Belsanti Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
MIKAYLA LYNN BELSANTI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PB FLORIDA, LLC, d/b/a PURE BARRE;
and AIMEE O'NEIL, Defendants, Case No. 8:21-cv-02184-CEH-TGW (M.D.
Fla., Sept. 14, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid
wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Belsanti was employed by the Defendants as fitness
instructor.
PB FLORIDA, LLC, d/b/a PURE BARRE operates two fitness studios in
Hillsborough County, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
JAY P. LECHNER, P.A.
201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 412
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 842-7071
E-mail: jplechn@jaylechner.com
admin@jaylechner.com
PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA: Hunter-Blank Files Suit in D. Kansas
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Philips North America
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Larry Hunter-Blank, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Philips North America
LLC, Philips RS North America LLC, Koninklijke Philips N.V., Case
No. 2:21-cv-02426-KHV-JPO (D. Kan., Sept. 28, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.
Philips North America LLC -- https://www.usa.philips.com/ -- is
located in Miami, Florida and is part of the Audio and Video
Equipment Manufacturing Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
Ruth Anne French-Hodson, Esq.
SHARP LAW, LLP
4820 West 75th Street
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Phone: (913) 901-0505
Fax: (913) 901-0419
Email: rsharp@midwest-law.com
rafrenchhodson@midwest-law.com
PLAN BENEFIT: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Reset to November 9
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIBERTO CHAVEZ,
EVANGELINA ESCARCEGA, AND JORGE MORENO, v. PLAN BENEFIT SERVICES,
INC, FRINGE INSURANCE BENEFITS, INC., AND FRINGE BENEFIT GROUP,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00659-LY (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Lee Yeakel
entered an order resetting the hearing on Plaintiffs' amended
motion to certify class to November 9, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., Austin,
Texas time in Courtroom 7 of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.
The Plaintiffs sue the Defendants under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The thrust of their
complaint is that Defendants have acted as fiduciaries and breached
their fiduciary duties.
The Plaintiffs are current or former employees of the Training,
Rehabilitation, and Development Institute ("TRDI").
In 2019, the Plaintiffs moved to certify a Rule 23(b)(1)(B) class
of some 90,000 employees that involved many employers and plans,
which the court certified after a hearing.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uohARX at no extra charge.[CC]
PRUDENTIAL SECURITY: Cowley Slams Unpaid Wages, Missed Breaks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Cowley, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Prudential Security, Inc., Greg Wier and
Matthew Keywell, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-12226 (E.D. Mich.,
September 21, 2021), seeks unpaid wages and interest thereon for
failure to pay for all hours worked at minimum wage rate, statutory
penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting
time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to
timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment,
redress for failure to authorize, permit, and/or make meal and rest
periods available, and failing to pay premium pay for these missed
breaks, reimbursement of work-related expenses, including but not
limited to required usage of personal cell phones during shifts and
during off days.
The lawsuit also seeks injunctive relief and other equitable
relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, California Labor Code and
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.
Defendants provide security services for commercial and residential
properties throughout California where Cowley was a former
non-exempt, hourly-paid security guard from approximately March
2019 until April 2019. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Blanchard, Esq.
Frances J. Hollander, Esq.
BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC
221 N. Main Street, Suite 300
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Telephone: (734) 929-4313
Email: blanchard@bwlawonline.com
hollander@bwlawonline.com
- and -
Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq.
Caroline N. Cohen, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
ccohen@schneiderwallace.com
QMENU INC: Obento Class Suit Moved From N.D. Ill. to N.D. Ga.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled OBENTO LIMITED (d/b/a Chinese Menu Online) and P &
F INC. DBA HAPPINESS RESTAURANT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. QMENU, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-07391, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia on September 24, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Georgia assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-03949-TWT to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unfair competition,
common law tortious interference with oral and written contracts,
common law tortious interference with prospective economic
advantage, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and Georgia's
Fair Business Practices Act.
Obento Limited, doing business as Chinese Menu Online, is a company
that owns and operates a Chinese restaurant, with its principal
place of business in Hong Kong.
P & F Inc., doing business as Happiness Restaurant, is a company
that owns and operates a Chinese restaurant, with its principal
place of business in Chicago, Illinois.
qMenu, Inc. is a Software as a Service (SaaS) company, with its
principal place of business in Peachtree Corners, Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan L. Schwartz, Esq.
Larry D. Mason, Esq.
GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP
222 West Adams Street, Suite 2250
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 572-8411
Facsimile: (312) 572-8444
E-mail: jschwartz@goldbergsegalla.com
lmason@goldbergsegalla.com
RALPH LAUREN: Cota Sues Over Deceptive Product Marketing
--------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE COTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01089-WCG (E.D. Wis., September 19, 2021) is a class
action complaint brought against the Defendant alleging the
Defendant of violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification
Act, Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act, State consumer Fraud
Acts, Breaches of Express Warranty, Implied Warranty of
Merchantability and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has purchased one or more
clothing items under the Defendant's brands which purported to
contain less amount and/or percentage of pima cotton under the Polo
and Ralph Lauren brands than the amount indicated on the label and
tag. The Laboratory analysis of the product, that was performed in
accordance with the ASTM D5103 standard, revealed that between
most, and all fibers were shorter than 1.200 inches (30.48mm) and
shorter than 1.080 inches 927.432mm), below the range for pima
cotton. The Plaintiff asserts that the value of the product she
purchased was materially less than its value as represented by the
Defendant. Had she known the truth, she would not have purchased
the Product or would have paid less for it, the suit says.
The Defendant allegedly violated Wis. Stat. Section 100.18(1) due
to is false and deceptive representations and omissions about the
percentage and/or amount of pima cotton in its products. In
addition, the Defendant obtained benefits and monies as a result of
its alleged unlawful misrepresentations of its product.
Because the Plaintiff has relied on the representations, she has
suffered pecuniary loss. Thus, the Plaintiff is entitled to
monetary damages, statutory and/or punitive damages, costs and
expenses, reasonable attorneys' fees and experts, and other relief
as the Court deems just and proper.
Ralph Lauren Corporation manufactures, labels, markets, and sells
clothing. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd, Suite 409
Great Neck, NY 11021
Tel: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
RICOH USA: Sarabia Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIO SARABIA, on behalf
of himself and for all similarly situated persons,
and the general public, Plaintiff, v. RICOH USA, INC., a California
Corporation, RICOH LOGISTICS CORPORATION and
DOES 1-50 ALL INCLUSIVE, Case No. 8:20-cv-00218-JLS-KES (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a
class of:
"All hourly employees of Ricoh USA, Inc. and/or Ricoh Logistics
Corporation who worked for either defendant in California between
the time period from December 2, 2015 to the present for all
available wage and penalty remedies."
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly
situated current and former, non-exempt, workers of defendants,
seeks redress for the Defendants' illegal wage and hour practices
and policies.
The Defendants' actions have allegedly deprived Plaintiff and
putative class members of lawful proper meal periods and premium
wages. Class certification is appropriate here because the meal
period class is ascertainable from Defendants' electronic
timekeeping and payroll records; common questions of law and fact
concerning the provision of proper meal periods predominate over
any individual issues; the named Plaintiff's meal period claims are
typical of the class; he is an adequate representative of a meal
period class; and a class action is superior to hundreds of
individual meal period actions.
The Ricoh Company is a Japanese multinational imaging and
electronics company. It was founded by the now-defunct commercial
division of the Institute of Physical and Chemical Research known
as the Riken Concern, on 6 February 1936 as Riken Sensitized Paper.
Ricoh's headquarters are located in Ota, Tokyo.
A copy of the Plainitff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 21,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kLN5Cp
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Farrah Mirabel, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF FARRAH MIRABEL
1070 Stradella Rd.
LOS ANGELES, CA 90077
Telephone: (714) 972-0707
Facsimile: (949) 417-1796
E-mail: fmesq@fmirabel.com
- and -
Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
MALLISON & MARTINEZ
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
Oakland, CA 94612-3547
Telephone: (510) 832-9999
Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com
HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com
RIVERA SERVICES: Bermudez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PABLO BERMUDEZ, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff
v. RIVERA SERVICES GROUP INC and MARTA MARTINEZ, Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-23366-XXXX (S.D. Fla., September 17, 2021) brings this
complaint against the Defendants to recover money damages for
unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
for the wrongful, retaliatory discharge of an employee in violation
of Section 440.205 of the Florida Statutes.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Corporate Defendant as a Carpenter
from approximately May 10, 2021 to July 30, 2021.
The Plaintiff claims that he worked approximately an average of 55
hours per week. However, the Defendants did not pay him overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate
of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.
Allegedly, the Corporate Defendant willfully and intentionally
refused to pay him overtime wages as required by the laws of the
U.S. and remains owing the Plaintiff these wages since the
commencement of the Plaintiff's employment with the Corporate
Defendant.
Rivera Services Group Inc. is a food packing and transportation
company. Marta Martinez is the President of the Corporate
Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tanesha Walls Blye, Esq.
Aron Smukler, Esq.
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Tel: (305) 503-5131
Fax: (888) 270-5549
E-mail: tblye@saenzanderson.com
asmukler@saenzanderson.com
msaenz@saenzanderson.com
SECURUSTECH.NET: California Court Recommends Dismissal of Lira Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California recommends that the case,
BENJAMIN G. LIRA, Plaintiff v. SECURUSTECH.NET, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01274-JLT (PC) (E.D. Cal.), be dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Background
The Plaintiff filed the civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983 against Defendants Securustech.net and Robert E. Pickens, as
president of Securus.net. According to the sparse allegations in
the complaint, on July 21, 2021, Kings County Jail switched
telephone service providers to Secrurustech.net. The Plaintiff
alleges that the "unnecessary change" in services required outside
contacts, such as family and friends, to set up an account and
place money in the account before an inmate can communicate with
them.
The Plaintiff asserts that the new system infringes upon inmates'
constitutional rights, including access to the courts, due process,
and equal protection. More specifically, he argues that inmates are
unable to contact their attorneys or bail bondsmen in violation of
their First Amendment rights to access to the courts. The Plaintiff
attempts to proceed as a class action and demands that
Securustech.net provide each inmate with their own tablet, in
addition to damages.
Discussion
In determining whether the Defendants' actions as private actors
may be treated as state action, Judge Thurston starts with the
public function test. Under the Plaintiff's allegations of facts,
she finds is no indication that the State delegated a "public
function" to Secrurustech.net, a private phone service provider, or
that the Defendants participated in a joint activity with the State
or jail. Moreover, the Judge holds that the Plaintiff's complaint
does not assert that the government controlled, compelled, or
coerced Defendants to take actions that violate the Plaintiff's
rights. Because there is not a close nexus between the State and
the phone system transition, Secururtech.net's actions cannot be
fairly treated as state action.
With respect to the Defendant Pickens, the Plaintiff only
identifies him as the president of Securustech.net. Section 1983
requires the Plaintiff to demonstrate that each named defendant
personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. In the
case, Judge Thurston finds that the Plaintiff has made no
allegations against Pickens, and any claims against him must also
be dismissed.
Because she finds that neither the Defendant is a state actor nor
acting under color of law, Judge Thurston holds that they cannot be
held liable under section 1983 for any deprivation of rights
suffered by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, she recommends that the
case be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.
The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to the
case.
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United
States District Judge assigned to the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 636(b)(1). Within 14 days of the date of service of these
Findings and Recommendations, the Plaintiff may file written
objections with the Court. The document should be captioned,
"Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations."
Plaintiff's failure to file objections within the specified time
may result in waiver of his rights on appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 15, 2021 Findings &
Recommendations is available at https://tinyurl.com/n95v35tj from
Leagle.com.
SNAP FINANCE: Court Certifies Class in Wesley TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDI WESLEY, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. SNAP FINANCE LLC, Case
No. 2:20-cv-00148-RJS-JCB (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Robert J.
Shelby entered an order:
1. certifying and defining the following class:
"All persons throughout the United States (1) to whom Snap
Finance LLC placed, or caused to be placed, a call, (2)
directed to a number assigned to a cellular telephone
service, but not assigned to a current or former Snap
Finance LLC accountholder, (3) in connection with which
Snap Finance LLC used an artificial or prerecorded voice,
(4) from September 1, 2019 through September 21, 2021;"
2. appointing Aaron D. Radbil, Michael L. Greenwald, and
Alexander D. Kruzyk as class counsel;
3. appointing Brandi Wesley as the class representative;
4. directing the parties meet and confer concerning the form
of the notice to be sent to the class members pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2); and
5. directing the parties to provide the court with a
stipulated notice or the parties' proposed notices,
including supporting memoranda, no later than 30 days
after entry of this Order.
The Court says that Wesley has satisfied the requirements under
Rule 23 and is therefore entitled to certification of her proposed
class.
The Plaintiff Wesley brings this action against the Defendant Snap
Finance, seeking class-wide relief under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA).
Snap is a financial services company located in West Valley City,
Utah. Wesley alleges Snap started placing calls to her cellular
telephone number in November 2019. From November 6, 2019 through
February 7, 2020, Wesley alleges Snap placed at least sixty calls
to her cellphone number. During that time, Snap left at least eight
artificial or prerecorded voice messages on Wesley's cellphone
voicemail.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mpQEht at no extra charge.[CC]
SODEXO INC: Faces Arias Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE ARIAS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SODEXO, INC.; SDH SERVICES WEST, LLC; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV35242
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., September 23, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the Private
Attorneys General Act including failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods,
failure to provide itemized wage statements, and failure to pay one
hour wages in lieu of each unprovided or interrupted meal and rest
periods.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee at
their facilities in California.
Sodexo, Inc. is a food services and facilities management company
in France.
SDH Services West, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiaries of Sodexo,
Inc. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Nourmand, Esq.
James A. De Sario, Esq.
THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
8822 West Olympic Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 553-3600
Facsimile: (310) 553-3603
ST. LOUIS, MO: Bid to Amend Class Definition in Dixon Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID DIXON, et al. Plaintiffs v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS,
et al., Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-0112-AGF (E.D. Mo.), Judge
Audrey G. Fleissig of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, denied the Plaintiffs'
motion to amend the class definition and create a sub-class.
Background
The Plaintiffs were arrested and detained in St. Louis jails
because they were unable to afford bail. The Defendants are the
City of St. Louis, certain City officials, and several judges of
the 22nd Circuit. In January 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the class
action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 asserting that the Defendants
violated their constitutional rights to equal protection and
substantive and procedural due process by detaining them after
arrest without an opportunity to challenge the conditions of their
release. The Plaintiffs requested certification of a class of "all
arrestees who are or will be detained in the Medium Security
Institution (the Workhouse) or the City Justice Center (CJC),
operated by the City of St. Louis, post-arrest because they are
unable to afford to pay a monetary release condition." By Order
dated June 11, 2019, the Court granted certification of that
class.
In their original complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged that the
process by which the Defendants imposed bail at an arrestee's
initial appearance (held within 48 hours of arrest) was
unconstitutional in that arrestees did not get a meaningful hearing
examining their ability to pay, risk of flight, or danger to the
public. In short, it focused on those individuals for whom bail was
set.
On July 1, 2019, the Missouri Supreme Court adopted revisions to
Missouri Rule 33.01 governing pre-trial release conditions. The
revised rule clarifies that a court cannot impose cash bail absent
an individualized assessment of an arrestee's financial
circumstances, flight risk, threat to public safety, and
consideration of alternative release conditions. The detained
defendants have a right to a review hearing within seven days.
In light of the new rule and to some extent in response to the
present lawsuit, the Defendants instituted several changes in their
pre-trial procedures. A specialized division of the 22nd Circuit
was created to conduct all bail hearings, now held on the record,
and arrestees are provided appointed counsel. A pre-trial services
coordinator attends bail hearings and assists judges with referrals
to appropriate service providers as part of an arrestee's release
conditions (e.g., housing, treatment). The reporting forms used by
bond commissioners to interview arrestees and provide
individualized information to the court were expanded to cover
relevant subjects of inquiry (e.g., financial resources, ties to
family and community, employment, behavioral health, flight risk,
public safety). Bond commissioners ceased the practice of
recommending specific cash bail amounts to the court. The court's
form orders were expanded to solicit findings on the relevant
factors and to include a menu of common release conditions (e.g.,
custodial placement, travel restrictions, electronic monitoring,
drug testing, substance abuse treatment, no firearms, house arrest,
referrals to outside agencies). Judges received training, and a
bench book was created containing a script and checklist covering
relevant subjects of inquiry and information about social services
agencies for referrals.
Despite these changes, the Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants'
practices still fall short of constitutional standards in that
judges fail to apply proper evidentiary standards, make adequate
findings, or articulate their reasoning.
On March 20, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to amend
the class definition and to create a subclass. The motion was filed
following the close of all discovery and on the eve of the extended
deadline for the filing of casedispositive motions. As relevant to
the motion, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants increasingly
impose pre-trial detention orders without any bail condition
whatsoever, i.e., a "no bond" order, meaning the arrestee remains
detained without the option to post bond at all.
The Plaintiffs thus seek to expand the class definition to include
all pre-trial detainees in the 22nd Circuit, whether detained by
imposition of excessive bail or by no-bond order, and to convert
the originally certified class into a sub-class.
Discussion
In support of their motion, the Plaintiffs note that Rule 23 allows
a court to amend a class definition based on subsequent
developments in the litigation. The Defendants assert that such an
amendment is improper because it comes too late and constitutes a
different lawsuit.
Judge Fleissig agrees with the Defendants that the Plaintiffs'
attempt to broaden the class to include all detainees, regardless
of circumstances, represents a material departure from the factual
and legal theories fueling the original complaint, which focused
and even depended squarely on detention due to the indigent status
of class members. For three years, the Plaintiffs' central premise
has been that the Defendants fail to consider arrestees' ability to
pay. It would be unfair at this late stage to allow Pthe laintiffs
to expand the focus of the lawsuit to include a wholesale challenge
to the 22nd Circuit's detention practices. Any such endeavor must
be brought as a separate action, perhaps in Missouri state court.
Conclusion
For the reasons she set forth, Judge Fleissig denied the
Plaintiffs' motion to amend the class.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 15, 2021 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/4y6vd28c from Leagle.com.
STA MANAGEMENT: Court Tosses Mata Class Certification Bid as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESUS MATA, individually
and on behalf of similarly situated persons, v. STA MANAGEMENT, LLC
d/b/a "Domino's Pizza" and AMER ASMAR, et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-11662-NGE-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Nancy G. Edmunds
entered an order:
1. dismissing the plaintiff's state law claim without
prejudice; and
2. denying the plaintiff's motion for class certification as
moot.
The Court finds Plaintiff's argument regarding efficiency is
outweighed by the concerns regarding the differences between the
federal and state claims which may complicate this case and give
rise to a risk of jury confusion. Even though convenience
may weigh in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction,
considerations of judicial economy and comity weigh in favor of
declining to exercise that jurisdiction. And it would not be unfair
to Plaintiff to dismiss his state law claim because the dismissal
is without prejudice and he can bring his state law claim in state
court. The Court, therefore, declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Michigan minimum wage claim.
This is a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") case brought as an "opt
in" collective action in which Plaintiff Jesus Mata alleges that
Defendants failed to pay their delivery drivers minimum wage.
Plaintiff’s motion for FLSA conditional certification and notice
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) was recently granted by the
Court.
The Plaintiff also brings a claim under Michigan minimum wage law
in this lawsuit. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification of
that claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) is
pending before the Court.
The Court previously entered an order in this matter, ordering
Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should not decline
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state claim.
Domino's Pizza, Inc., branded as Domino's, is an American
multinational pizza restaurant chain founded in 1960 and led by CEO
Richard Allison.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zRPoYM at no extra charge.[CC]
STICKER MULE: Bonefort Class Action Settlement Gets Initial OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIERRA BONEFORT, on behalf
of herself, and all Others similarly situated, v. STICKER MULE, LLC
and PRINT BEAR, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01222-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Miroslav Lovric entered an order granting the plaintiff's
motion preliminary approval of the class action settlement and
conditional certification of the settlement class.
The Court appoints Kessler Matura, P.C. and the Law Office of
Raphael Katri as Class Counsel and ILYM as the Settlement
Administrator.
The Court adopts the following settlement procedure set forth in
the Agreement:
1. No later than 15 days after the issuance of this Order,
Defendants will provide the Settlement Administrator with
the Class List, in accordance with Sections 1.3 and 2.7 of
the Settlement Agreement.
2. Within 15 days after the Claims Administrator receiving
the Class List, the Claims Administrator will mail the
approved Notice to all Class Members, via First Class
Mail, in accordance with Section 2.7.
3. Class Members will have 60 days from the date the Class
Notice is mailed to exclude themselves from or object to
the Settlement, in accordance with Sections 2.8-2.9.
4. The Court will hold a final fairness hearing on February
22, 2022 at 1:00 p.m., Courtroom First Floor, at the U.S.
District Court, Northern District of New York, located at
Binghamton U.S. Courthouse, 15 Henry Street, Binghamton,
New York.
5. The hearing will be held IN person.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EYfIo2 at no extra charge.[CC]
STROKIN LLC: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Strokin, LLC. The
case is styled as Kareem Nisbett, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Strokin, LLC doing business as:
Heartland America, Case No. 1:21-cv-08012 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 27,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Heartland America -- https://www.heartlandamerica.com/ -- is an
online retailer of electronics, hardware, housewares, jewelry,
computers, and gifts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 764-7171
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
SUGAR CREEK: Class Cert. Response Extended to Oct. 12
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cordell v. Sugar Creek
Packing Co., Case No. 2:21-cv-00755 (S.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson entered an order granting
unopposed motion for extension of time to file response as to
motion to certify class conditionally under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Responses due by Oct. 12, 2021, says Judge Jolson.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
SugarCreek is a food manufacturer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC]
SUNSHINE RAISIN: EEOC Suit Alleges Gender-Based Sexual Harassment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNSHINE RAISIN
CORPORATION dba National Raisin Company; REAL TIME STAFFING
SERVICES, LLC dba Select Staffing; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-at-00923 (E.D. Cal., September 24, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights
Act of 1991.
The Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendants on behalf
of their female employees and all others similarly situated who
experienced unlawful employment practices based on their gender.
The aggrieved individuals were subjected to sexual harassment,
constructive discharge, and retaliation for opposing the
Defendants' unlawful employment practices.
Sunshine Raisin Corporation, doing business as National Raisin
Company, is a manufacturer of food products headquartered in
California.
Real Time Staffing Services, LLC, doing business as Select
Staffing, is a staffing agency based in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anna Y. Park, Esq.
Nakkisa Akhavan, Esq.
Lorena Garcia-Bautista, Esq.
Andrea Ringer, Esq.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
255 East Temple Street, Fourth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Telephone: (213) 894-1083
Facsimile: (213) 894-1301
E-mail: lado.legal@eeoc.gov
T-MOBILE USA: Faces Lomax Class Suit Over Cyberattack & Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXIS LOMAX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-01764-RFB-DJA (D.
Nev., Sept. 23, 2021) is class action suit arising out of a recent
cyberattack and data breach involving T-Mobile's computer network
and systems.
According to the complaint, an unauthorized actor gained access to
T-Mobile's computer systems for nearly a month and stole a virtual
treasure trove of personally identifiable information (PII) of tens
of millions of current, former, and prospective T-Mobile customers,
including Ms. Lomax, because of the alleged data breach.
Allegedly, T-Mobile is responsible for allowing the data breach to
occur because it failed to 14 implement and maintain reasonable
safeguards and failed to comply with industry-standard data
security practices as well as federal and state laws and
regulations governing data security, notwithstanding that T-Mobile
knew it was a target for cyberattacks as it had experienced four
other cyberattacks in the past four years.
Throughout the duration of the data breach, T-Mobile allegedly
failed to detect that ill-intentioned criminals had accessed its
computer data and storage systems, notice the massive amounts of
data that were compromised, or take any steps to investigate the
red flags that should have warned T-Mobile that its systems were
not secure. Had T-Mobile properly monitored its information
technology infrastructure, it would have discovered the intrusion
sooner.
Ms. Lomax and class members provided their PII to T-Mobile with the
reasonable expectation and mutual understanding that T-Mobile would
comply with its obligations to keep such information confidential
and secure from unauthorized access.
As a result of T-Mobile's alleged failure to protect the PII with
which it was entrusted, Ms. Lomax's and class members' PII was
accessed by malicious cyber criminals. Ms. Lomax and class members
therefore have been exposed to and/or are at a significant risk of
identity theft, financial fraud, and other identity-related fraud
into the indefinite future.
Accordingly, Ms. Lomax bring this action against T-Mobile seeking
redress for its unlawful conduct and asserting claims for: (i)
negligence; (ii) negligence per se ; (iii) declaratory judgment;
(iv) breach of confidence; (v) breach of implied contract; and (vi)
violations of Nevada's Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. provides telecommunications services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Don Springmeyer, Esq.
Michael J. Gayan, Esq.
KEMP JONES, LLP
3800 Howard Hughes Pkwy., 17th Floor
Las Vegas, NE 89169
Telephone: (702) 385-6000
E-mail: d.springmeyer@kempjones.com
m.gayan@kempjones.com
- and -
Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
& ZAVAREEI LLP TYCKO
1970 Broadway -- Suite 1070
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 254-6808
E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com
T-MOBILE USA: Galvez-Galvan Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Lourdes Galvez-Galvan, on Behalf of Herself and
All Others Similarly Situated v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No.
21STCV31074 was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on Sept. 16, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-07422-VAP-JDE to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
T-Mobile US, Inc., doing business under the global brand name
T-Mobile -- http://www.t-mobile.com/-- is an American wireless
network operator.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John T Jasnoch, Esq.
SCOTT AND SCOTT LLP
600 West Broadway Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 233-4565
Fax: (619) 233-0508
Email: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jesse Steinbach, Esq.
ALSTON AND BIRD LLP
333 South Hope Street 16th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 576-1000
Fax: (213) 576-1100
Email: jesse.steinbach@alston.com
T-MOBILE USA: Shanmukh Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Vagish Shanmukh, individually and on behalf of
classes of similarly situated individuals v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
Case No. RG21111118 was removed from the Alameda County Superior
Court to the United States District Court for the Central District
of California on Sept. 28, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-07581 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
T-Mobile US, Inc., doing business under the global brand name
T-Mobile -- http://www.t-mobile.com/-- is an American wireless
network operator.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Stuart Christopher Plunkett, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD
560 Mission Street, Suite 2100
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 243-1057
Fax: (415) 243-1001
Email: stuart.plunkett@alston.com
TEXAS: Federal Judge Hears Foster Care System Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Marin, Avery Travis, Maggie Glynn, Kevin Clark, writing for
KETK.com, report that a federal judge spent hours questioning and
reprimanding Texas officials over an escalating crisis in the
state's foster care system, as hundreds of children are still
sleeping in offices and hotels.
"I understand you are trying, but it's not working," U.S. District
Judge Janis Jack told officials at the Texas Department of Family
and Protective Services (DFPS).
Her comments were made in a hearing on Sept. 14 -- the latest
development in the decade-long class-action lawsuit that ultimately
brought the state system under federal court supervision. Judge
Jack initially found the state had violated the constitutional
rights of foster children and placed them in unsafe homes and
facilities. She issued a list of reforms, and since then, has found
Texas in contempt multiple times for not meeting those reforms.
According to a report released by the group of independent court
monitors overseeing the federal lawsuit, 501 children spent at
least one night in an unlicensed placement in the first half of
this year alone. Some children spent more than 100 consecutive
nights without a "proper" placement. The report found that 86% of
these children were teenagers, and many of them require intense or
specialized care, due to serious mental health needs or past
trauma, that they likely weren't receiving.
The report also noted Texas has lost more than 1,600 foster beds
since January 2020, and DFPS officials have continually pointed to
this loss of foster beds and treatment center closures as their
reason for lacking placements for high-needs children.
"I'll remind you, the state has closed these facilities because
they were not safe," the judge told DFPS Commissioner Jamie
Masters. "I've watched your PR campaign that the court, COVID and,
most egregiously, these children in your care are to blame."
Judge Jack went on, "You have known for decades about the capacity
crisis in the state for foster care children and not planned
accordingly… Do something better for them, to keep them safe."
Before her sworn testimony began, Masters noted, "I feel like
anything I am going to offer will sound like an excuse."
Judge Jack agreed and added, "I'm sure you have multiple excuses,
but I don't want to hear them right now."
Masters told the court she didn't regret any of the closures they
had made. Still, she argued that oftentimes it's more difficult
than just finding a safe placement for the children, but rather
finding the "appropriate" level of care.
"We have to fill that gap between our psychiatric hospitals and our
RTCs [residential treatment centers]," she said.
At one point Masters told the court she had "failed these kids."
Judge Jack and Paul Yetter, the attorney representing the thousands
of Texas foster children, continually asked the Commissioner to
admit that offices and hotels were not safe or appropriate
alternatives. Ultimately, the judge called on the parties to all
sit down and come up with "workable" solutions, outside the
courtroom.
Then, she asked the attorneys representing the state for Gov. Greg
Abbott's blessing.
"I'm not interested in sanctions or putting feet to the fire
anymore. I just want these children to be safe," the judge said. "I
think he shares that goal." [GN]
TOTAL AGGREGATE: Isaacs Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Total Aggregate LLC,
et al. The case is styled as James Isaacs, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Total Aggregate LLC, Tandem Trucking LLC,
Laurie Ranney Kyles, Kirby Kyles, Kasey Kyles, Case No.
5:21-cv-00945-PRW (W.D. Okla., Sept. 24, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Total Aggregate LLC is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and
trucking company running freight hauling business from Yukon,
Oklahoma.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew Scott Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
Houston, TX 77056
Phone: (713) 999-5228
Fax: (713) 999-1187
Email: matt@parmet.law
TOYOTA MOTOR: Goussev Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Evgeniy Goussev, Stacy Ritch, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Toyota Motor Sales
USA Inc., Case No. 21-00002-01369*34 was removed from the Thurston
County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington on Sept. 24, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-05708 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. -- https://www.toyota.com/usa/ -- is
the North American Toyota sales, marketing, and distribution
subsidiary devoted to the United States market.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joel B Ard, Esq.
ARD LAW GROUP PLLC
PO BOX 11633
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA 98110
Phone: (206) 701-9243
Email: Joel@ard.law
The Defendant is represented by:
Lauren Jeffers Tsuji, Esq.
Nicola Menaldo, Esq.
PERKINS COIE (SEA)
1201 3RD AVE STE 4900
SEATTLE, WA 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-3577
Email: LTsuji@perkinscoie.com
NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com
TRANSUNION LLC: Bradley Arant Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Narod, Esq., Benjamin William Perry, Esq., and J. Hunter
Robinson, Esq., of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, in an article
for JDSupra, report that Article III standing is one of the most
significant rubrics to determine a federal lawsuit's
justiciability. The Supreme Court significantly altered the
standing calculus in TransUnion v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021),
particularly in putative class actions that allege bare statutory
violations unaccompanied by actual harm. While some aspects of
TransUnion's fallout are difficult to predict, one thing seems
clear: More nationwide class actions will be stuck in state court
moving forward.
The Role of Article III Standing
At its very core, the principle of Article III standing is based on
the separation of powers that governs the reach of all federal
institutions, including federal courts. As the Supreme Court noted
in TransUnion, the idea of separation of powers "'was not simply an
abstract generalization in the minds of the Framers [of the
Constitution]: it was woven into the document they drafted in
Philadelphia in the summer of 1787.'" Id. at 2203 (quoting INS v.
Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 946 (1983)). Article III confines the power
of the federal judiciary to the resolution of cases and
controversies, which require that a plaintiff have a "personal
stake" in the case. Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 820 (1997). This
"personal stake" is the crux of the principle that evolved to be
known as "standing."
Standing is part of the mechanism that ensures that federal courts
decide only "the rights of individuals." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S.
137, 166 (1803). It is also part of the mechanism that precludes
federal courts from adjudicating hypothetical or abstract disputes
and from issuing advisory opinions. For plaintiffs lacking Article
III standing, the dismissal or remand of their claim is a likely
result. [GN]
TWITTER INC: Settles Securities Class Action for $809.5 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Twitter, Inc. (NYSE: TWTR) on Sept. 20 disclosed that it has
entered into a binding agreement to settle the consolidated class
action lawsuit commenced in 2016 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California. The case was
consolidated under the caption In re Twitter, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 4:16-CV-0534-JST (SK).
The proposed settlement resolves all claims asserted against
Twitter and the other named defendants without any admission,
concession or finding of any fault, liability or wrongdoing by the
Company or any defendant. Twitter and the individual defendants
continue to deny any wrongdoing or any other improper actions.
Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Twitter will pay $809.5
million for claims alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company intends to use
cash on hand to pay the settlement amount, which is expected to be
paid in the fourth quarter of 2021. The Company expects to record a
charge for the settlement during the third quarter of 2021.
The final settlement agreement will be subject to approval by the
Court.
About Twitter, Inc.
Twitter (NYSE: TWTR) is what's happening and what people are
talking about right now. [GN]
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Suit Over Driver Misclassification Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
In Heller v. Uber Technologies Inc., the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice certified a class action lawsuit brought by Uber drivers
who claim they have been misclassified as independent contractors
and denied employment benefits.
Background
In 2017, the representative plaintiffs, an UberEats driver and an
Uber driver (the "Plaintiffs"), commenced a proposed class action
in Ontario against Uber Technologies Inc. and related entities
(together, "Uber") on behalf of persons who have entered into
Service Agreements with Uber to use software applications ("Uber
Apps") developed and operated by Uber to provide transportation and
food delivery services (the "Class Members").
The Service Agreements label the Uber drivers or delivery people as
"independent contractors". This legal categorization was disputed
by the Plaintiffs, who alleged that they should be classified as
employees, and therefore, entitled to the benefits of Ontario's
Employment Standards Act, 2000 ("ESA") and other federal
employment-related legislation such as the Canada Pension Plan and
the Employment Insurance Act.
Uber initially asserted that the Plaintiffs' class action was
precluded by an arbitration clause in its Services Agreements that
required all disputes to be resolved through arbitration in the
Netherlands. As we noted in 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled
that the mandatory arbitration clause in Uber's service agreement
was unconscionable, and therefore invalid, with the consequence
that the proposed class action could proceed to court.
Following the Supreme Court's ruling, the Plaintiffs moved to
certify the proceeding as a class action. [GN]
UC SAN DIEGO HEALTH: Hartley Sues Over Data Breach, Seeks Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Hartley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Regents of The University of
California, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-01668 (S.D. Cal., September
22, 2021), seeks an award of compensatory, statutory, nominal and
punitive damages, equitable relief requiring restitution and
disgorgement of the revenues wrongfully retained, an award of
reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and litigation expenses, as
allowable by law and such other and further relief resulting from
negligence and for violation of the California Consumer Privacy
Act.
The Regents of The University of California operates UC San Diego
Health. UC San Diego Health offers inpatient and specialty care in
La Jolla and Hillcrest, as well as primary, urgent and express care
at clinics located throughout the region. On July 27, 2021, UC San
Diego Health announced a security incident involving the theft of
sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health
information of its patients, employees and students where a hacker
obtained information of its potential customers and other
individuals, including, but not limited to, their names, Social
Security numbers, driver's license numbers, dates of birth and
username/password information.
Richard Hartley is a former UC San Diego Health patient. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
P. Camille Guerra, Esq.
CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
110 Laurel Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 238-1811
Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
Email: gmb@cglaw.com
camille@cglaw.com
- and -
Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
747 Chestnut Ridge Road
Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
Tel: (845) 356-2570
Fax: (845) 356-4335
Email: memert@kgglaw.com
ggraifman@kgglaw.com
UNDERWEST WESTSIDE: Class Settlement in Hilaire Suit Has Prelim. OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEAN HILAIRE, JEAN FRESNEL, SUALIO KAMAGATE, JEAN
VERTUS, FOUSSEIMI CAMARA, JEAN MOROSE, NOE PEREZ, EDGAR ESPINOZA,
BOLIVIO CHAVEZ, BRAULIO MATAMORES FLORES, JEORGE VENTURA
CONCEPCION, ANGEL SANDOVAL, CARLOS DE LEON CHIYAL, and LESLY PIERRE
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated who were
employed by Underwest West Side Operating, Plaintiffs v. UNDERWEST
WESTSIDE OPERATING CORP., MOSHE WINER, MARTIN TAUB, AVI GOLAN, AND
ELAD EFORATI, Defendants, Civil Action Case No. 19-CV-3169
(S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York grants
preliminary approval to the parties' settlement.
Background
The matter came before the Court for Preliminary Approval of
Settlement, Approval of the Settlement Under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), Certification of the Settlement Class,
Appointment of Plaintiffs' Counsel as Class Counsel, Appointment of
Class Representatives, and Approval of Plaintiffs' Proposed Notice
of Settlement and Fairness Hearing and Settlement Claim Form and
Release. The Court recognized that the Defendants have consented to
Class Certification for settlement purposes only without admission
of liability or suitability of certification other than for
purposes of settlement.
Based upon his review of the Declaration of Avi Mermelstein, and
all other papers submitted in connection with this Implementing
Order for Preliminary Approval, Judge Lehrburger grants preliminary
approval of the Settlement memorialized in the Joint Stipulation of
Settlement and Release. He approves the settlement of the FLSA
collective action.
Judge Lehrburger provisionally certifies the proposed Class under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), for settlement purposes as
defined in the Settlement Agreement as follows: "Each former
non-exempt employee of Underwest Westside Operating Corp. who
worked during the period of April 9, 2013 through June 2, 2019."
The Judge appoints Steven Arenson, Esq. and Avi Mermelstein, Esq.,
of Arenson, Dittmar & Karban located at 200 Park Avenue, Suite
1700, New York, New York 10166, telephone number (212) 490-3600, as
the Class Counsel.
The Judge preliminarily approves the Class Counsel's reasonable
costs and fees, to be paid from the Settlement Fund, in an amount
to be determined if and when the Court grants final approval of the
settlement.
Judge Lehrburger appoints Named Plaintiffs Jean Hilaire, Jean
Fresnel, Sualio Kamagate, Jean Vertus, Fousseimi Camara, Jean
Morose, Noe Perez, Edgar Espinoza, Bolivio Chavez, Braulio
Matamores Flores, Jeorge Ventura Concepcion, Angel Sandoval, Carlos
De Leon Chiyal, and Lesley Pierre as the Class Representatives.
The Judge approves the Notices and Claim Form and Release attached
as exhibits to the Settlement Agreement, and directs the Notice and
Claim Form's distribution to the Class as mutually agreed upon by
the Parties and submitted to Court for review. The Notice will be
distributed to the Class in English, Spanish, French, and
Haitian-Creole. The contents of the Notice fully comply with due
process and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
Judge Lehrburger sets the following settlement procedure:
a. 30 days after entry of Order - Mailing of Class Notice and
Implementing WhatsApp - Oct. 15, 2021
b. 60 days after date of mailing of Notice of Proposed Class
Action Settlement - Last day for Class Members to "opt out" or to
submit written objections to the Settlement - Dec. 14, 2021
c. 60 days after date of mailing of Notice of Proposed Class
Action Settlement - Last day for Class Members to qualify as a
Claimant by filing claim form to join the Settlement - Dec. 14,
2021
d. 10 days prior to Fairness Hearing - Date for parties to
file proposed Final Order, summary of claims made and application
in support of proposed Final Settlement - Feb. 4, 2022
e. Final Settlement approval hearing - Feb. 14, 2022
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 15, 2021 Modified Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3re276hs from Leagle.com.
UNITED STATES: Class Action Against USCIS Settled in July
---------------------------------------------------------
Lindsey Steinberg, writing for Law360, reports that a class action,
Li v. USCIS, filed in February against U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services settled in July. The lawsuit alleged an
impermissible delay in processing employment authorization document
applications for post-graduate optional practical training, or OPT,
as well as science, technology, engineering and math, or STEM, OPT
extensions. [GN]
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Loses Bid to Decertify Surgical Fee Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that UnitedHealth
Group Inc. on Sept. 20 lost its bid to decertify a class of more
than 200 physicians claiming the insurer wrongly adopted a blanket
policy refusing to pay facility fees for office-based surgeries,
according to a Manhattan federal judge's decision.
UnitedHealth urged Judge J. Paul Oetken of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York to rethink his 2019 decision
certifying the case as a class action. The insurer pointed to the
U.S. Supreme Court's 2020 decision in Thole v. U.S. Bank NA, which
held that a pension plan participant lacked standing to challenge
misconduct. [GN]
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Freeman, writing for La Jolla Light, reports that UC San Diego
Health faces a lawsuit over a data breach last winter and spring
that potentially exposed sensitive information from nearly a
half-million patients, employees and others connected with the
health care system.
Lawyers representing an El Cajon cancer patient filed legal action
in federal court in San Diego alleging negligence, breach of
contract and violation of California consumer privacy and medical
confidentiality laws. It seeks class-action status and unspecified
damages for all people whose personal and medical information may
have been compromised.
"Patients should trust that their most private medical results will
not be made public and that their medical visits will not leave
them at risk for identity theft," said San Diego attorney Jason
Hartley, who is working with lead counsel Stueve Siegel Hanson of
Kansas City, Mo. "This breach was preventable had UC San Diego
Health had the right data protection protocols in place."
The lawsuit names the regents of the University of California,
doing business as UC San Diego Health. A university representative
declined to comment about pending litigation.
In July, the health care system announced on its website that
hackers had used a phishing scam to gain unauthorized access to
certain email accounts over a four-month period from Dec. 2 through
April 8.
That opened the door to potential access to a wide range of
personal and medical data. At the time, UCSD Health didn't say how
many people were affected, citing the ongoing investigation, which
included reporting the breach to the FBI and working with external
cybersecurity experts.
That probe is now complete. Beginning Sept. 7, UCSD Health began
notifying the 495,949 individuals affected by the breach on a
rolling basis where contact information is available, according to
the representative.
Full names, addresses, dates of birth, email addresses, fax
numbers, claims information including dates and costs of care
received, laboratory results, medical diagnoses and conditions,
medical record numbers, prescription and treatment information,
Social Security numbers, government and student identification
numbers, financial account numbers, usernames and passwords are
among the types of information that may have been accessed in the
breach.
Medical records are particularly valuable to cybercriminals because
they can be used to illegally buy prescription drugs or file bogus
medical insurance claims, Hartley said. While a stolen credit card
is easily canceled, medical data often contains more substantial
personal information to open bogus credit accounts or take out
fraudulent loans.
The lawsuit alleges that UCSD Health failed to implement reasonable
security practices and adequately train employees on how to avoid
phishing attacks, which attempt to trick employees into clicking on
email links that install malicious code to penetrate an
organization's computer networks.
The lawsuit also alleges that the health care system lacked
procedures to detect the intrusion quickly and took too long to
notify victims. And it claims the data breach is a violation of the
system's responsibility to comply with the privacy and security
rules related to the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act, or HIPPA.
UCSD Health has arranged for people whose data was potentially
compromised to receive one year of free credit monitoring and
identity theft protection services through IDX, a data breach
remediation service. Its coverage includes a $1 million insurance
reimbursement policy and fully managed identity theft recovery.
In addition, the system said it has enhanced security controls
since the breach, including changing employee credentials,
disabling access points on its network and enhancing security
processes and procedures.
"While there are a number of safeguards in place to protect
information from unauthorized access, UC San Diego Health is also
always working to strengthen them so we can further minimize the
risk of this type of threat activity," the system said in a
statement. [GN]
WACHTER INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Decosta Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
DARRYL F. DECOSTA; and DENNIS HARDNETT, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WACHTER INC.;
ANISTAR TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; GREG SLOAN; ANTHONY TIPTON; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21CV386680 (Cal.
Super., Santa Clara Cty., Sept. 14, 2021) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.
Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as staff.
Wachter, Inc. was founded in 1990. The company's line of business
includes the construction of nonresidential buildings. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
249 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (562) 590-5550
Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
E-mail: kmahonev@mahoney.com
WATCH GANG: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Brenner Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA BRENNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WATCH GANG, INC.; MATTHEW GALLAGHER; and
ATTENTIVE MOBILE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-01127-AGF
(E.D. Mo., Sept. 15, 2021) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice
of making unsolicited calls.
WATCH GANG, INC.advertises authentic watches, with cheap replicas
sent out to customers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samantha J. Orlowski, Esq.
Joel S. Halvorsen, Esq.
HALVORSEN KLOTE
680 Craig Road, Suite 104
St. Louis, MO 63141
Tel: (314) 451-1314
Fax: (314) 787-4323
E-mail: sam@hklawstl.com
joel@hklawstl.com
WELLA OPERATIONS: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wella Operations US
LLC. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Wella Operations US LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-05366 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 27, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Wella AG -- https://www.wellacompany.com/ -- is a major German hair
care company headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10014
Phone: (646) 770-3775
Fax: (646) 867-2639
Email: brad@markslawfirm.net
WILCREST FIELD: Faces Wilkerson Suit Over Unpaid OT for Inspectors
------------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN WILKERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WILCREST FIELD SERVICES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 4:21-cv-03095 (S.D. Tex., September 23, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated inspectors overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an inspector in
Paintrock, Texas from approximately March 2020 to September 2020.
Wilcrest Field Services, Inc. is a company that performs pipeline
inspection services, headquartered in Houston, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Don J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP
4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
WYNDHAM VACATION: Nolen Seeks Class Cert. Brief Extension
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROLYN NOLEN, WINDY
KELLEY, CARA KELLEY and PAULA LITTON, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, v. WYNDHAM VACATION RESORTS, INC.;
FAIRSHARE VACATION OWNERS ASSOCIATION; and RCI, LLC, Case No.
6:20-cv-00330-PGB-EJK (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to
enter an order for a brief extension of time, of two weeks, up to
and including October 8, 2021, for Plaintiffs to file their
response to Defendant's motion to amend class certification order.
By Order of July 12, 2021, the Court certified a Rule 23(b)(3)
class and directed the parties to file a motion seeking approval of
the proposed notice to Class members by August 2, 2021. The
Plaintiffs sought approval of a notice plan by that date, which
Defendant thereafter partially opposed.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 21, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uoCrEI at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Patrick A. Barthle II, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
pbarthle@ForThePeople.com
- and -
James M. Terrell, Esq.
METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY,
STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C.
The Highland Building
2201 Arlington Ave. S
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 939-0199
Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
E-mail: jterrell@mtattorneys.com
- and -
Bradford D. Barron, Esq.
THE BARRON LAW FIRM, PLLC
P.O. Box 369
Claremore, Ok 74018
Telephone: (918) 341-8402
Facsimile: (918) 515-4691
E-mail: bbarron@barronlawfirmok.com
[*] California Judge Trims Class Claims in Hard-Disk Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Scarcella at Reuters reports that a California federal judge
has curbed some state claims but broadly said civil antitrust
allegations could move forward against technology companies accused
of participating in a decade-long scheme to fix prices for a key
component of hard disk drives. [GN]
[*] INDIA: Class Suit Can Be Filed Only With Consumer Forum Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Trend reports that the Supreme Court has held that a consumer
complaint on behalf of one or two consumers with similar interests
or popularly called "Class Action" can only be filed with the
permission of the consumer forum whose jurisdiction is invoked.
In this case, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
allowed Investor Forum Aneja Group's complaint.
In the appeal, it was argued that the investor forum could not have
invoked the NCDRC's jurisdiction because a complainant, according
to Section 2(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, means
either a consumer or any voluntary consumer association registered
under the Companies Act, 1956, or under any other law currently in
force.
The bench of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V. Ramasubramanian
noted that the complainant before the NCDRC is neither a voluntary
consumer association nor a consumer organisation. It was argued
that the complaint can be filed on behalf of multiple consumers
with the same interest under clause (iv) of Section 2(1)(b) of the
Act, which states that "the complaint on behalf of one or two
consumers with the same interest can be filed only with the
permission of the forum whose jurisdiction is invoked."
The Court held that because the complainant is neither a voluntary
consumer association nor a registered body, and no permission from
the appropriate forum was sought, the complaint itself was not
maintainable. [GN]
[*] Kroll Discusses Settlement Using Unique Class Member IDs
------------------------------------------------------------
James R. Prutsman of Kroll Business Services disclosed that class
action settlements are undergoing increased scrutiny in the courts,
particularly concerning claim rates and the efforts to stimulate
class member participation. In 2019, the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) published a report that found that most consumer class
actions have average claim rates of nine percent or less when
looking at cases with some form of direct notice.
In many cases, it is up to the settlement administrator to find
creative solutions to engage class members. One such solution is to
employ the use of unique class member identification numbers,
assigning a unique number to each claimant. Collecting and using
class member contact information allows an administrator to
accomplish claims stimulation in a variety of proven ways.
How Do Class Members IDs Work?
Closed Class
In some settlements, class member information is known and direct
notice to those class members is possible. This allows an
administrator to prepopulate claim forms with known information and
to protect those forms behind unique identification numbers.
In this scenario, identification numbers are sent directly to class
members for use on the settlement website. Once a class member
enters their unique number, a prepopulated secure form will appear
and allow them to edit their information and input any other
information necessary to file a claim. To further protect against
potential fraud, the claimant's name is a field that is not
editable, and documentation is required to verify any name change.
This method serves as a smoother and more efficient process for
class members by allowing for any corrections to their information
(i.e., if someone's address, email or phone number has changed).
Open Class
An open class is when the contact information for class members is
unknown. This is common in large consumer settlements, where the
class members have purchased a good or service from a retailer.
When class members see the notice of settlement, they are invited
to visit the settlement website to register for a claim number.
Basic information, such as name and contact information, is
collected through a simple form and stored securely by the
settlement administrator.
Once the registration is complete, class members receive a unique
identification number through the email address they provided at
registration. This ensures that the settlement administrator has a
verified working email address for the claimant. The next step is
for the class member to use that identification number to file
their claim on the settlement website.
Partially Closed Class
There are settlements that come with some class member information
but not all of it. In situations where the defendant sells both
directly and indirectly to consumers, the class member data will
likely only contain information for consumers to which the
defendant sold their product or service directly.
These cases can use unique class member identification numbers in
both ways described above, securely collecting accurate information
from unknown class members and creating an efficient process for
known class members. Both scenarios allow for greater claims
stimulation efforts through further notification and follow-up.
What Are the Benefits of Using Class Members IDs?
Registering for a class member ID is simple and allows the
settlement administrator to collect accurate contact information
for class members, aiding in follow-up and claims stimulation
efforts.
This method demonstrates to the court that the administrator can
follow up with class members who filed for the ID but did not file
a claim, with simplified email notices that garner higher
engagement. In addition, it allows for further follow-up regarding
objections or when payments are released. In short, the ability to
send multiple case-specific communications to class members
increases engagement. In a recent consumer product liability
settlement, sending a reminder to file a claim to registered
individuals resulted in a 10% increase in the number of claims
filed.
When a verified email address is collected, it can be used for
cost-effective follow-up communication with the claimants,
including:
-- Reminders to complete the claims process
-- Confirmation of claim receipt, processing, approval or denial
-- Requests for additional documentation
-- Notification of any delays in the court proceeding
-- Notification of distribution
Often, claims stimulation strategies include costly retargeting
advertising campaigns. Using class member IDs allows administrators
to reach back out to class members using contact information
collected in the beginning and makes retargeting more efficient and
less expensive.
Is the Class Member ID Process Secure?
The same data security measures applied to claim forms are applied
to the data collected in the registration process. It is also
important to adhere to all state and federal privacy guidelines,
including not using the collected information for any marketing or
solicitation purposes.
Does Using Class Member Emails Violate TCPA Laws?
It is important to recognize that all class member communication is
part of the overall notice campaign authorized by the supervising
court. The communications described above do not constitute a
solicitation of business. Additional protections are provided by
using consent authorizations at the point of data collection and by
providing claimants the opportunity to opt out of future
communications. [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Still Faces Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Carlisle Companies Incorporated, over the years, has been named as
a defendant, along with numerous other defendants, in lawsuits in
various courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to
exposure to asbestos-containing friction products produced and sold
predominantly by its discontinued Motion Control business between
the late-1940s and the mid-1980s, according to the Company's Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Carlisle Companies states, "The Company has been subject to
liabilities for indemnity and defense costs associated with these
lawsuits.
"The Company has recorded a liability for estimated indemnity costs
associated with pending and future asbestos claims. As of March 31,
2021, the Company believes that its accrual for these costs is not
material to the Company's financial position, results of
operations, or operating cash flows.
"The Company recognizes expenses for defense costs associated with
asbestos claims during the periods in which they are incurred.
"The Company currently maintains insurance coverage with respect to
asbestos-related claims and associated defense costs. The Company
records the insurance coverage as a long-term receivable in an
amount it reasonably estimates is probable of recovery for pending
and future asbestos-related indemnity claims. Since the Company's
insurance policies contain various coverage exclusions, limits of
coverage and self-insured retentions and may be subject to
insurance coverage disputes, the Company may recognize expenses for
indemnity and defense costs in particular periods if and when it
becomes probable that such costs will not be covered by
insurance."
A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://bit.ly/39JYzAa
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Sues Trust Over Disputed Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Steven Church, writing for Insurancejournal.com, reports that
Honeywell International Inc. sued a trust for victims of asbestos
poisoning, claiming the fund's managers are wrongly paying people
who say they were harmed by the toxic industrial substance.
The lawsuit, filed in Pittsburgh, comes after years of acrimony
between the industrial conglomerate and a trust set up to resolve
the bankruptcy of Honeywell's former affiliate, North American
Refractories Co., or Narco.
Trust administrators filed their own lawsuit against Honeywell,
claiming the company was trying to get out of its obligation to pay
up to $150 million annually to cover claims from people harmed by
Narco's products. There's no end date to the court-ordered payments
and Honeywell estimated it could ultimately have to pay out as much
as $2.3 billion, according to the trust lawsuit, also filed in
Pittsburgh.
"Honeywell has evidence of severe and abusive mismanagement of the
Narco Trust, including that the Trust has squandered its assets and
has paid claimants who have not demonstrated exposure to any Narco
product," the company said in an emailed statement.
For decades, companies and advocates for asbestos victims have
battled over how much to pay people who have respiratory illnesses
linked to the substance. The unique lung scarring caused by
asbestos is easily identified by doctors, but lawyers often battle
for years to attribute the damage to a specific product and ensure
that the right company pays.
"The improper purpose of Honeywell's actions is to deny or limit
compensation to very ill asbestos victims in order to improve its
own bottom line," the Narco trust managers said in an emailed
statement.
Honeywell owned Narco from about 1979 until 1986. Narco made a
handful of asbestos-tainted products until about 1980, when it
removed the substance, according to court documents
The Narco trust was set up more than a decade ago after the company
filed bankruptcy to resolve billions of dollars worth of asbestos
claims. Because of its previous ownership, Honeywell agreed to help
fund the Narco trust. Since it began operation, the trust has paid
out about $523 million, with much of that money coming from
Honeywell.
Trustees and the company began arguing about the obligations long
before Honeywell made its first payment in 2019, according to court
documents. Honeywell has offered to make a one-time payment of
about $506 million to end all of its Narco-related asbestos
liabilities, the documents show.
In its lawsuit, Honeywell accused the trust of spending millions
more in administrative costs than other, similar victim funds. The
company also accused the trust of hiring consultants who work for
one of the three trustees who control the victims' fund.
The victim fund was forced to increase its spending on legal fees
after Honeywell's litigation threats, the trust said in an emailed
statement. Two trustees who were not affiliated with the
consultants authorized their hiring more than five years ago with
Honeywell's knowledge and in compliance with the fund's bylaws, the
statement said.
The case is North American Refractories Co., 15-00204, U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(Pittsburgh).
*********
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 2021. 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 ***