/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/211108.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, November 8, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 217
Headlines
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products "Defective," Schnitzer Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Freire Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Scott Claims
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Harmful to Human Health, Mullins Claims
3M COMPANY: Baker Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Brammer Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Calvin Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Collie Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Crosby Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Denham Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Dore Sues Over AFFF Products' Risk to Human Health
3M COMPANY: Esquinance Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Exposed AFFF Products' Users to PFAS, Lanter Alleges
3M COMPANY: Exposed AFFF Products' Users to PFAS, Roders Alleges
3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to Toxic Products, Honn Suit Says
3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to Toxic Products, Pryor Says
3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to Toxic Products, Schremp Claims
3M COMPANY: Faces Dossmann Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Elements
3M COMPANY: Faces Hampton Suit Over AFFF Products' Harmful Effects
3M COMPANY: Faces Henderson Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Effects
3M COMPANY: Faces Jarvis Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Elements
3M COMPANY: Faces Myers Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Components
3M COMPANY: Faces Owens Suit Over AFFF Products' PFAS Exposure
3M COMPANY: Faces Ruth Suit Over AFFF Products' Design Defect
3M COMPANY: Gentry Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Grout Suit Claims Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Hall Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Harrison Sues Over Toxic Effects of AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: McGahuey Sues Over Toxic Effects of AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Omlor Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Perelman Sues Over Firefighters' Exposure to PFAS
3M COMPANY: Salazar Sues Over Side Effects of Using AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Schlesinger Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Waters Sues Over AFFF Products' Risk to Human Health
ADT LLC: Doty Seeks to Stay Resolution of Clas Cert. Bid
ALBANESE ENTERPRISES: Murga Seeks Minimum Pay, Slams Tip Credit
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: Class Cert. Briefing Sched Entered in Castellar
ALEXIAN VILLAGE: Court Certifies Rule 23 Class in Smith Suit
ALIERA COMPANIES: Jackson Suit Seeks to Certify Class
ALL NIPPON: 2nd Amended Bugarin Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Court Tosses Kouchi Bid for Class Status
AMITY IMPORTS: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AMMO INC: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ANTHONY ANNUCI: Animashaun Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners
APPLE INC: Court Narrows Claims in Franklin Suit
APPLE INC: March 15, 2022 Extension to File Class Cert Bid Sought
APPLE PARK: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
APPLE-METRO INC: Ct. Enters Class Cert. Discovery Sched in Marin
APPLE-METRO INC: Pre-Class Cert. Discovery Schedule Entered in Dove
ARIEL COMMUNITY: Goldston Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Bid
ASCENDTEK LLC: Holland Seeks to Certify Class of Tower Technicians
AT&T INC: Order Denying Arbitration Bid in Cottrell Suit Reversed
BACCHUS WINERY: Moore Sues Over Illegal Tip Pooling & Unpaid OT
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Connelly Suit Moved From D. Md. to E.D.N.Y.
BLUE CROSS: Kelly Seeks to Extend Class Cert. Deadlines by 60 Days
BMC WEST: Palma Labor Code Suit Removed to E.D. California
BMW AG: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Direct Buyers' Antitrust Suit
BOB'S DISCOUNT: Ct. Modifies Proposed Class Definition in Espinal
BRIGGS TRADITIONAL: FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action
BRIGHAM YOUNG: Reply Brief Deadlines in Evans Extended to Nov. 9
CENTRAL METRO: Roesner Must File Class Cert Bid by August 1, 2022
CENTURYLINK: Loses Bid to Remand Sales Securities Suit
CHARLES SCHWAB: Court Tosses Bid for Class Status in Crago Suit
CHEP SERVICES: Hernandez Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
CHW GROUP: Class Cert. Deadlines in Adam Suit Extended
CLAY & DOMINGUE: Munoz Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Welders
CLOUD9 ESPORTS: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COLLECTO INC: Jan. 21, 2022 Class Cert. Filing Extension Sought
COLORADO: Court Junks Collins Class Suit
COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS: Butler Seeks Case Managers' Unpaid OT Wages
CONAGRA BRANDS: 9th Cir. Partly Affirms Dismissal of Cohen's Claims
CONCRETE INC: Wilburn Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CONVERSE ELECTRIC: Jones Wins Conditional Certification Bid
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Dimas Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. California
CREDIT SUISSE: Lead Counsel Must Report Status in Birmingham Suit
DEBSTY INC: Angeles Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio
DECORATOR'S WAREHOUSE: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DIGNITY HEALTH: Darling Suit Seeks to Certify Classes, Subclasses
DOORDASH INC: Ct. Enters Updated Case Management Order in Lona's
DPEP 7 INC: Romoff Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Messages
DUNHAM'S ATHLEISURE: Must Oppose Migyanko Class Cert Bid by Nov. 15
EDEN BRANDS: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ELEMENT MATERIALS: Clemons Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
ELITE HEALTH: Lampton Has Until Dec. 16 to File Class Status Bid
EQUILON ENTERPRISES: Nov. 22 Class Cert. Bid Hearing Sought
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Katz Seeks Conditional Status of Collective
ERIC GARCETTI: Suit Seeks to Certify Classes of Un-Housed Persons
ESEMBLY INC: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FAZE CLAN: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FLEETCOR TECH: Morrison Must File Class Cert. Bid by Jan 13, 2022
FLEETCOR TECHNOLGIES: Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Response
FORD MOTOR: Thornburg Class Status Bid Filing Due Jan. 10, 2022
FORWARD AIR: Lovera Seeks Unpaid Wages, Meals Breaks, Paystubs
FROG HOLLOW: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GEM RECOVERY: Class Certification in Ginsberg Adjourned to Dec. 6
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Management Plan, Scheduling Order Entered in Haft
GENERAL MOTORS: Bid to Dismiss Putative Class Action Tossed
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Approves Settlement Deal in Scobey Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Ulanch Sues Over Unlawful Trading of ViacomCBS Stock
GREENSKY INC: S.D. Florida Narrows Claims in Wright Class Suit
GREENSPOON MARDER: Final OK of Settlement in Rock Sought
HAWAIIAN GARDENS: Chen Sues Over Discrimination, Wrongful Discharge
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT: Gau Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
HONEYWELL SAFETY: McKnight Suit Seeks to Amend Class Action Notice
I.C. SYSTEM: Parties in Rodriguez-Ocasio Must Finish Discovery
INVITATION HOMES: Rivera Seeks to Certify Class of Tenants
JOSE PEPPER'S: Florece Collective Action Conditionally Certified
JUUL LABS: Bear Lake County Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
JUUL LABS: Caldwell School Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, West Bonner County Claims
JUUL LABS: Kimberly School Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Moscow School Suit Says
JUUL LABS: South Sanpete Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
JUUL LABS: Wendell School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis
KEEFE GROUP: Raney Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
KINDER MORGAN: Pedersen ERISA Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas
KING-KELLY INC: Rosado Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Walker Suit Moved From E.D. La. to W.D. Pa.
LABOR SOURCE: Seeks to Extend Time for Class Cert. Bid Response
LEGENDARY FIELD: Trustee's Bid to Compromise & Settle Granted
LIBERTY OILFIELD: Correa Securities Suit Seeks to Certify Class
LIFE CARE: Class Certification Order in Lavrenyuk Suit Affirmed
LOS ANGELES, CA: Thai Bid for Partial Summary Judgment Nixed
LYFT INC: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Lowell Suit
MAJESTIC CARE: Wright Suit Seeks to Certify Healthcare Worker Class
MANNA PRO: Class Settlement in Hale Suit Wins Final Approval
MARATHON REFINING: Continuance of Class Cert. Dates in Wood Sought
MARCUS POLLARD: Completion of Class Discovery Due April 1, 2022
MASSACHUSETTS: Declaratory & Injunctive Orders in Reid Suit Vacated
MBM DELIVERY: Bunnell Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages & OT
MDL 2818: Bid to Dismiss GM AC Mktg. & Sales Practices Suit Denied
MDL 2975: Court Dismisses Ski Pass Insurance Suit Without Prejudice
MILLIMAN INC: Court Extends Discovery Deadlines in Healy Suit
MONARCH RECOVERY: Nov. 9 Class Cert. Bid Reply Sought in Goldring
MRS BPO: Seeks Nov. 15 Response Extension to Class Cert Bid
MULTNOMAH CO: Bid to Dismiss Lancey Suit Nixed
MY FIRST PEEKABOO: Fleming Seeks to Certify Ultrasound Tech Class
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Beeson RESPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
NATIONWIDE PROPERTY: Nov. 22 Extension to File Class Cert Sought
NEUTROGENA CORPORATION: Brennan Consumer Suit Goes to N.D. Cal.
NEW YORK: Court Narrows Claims in Smith Suit Against Gov. Hochul
NEW YORK: Has Until Nov. 22 to Oppose Inzinga Class Status Bid
NEWARK, NJ: Alberto et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
NEWEGG INC: Fails to Provide Proper Wage Pay, Nelson Suit Claims
NISSAN NORTH: Bid to Certify Class Junked as Moot in Johnson Suit
NORTHRUP GRUMMAN: Directed to Meet & Confer with Behar et al.
NVR INC: Cossaboom Seeks Conditional Status of Two Collectives
OHIO LIVING: Kordie Seeks to Certify Healthcare Worker Class
ONE BRANDS: Class Cert Briefing Schedule Entered in Sebastian
OS RESTAURANT: Moxley Seeks to Certify Class of Assistant Managers
PALO VERDE: Acevedo Suit Claims Unpaid Wages, Unreimbursed Expenses
PEI WEI: Clarke Seeks to Extend Deadlines for Class Cert. Discovery
PHILIP MORRIS: Dismissal of New York Consolidated Suit Appealed
PHILIP MORRIS: Jacklin Class Suit Underway in Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: Kunta Class Suit Ongoing in Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: Letourneau Suit in Canada Still Ongoing
PHILIP MORRIS: McDermid Class Action Underway in Canada
PHILLIPS & COHEN: Settlement in Haston Suit Wins Initial Approval
PILLPACK LLC: Bid to Seal in Williams TCPA Suit Granted in Part
PLURIS WEDGEFIELD: Kohl Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
POLARIS INC: Guzman Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Claims
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Arbitration Bid in Neff FDCPA Suit Granted
PREPAID ATTORNEY: Appeal From Arbitration Order in Meza Suit Nixed
PRESIDIO INC: LaPrairie Suit Moved From W.D.N.Y. to S.D.N.Y.
PRINCESS CRUISE: Class Cert. Pretrial Deadlines Extended in Chung
PSL ASSOCIATES: Class Status Bid Filing Due March 8, 2022
QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Gusloff Claims
RANGE RESOURCES: Mulls Bid to Dismiss Investor Class Action
RCM TECHNOLOGIES: Hubbard Settlement Deal Gets Final Nod
REACH AIR: Kettler Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes
RECONNAISSANCE ENERGY: Muller Hits Share Drop Over Shady Operations
RESCARE INC: Court Extends Class Cert. Deadlines in Diaz Suit
ROYAL BP: Faces Ivey Suit Over Failure to Reimburse Expenses
RUIXUE SHI: Wu Loses Bid for Default Judgment
S.C. JOHNSON: Court Stays Windex Non-Toxic Litigation
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Motion to Quash Subpoena Filed in Reed Suit
SEATTLE, WA: Ct. Amends Class Cert Schedule in Hunters Capital Suit
SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Dismissal of Gabriele's Agency Fees Suit Upheld
SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Dismissal of Hamidi Suit Over Agency Fees Upheld
SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Dismissal of Penning's Agency Fees Suit Affirmed
SIMPSON STRONG-TIE: Class Cert. Hearing Continued to Dec. 16
SOCLEAN INC: Cleaning Devices for CPAP "Defective," Seicol Claims
STATE FARM: Extension of Class Cert. Briefing Schedule Sought
STATE FARM: Jaunich Wins Bid to Certify Class
STEMGENEX MEDICAL: Settlement in Moorer Suit Gets Initial Nod
TD AMERITRADE: Must Respond to Klein Class Cert Bid by Dec. 15
TEA STATION: Court Sustains Objections to Zhou's Class Claims
TEAM ENTERPRISES: N.D. California Lifts Stay in Wood Class Suit
TELEBRANDS CORP: Jan. 14, 2022 Hearing on Rash Class Cert. Bid Set
TIVITY HEALTH: Sheet Metal Workers Seek to Certify Class Action
TOOTSIE ROLL: Class Cert. Hearing Schedule Sought in Maisel
TOWER HILL: MSP Seeks Extension of Class Cert. Briefing Schedule
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Nov. 30 Class Discovery Deadline Sought
TULARE, CA: Criswell Suit Seeks Final Approval of Settlement Deal
TWITTER INC: Trump Class Suit Moved From S.D. Fla. to N.D. Cal.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Boston Retirement System Seeks to Certify Class
UNILEVER UNITED: Vizcarra Loses Class Certification Bid
UNITED AIRLINES: Sambrano Suit Seeks Provisional Class Status
UNITED AMERICAN: Nov. 4 Scheduling Conference in Logan Suit Vacated
UNITED AMERICAN: Proposed Notices in Logan FLSA Class Suit Denied
UNITED HEALTHCARE: OHL Must File Class Cert Bid by Nov. 30
UNITED STAFFING: Magtoles Has Until Nov. 16 to File Class Cert Bid
UNITED STATES: Class of Navy Veterans in Torres Suit Certified
UNITED STATES: Seeks Extension to Respond to Johnson Complaint
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Ct. Enters Scheduling Order in Smith
URBAN HEALTH: Tueros Conditional Status Bid Nixed w/o Prejudice
VERO BEACH, FL: Seeks Denial of Taig Class Status Bid
VIP AUTO: Court Certifies Manfredo FLSA Collective Action
WAKEFERN FOOD: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Grant Suit Claims
WC LOGISTICS: Lindsey Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California
WESTERN RANGE: Castillo Seeks to Certify Class and Sub-class
WESTWARD MGMT: Ill. App. Answers Certified Question in Channon Suit
ZARA USA: Djabi Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
*********
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products "Defective," Schnitzer Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES SCHNITZER, 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-03555-RMG
(D.S.C., October 28, 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 severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn 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, 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:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 855-6060
Facsimile: (732) 726-4860
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Freire Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
BOBBY FREIRE and SUSAN FREIRE, his wife, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs 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-03563-RMG
(D.S.C., October 28, 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, wantonness, and per quod claim.
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 firefighter trainees who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products. Plaintiff Bobby Freire
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. He
relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of
the products, says the suit.
As a result of the alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products, Plaintiff Bobby Freire was diagnosed with colon cancer
and rectal 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 Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 855-6060
Facsimile: (732) 726-4860
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Scott Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY SCOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING,
INC; KIDDE PLC INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UTC FIRE &
SECURITYAMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:21-cv-03606-RMG (D.S.C., November 2, 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 chronic ulcerative colitis.
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.
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.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
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-Fenwall, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
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.
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.
The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
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.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [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, Mullins Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS JOSEPH MULLINS and JUANITA J. MULLINS, his wife,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs 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-03571-RMG (D.S.C., October 28, 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, wantonness, and per quod
claim.
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, Plaintiff Thomas Joseph Mullins
used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their
intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition. He 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,
Mr. Mullins was diagnosed with achalasia 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 Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 855-6060
Facsimile: (732) 726-4860
3M COMPANY: Baker Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT BAKER and DONNA NEIKEN-BAKER, his wife, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs 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-03558-RMG (D.S.C., October 28, 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, wantonness, and per quod claim.
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 firefighter trainees who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products. Plaintiff Robert Baker
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. He
relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of
the products, says the suit.
As a result of the alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products, Plaintiff Robert Baker was diagnosed with pancreatic
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 Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 855-6060
Facsimile: (732) 726-4860
3M COMPANY: Brammer Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RODNEY K. BRAMMER, JR., 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.; AGC, INC.,
f/k/a Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
MANAGEMENT, LLC; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC., individually and
as successor-in-interest to Atofina S.A.; BASF CORPORATION,
individually and as successor-in-interest to Ciba Inc.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, individually
and as successor-in-interest to Kidde-Fenwal, Inc.; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to
Sandoz Chemical Corporation; CORTEVA, INC., individually and as
successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise;
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT
INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont
Chemical Solutions Enterprise; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., individually and
as successor-in-interest to Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc.; KIDDE PLC,
INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to
DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC,
individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, individually and as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.
f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03598-RMG
(D.S.C., November 1, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, wantonness, actual fraudulent transfer, and
constructive fraudulent transfer.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn 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 prostate cancer, 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.
ACG, Inc., f/k/a Asahi Glass Co. Ltd., is a global glass
manufacturing company, headquartered in Tokyo, Japan.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma Management, LLC is a global specialty chemicals company,
headquartered in Switzerland.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
BASF Corporation is a chemicals company based in Florham Park, New
Jersey.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
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, Inc. 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.
The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
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:
James L. Ferraro, Esq.
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
Dick M. Ortega, Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 375-0111
E-mail: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
jjr@ferrarolaw.com
dmo@ferrarolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Calvin Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL JOSEPH CALVIN, 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-03609-RMG
(D.S.C., November 2, 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 firefighter trainees 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. He relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products,
the suit says.
As a result of the alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer and
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: Collie Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES E. COLLIE, 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.; AGC, INC.,
f/k/a Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
MANAGEMENT, LLC; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC., individually and
as successor-in-interest to Atofina S.A.; BASF CORPORATION,
individually and as successor-in-interest to Ciba Inc.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, individually
and as successor-in-interest to Kidde-Fenwal, Inc.; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to
Sandoz Chemical Corporation; CORTEVA, INC., individually and as
successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise;
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT
INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont
Chemical Solutions Enterprise; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., individually and
as successor-in-interest to Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc.; KIDDE PLC,
INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to
DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC,
individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, individually and as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.
f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03570-RMG
(D.S.C., October 28, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, wantonness, actual fraudulent transfer, and
constructive fraudulent transfer.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn 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, 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.
ACG, Inc., f/k/a Asahi Glass Co. Ltd., is a global glass
manufacturing company, headquartered in Tokyo, Japan.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma Management, LLC is a global specialty chemicals company,
headquartered in Switzerland.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
BASF Corporation is a chemicals company based in Florham Park, New
Jersey.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
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, Inc. 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.
The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
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:
James L. Ferraro, Esq.
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
Dick M. Ortega, Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 375-0111
E-mail: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
jjr@ferrarolaw.com
dmo@ferrarolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Crosby Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
JERRY CROSBY, 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-03575-RMG
(D.S.C., October 29, 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 severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn 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 bladder cancer, says 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:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
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: Denham Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD DENHAM and DONNA DENHAM, his wife, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs 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-03559-RMG (D.S.C., October 28, 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, wantonness, and per quod claim.
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, Plaintiff Donald Denham used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. He 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,
Plaintiff Donald Denham was diagnosed with thyroid 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 Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 855-6060
Facsimile: (732) 726-4860
3M COMPANY: Dore Sues Over AFFF Products' Risk to Human Health
--------------------------------------------------------------
CAREY DORE, 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-03576-RMG
(D.S.C., October 29, 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 allegedly diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result
of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
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:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
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: Esquinance Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER ESQUINANCE and EMILY ESQUINANCE, his wife, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs 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-03562-RMG (D.S.C., October 28, 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, wantonness, and per quod claim.
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 firefighter trainees who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products. Plaintiff Christopher
Esquinance 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. He
relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of
the products, says the suit.
As a result of the alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products, Plaintiff Christopher Esquinance was diagnosed with colon
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 Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 855-6060
Facsimile: (732) 726-4860
3M COMPANY: Exposed AFFF Products' Users to PFAS, Lanter Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID SCOTT LANTER and KIM CRIPE LANTER, his wife, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs 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-03568-RMG (D.S.C., October 28, 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, wantonness, and per quod claim.
The Plaintiffs bring this action for damages arising out of serious
medical conditions and complications sustained as a direct result
of Plaintiff David Scott Lanter's 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 Mr.
Lanter, 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, Mr.
Lanter used the Defendants' PFAS containing AFFF products in their
intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of his
exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products, the Plaintiff 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 Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 855-6060
Facsimile: (732) 726-4860
3M COMPANY: Exposed AFFF Products' Users to PFAS, Roders Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES WILLIAM RODERS, 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-03616-RMG
(D.S.C., November 2, 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 allegedly diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of
exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
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, Honn Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW HONN, 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-03557-RMG
(D.S.C., October 28, 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. He was diagnosed with colon cancer as a result of
exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products, the Plaintiff added.
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:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
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, Pryor Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
FREDERICK DOUGLAS PRYOR, 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-03615-RMG
(D.S.C., November 2, 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. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of his
exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products, the Plaintiff says.
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, Schremp Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY SCHREMP, 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.; AGC, INC.,
f/k/a Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
MANAGEMENT, LLC; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC., individually and
as successor-in-interest to Atofina S.A.; BASF CORPORATION,
individually and as successor-in-interest to Ciba Inc.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, individually
and as successor-in-interest to Kidde-Fenwal, Inc.; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to
Sandoz Chemical Corporation; CORTEVA, INC., individually and as
successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise;
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT
INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont
Chemical Solutions Enterprise; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., individually and
as successor-in-interest to Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc.; KIDDE PLC,
INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to
DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC,
individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, individually and as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.
f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03599-RMG
(D.S.C., November 1, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, wantonness, actual fraudulent transfer, and
constructive fraudulent transfer.
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 and thyroid disease as a
result of his 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.
ACG, Inc., f/k/a Asahi Glass Co. Ltd., is a global glass
manufacturing company, headquartered in Tokyo, Japan.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma Management, LLC is a global specialty chemicals company,
headquartered in Switzerland.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
BASF Corporation is a chemicals company based in Florham Park, New
Jersey.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
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, Inc. 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.
The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
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:
James L. Ferraro, Esq.
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
Dick M. Ortega, Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 375-0111
E-mail: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
jjr@ferrarolaw.com
dmo@ferrarolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Faces Dossmann Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Elements
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES D. DOSSMANN and DOROTHY DOSSMAN, his wife, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs 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-03561-RMG (D.S.C., October 28, 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, wantonness, and per quod claim.
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, Plaintiff James Dossmann used
the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended
manner, without significant change in the products' condition. He
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,
Plaintiff James Dossmann was diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma
and leukemia 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 Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 855-6060
Facsimile: (732) 726-4860
3M COMPANY: Faces Hampton Suit Over AFFF Products' Harmful Effects
------------------------------------------------------------------
MELVIN L. HAMPTON, JR. and JUDITH F. HAMPTON, his wife,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs 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-03565-RMG (D.S.C., October 28, 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, wantonness, and per quod
claim.
The Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of serious medical conditions and complications
sustained as a direct result of Plaintiff Melvin Hampton's 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 Mr. Hampton, 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, Mr. Hampton 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,
Mr. Hampton was diagnosed with prostate 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 Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 855-6060
Facsimile: (732) 726-4860
3M COMPANY: Faces Henderson Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Effects
------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL DALE HENDERSON, 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-03610-RMG
(D.S.C., November 2, 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 Plaintiff
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate 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: Faces Jarvis Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Elements
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID M. JARVIS, 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.; AGC, INC.,
f/k/a Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
MANAGEMENT, LLC; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC., individually and
as successor-in-interest to Atofina S.A.; BASF CORPORATION,
individually and as successor-in-interest to Ciba Inc.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, individually
and as successor-in-interest to Kidde-Fenwal, Inc.; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to
Sandoz Chemical Corporation; CORTEVA, INC., individually and as
successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise;
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT
INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont
Chemical Solutions Enterprise; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., individually and
as successor-in-interest to Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc.; KIDDE PLC,
INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to
DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC,
individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, individually and as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.
f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03596-RMG
(D.S.C., November 1, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, wantonness, actual fraudulent transfer, and
constructive fraudulent transfer.
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 Plaintiff.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate 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.
ACG, Inc., f/k/a Asahi Glass Co. Ltd., is a global glass
manufacturing company, headquartered in Tokyo, Japan.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma Management, LLC is a global specialty chemicals company,
headquartered in Switzerland.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
BASF Corporation is a chemicals company based in Florham Park, New
Jersey.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
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, Inc. 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.
The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
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:
James L. Ferraro, Esq.
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
Dick M. Ortega, Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 375-0111
E-mail: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
jjr@ferrarolaw.com
dmo@ferrarolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Faces Myers Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Components
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY AARON MYERS, 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-03613-RMG
(D.S.C., November 2, 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. He 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 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 Owens Suit Over AFFF Products' PFAS Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES THOMAS OWENS and ALICE MARIE MOSES OWENS, his wife,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs 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-03573-RMG (D.S.C., October 28, 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, wantonness, and per quod
claim.
The Plaintiffs bring 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 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, Plaintiff James Thomas Owens used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. Owens was
allegedly diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of his
exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
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 Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 855-6060
Facsimile: (732) 726-4860
3M COMPANY: Faces Ruth Suit Over AFFF Products' Design Defect
-------------------------------------------------------------
OREN RUTH, SR., 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-03572-RMG
(D.S.C., October 28, 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 severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn 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 prostate cancer, the suit says.
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:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 855-6060
Facsimile: (732) 726-4860
3M COMPANY: Gentry Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANNY GENTRY, 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.; AGC, INC.,
f/k/a Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
MANAGEMENT, LLC; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC., individually and
as successor-in-interest to Atofina S.A.; BASF CORPORATION,
individually and as successor-in-interest to Ciba Inc.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, individually
and as successor-in-interest to Kidde-Fenwal, Inc.; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to
Sandoz Chemical Corporation; CORTEVA, INC., individually and as
successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise;
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT
INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont
Chemical Solutions Enterprise; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., individually and
as successor-in-interest to Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc.; KIDDE PLC,
INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to
DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC,
individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, individually and as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.
f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03595-RMG
(D.S.C., November 1, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, wantonness, actual fraudulent transfer, and
constructive fraudulent transfer.
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 firefighter trainees 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. He relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products,
says the suit.
As a result of the alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer and
prostate 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.
ACG, Inc., f/k/a Asahi Glass Co. Ltd., is a global glass
manufacturing company, headquartered in Tokyo, Japan.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma Management, LLC is a global specialty chemicals company,
headquartered in Switzerland.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
BASF Corporation is a chemicals company based in Florham Park, New
Jersey.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
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, Inc. 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.
The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
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:
James L. Ferraro, Esq.
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
Dick M. Ortega, Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 375-0111
E-mail: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
jjr@ferrarolaw.com
dmo@ferrarolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Grout Suit Claims Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCIS GROUT, 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-03551-RMG
(D.S.C., October 28, 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 severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn 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 failure, 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:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 855-6060
Facsimile: (732) 726-4860
3M COMPANY: Hall Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
RONNIE C. HALL, SR., 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.; AGC, INC.,
f/k/a Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
MANAGEMENT, LLC; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC., individually and
as successor-in-interest to Atofina S.A.; BASF CORPORATION,
individually and as successor-in-interest to Ciba Inc.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, individually
and as successor-in-interest to Kidde-Fenwal, Inc.; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to
Sandoz Chemical Corporation; CORTEVA, INC., individually and as
successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise;
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT
INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont
Chemical Solutions Enterprise; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., individually and
as successor-in-interest to Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc.; KIDDE PLC,
INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to
DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC,
individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, individually and as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.
f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03597-RMG
(D.S.C., November 1, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, wantonness, actual fraudulent transfer, and
constructive fraudulent transfer.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn 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 prostate cancer, says 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.
ACG, Inc., f/k/a Asahi Glass Co. Ltd., is a global glass
manufacturing company, headquartered in Tokyo, Japan.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma Management, LLC is a global specialty chemicals company,
headquartered in Switzerland.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
BASF Corporation is a chemicals company based in Florham Park, New
Jersey.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
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, Inc. 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.
The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
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:
James L. Ferraro, Esq.
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
Dick M. Ortega, Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 375-0111
E-mail: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
jjr@ferrarolaw.com
dmo@ferrarolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Harrison Sues Over Toxic Effects of AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
ELIAS HARRISON, 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-03566-RMG
(D.S.C., October 28, 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 allegedly diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result
of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
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:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 855-6060
Facsimile: (732) 726-4860
3M COMPANY: McGahuey Sues Over Toxic Effects of AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL DAVID MCGAHUEY, 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-03611-RMG
(D.S.C., November 2, 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 allegedly diagnosed with testicular cancer as a
result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
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: Omlor Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY OMLOR and NELLA OMLOR, his wife, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs 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-03552-RMG
(D.S.C., October 28, 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, wantonness, and per quod claim.
The Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of serious medical conditions and complications
sustained as a direct result of Plaintiff Anthony Omlor's 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 Mr. Omlor, 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, Mr. Omlor used the Defendants' PFAS-containing
AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change
in the products' condition, the Plaintiffs added.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct, he
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.
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 Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 855-6060
Facsimile: (732) 726-4860
3M COMPANY: Perelman Sues Over Firefighters' Exposure to PFAS
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT PERELMAN, 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-03556-RMG
(D.S.C., October 28, 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. The Plaintiff was allegedly diagnosed with leukemia and
lymphoma cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
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:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
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: Salazar Sues Over Side Effects of Using AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GILBERT JOSEPH SALAZAR, 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-03554-RMG
(D.S.C., October 28, 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. The Plaintiff was allegedly diagnosed with testicular
cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
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:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 855-6060
Facsimile: (732) 726-4860
3M COMPANY: Schlesinger Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT EDWARD SCHLESINGER, 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-03617-RMG
(D.S.C., November 2, 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 firefighter trainees 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. He relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products,
says the suit.
As a result of the alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products, 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: Waters Sues Over AFFF Products' Risk to Human Health
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES WATERS, 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-03574-RMG
(D.S.C., October 28, 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 allegedly diagnosed with bladder cancer as a result
of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
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:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 855-6060
Facsimile: (732) 726-4860
ADT LLC: Doty Seeks to Stay Resolution of Clas Cert. Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDY DOTY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ADT, LLC d/b/a
ADT SECURITY SERVICES, a Delaware limited liability company, and
TELESFORO AVILES, an individual, Case No. 9:21-cv-80645-AHS (S.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order staying
resolution of Plaintiff's motion for class certification until such
time as the arbitration process has commenced and Plaintiff moves
to withdraw its motion.
The Plaintiff filed a Motion for Class Certification on July 12,
2021. Counsel for Plaintiff has since informed Defendant ADT, LLC
that it intends to arbitrate the claims of each putative class
member whom counsel currently represents and who is subject to a
contract with ADT that contains a binding arbitration clause.
ADT LLC designs and manufacture security systems. The Company
offers security cameras, fire and life safety, and home security
systems.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 26,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jZwZ7B
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jay Edelson, Esq.
Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
J. Eli Wade-Scott, Esq.
Nicholas H. Rosinia, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60654
Telephone: (312) 589-6370
Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
brichman@edelson.com
ewadescott@edelson.com
nrosinia@edelson.com
- and -
Matthew R. McCarley, Esq.
Christopher Michael Brown, Esq.
FEARS NACHAWATI, PLLC
5473 Blair Road
Dallas, Texas 75231
Telephone: (214) 890-0711
Facsimile: (214) 890-0712
E-mail: mmccarley@fnlawfirm.com
cbrown@fnlawfirm.com
- and -
Amy M. Carter, Esq.
Heather V. Davis, Esq.
CARTER LAW GROUP, P.C.
5473 Blair Rd.
Dallas, TX 75231
Telephone: (214) 390-4173
E-mail: amy@clgtrial.com
hdavis@clgtrial.com
ALBANESE ENTERPRISES: Murga Seeks Minimum Pay, Slams Tip Credit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alyssa Murga, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Albanese Enterprises, Inc., Family
Entertainment LLC, 327 E. BAY, LLC, Klodian Ferra and Daniel
Jiggetts Case No. 21-cv-01074, (M.D. Fla., October 25, 2021), seeks
to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages or interest,
attorneys' fees, and costs, for willful violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Defendants operate "Live Bar," a downtown Jacksonville nightclub
and "Paradise Gentlemen's Club," now closed, in Duval County,
Florida. Murga used to work as a bartender for the Defendants. She
claims that she was required to share their tips with other
non-service employees who do not customarily receive tips,
including the managers, disc jockeys, and the bouncers thus
rendering her pay to fall below the mandated minimum wage rate. She
also claims to be denied overtime and wage statements. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregg Gerlach, Esq.
GERLACH EMPLOYMENT LAW, PL
6320 St. Augustine Road, Suite 7B
Jacksonville, FL 32217
Telephone: (904) 296-7000
Facsimile: (904) 250-5654
Email: 2g@gerlachemploymentlaw.com
jeffrey@gerlachemploymentlaw.com
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: Class Cert. Briefing Sched Entered in Castellar
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ORLANDO CANCINO
CASTELLAR, et al., v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-00491-BAS-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order
granting the parties' joint motion to set briefing schedule for
clarification of class certification order as follows:
-- On or before November 10, 2021, each Party shall file
opening briefs not to exceed five pages in length;
-- On or before November 17, 2021, each Party shall file
responses not to exceed three pages in length; and
-- No reply briefs shall be filed without leave of the Court.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BK090q at no extra charge.[CC]
ALEXIAN VILLAGE: Court Certifies Rule 23 Class in Smith Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLA SMITH, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALEXIAN VILLAGE
OF MILWAUKEE, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01308-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), the
Hon. Judge J. P. Stadtmueller entered an order:
1. denying as moot the parties' first unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement, the
parties' first joint stipulated motion for class
certification, certification of class counsel, and class
representative, and the parties' unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of amended settlement;
2. granting the parties' corrected stipulated motion to
certify a class action, class counsel, and class
representative;
3. certifying the Rule 23 Class defined in the corrected
stipulated motion pursuant to Rule 23(c)”
-- The Rule 23 Class is defined as follows:
"All current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt front-
line care employees employed by Defendant in such
positions as Resident Assistant, Certified Nursing
Assistant, Activity Assistant, and Activity
Coordinator, within the three (3) years prior to the
filing of the Complaint who received alleged non-
discretionary compensation, such as retention bonuses,
on-call bonuses, and holiday bonuses, that was not
incorporated into said employees' regular rates of pay
for overtime compensation purposes";
4. appointing the law firm of Walcheske & Luzi, LLC as Class
Counsel of the Rule 23 Class;
5. appointing Plaintiff Carla Smith as Class Representative
of the Rule 23 Class;
6. granting the parties' corrected unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement; and
7. preliminarily approving the parties' Amended Settlement
Agreement as a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution
of a bona fide dispute between Defendant and all affected
employees of Defendant during the relevant timeframe.
Alexian Village of Milwaukee, Inc. is a continuing care retirement
community, which includes a skilled nursing facility.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nSeN0N at no extra charge.[CC]
ALIERA COMPANIES: Jackson Suit Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GERALD JACKSON, ROSLYN
JACKSON, DEAN MELLOM, JON PERRIN AND JULIE PERRIN, individually and
on behalf of l others similarly situated, v. THE ALIERA COMPANIES,
INC., a Delaware corporation; ALIERA HEALTHCARE, INC., a Delaware
corporation; TRINITY HEALTHSHARE, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 2:19-cv-01281-BJR (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the proposed class of:
"All Washington residents who acquired plans from or through The
Aliera Companies, Inc., Aliera Healthcare, Inc. and Trinity
Healthshare, Inc. or any of those entities’ subsidiaries that
purported to be "health care sharing ministry" plans at any time
from June 27, 2018 to July 8, 2021;"
2. appointing Plaintiffs Gerald Jackson, Roslyn Jackson, Dean
Mellom, Jon Perrin and Julie Perrin should be appointed as the
class representatives; and
3. appointing Richard E. Spoonemore and Eleanor Hamburger of
Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore Hamburger, PLLC, Michael Myers and
Samantha Lin of Myers & Company, PLLC and Jay Angoff and Cyrus
Mehri of Mehri & Skalet, PLLC as class counsel.
The Plaintiffs contend that this case is tailor-made for a class
action. All of the putative class members, like the class
representatives, purchased health plans that Aliera claims were
HCSM plans. The legality or illegality of these plans can -- and
should -- be determined in one action, the Plaintifffs add/
Since June 27, 2018, thousands of residents of the State of
Washington were sold "AlieraCare," an illegal health insurance plan
created by Defendant The Aliera Companies, Inc., ("Aliera"). In
marketing, selling and administering these plans, Aliera
represented to Plaintiffs -- and thousands of other Washington
residents just like them -- that Trinity Healthshare, Inc., an
entity that it created, was an authorized health care sharing
ministry ("HCSM") and therefore exempt from all federal and state
laws governing health insurance.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 26,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EER5Md
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
SIRIANNI YOUTZ
SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350
Seattle, WA 98121
Telephone: (206) 223-0303
Facsimile: (206) 223-0246
E-mail: rspoonemore@sylaw.com
ehamburger@sylaw.com
- and -
Michael David Myers, Esq.
Samantha Lin, Esq.
MYERS & COMPANY, PLLC
1530 Eastlake Avenue East
Seattle, WA 98102
Telephone: (206) 398-1188
Facsimile: (206) 400-1115
E-mail: mmyers@myers-company.com
slin@myers-company.com
- and -
Jay Angoff, Esq.
Cyrus Mehri, Esq.
MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC
1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 822-5100
E-mail: jangoff@findjustice.com
cmehri@findjustice.com
ALL NIPPON: 2nd Amended Bugarin Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ASHLEY BUGARIN, Plaintiff v. ALL NIPPON AIRWAYS CO.,
LTD., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-03341-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth
Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, San Jose Division:
(i) denied ANA's motion to compel arbitration; and
(ii) granted its motion to dismiss the operative second
amended complaint ("SAC") for failure to state a claim
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Background
In the putative class action, Plaintiff Bugarin seeks to represent
a nationwide class of persons who did not receive refunds when
their flights on the Defendant were cancelled or rescheduled as a
result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The SAC asserts a single claim for
breach contract, alleging that ANA's Conditions of Carriage ("COC")
obligate ANA to refund the ticket price for a cancelled or
rescheduled flight.
Ms. Bugarin filed the action on May 15, 2020 and thereafter filed a
first amended complaint ("FAC") as of right alleging claims for
breach of contract and rescission. The Court granted ANA's motion
to dismiss the FAC under Rule 12(b)(6) with leave to amend the
contract claim only. See Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part
Motion to Dismis. It found that the rescission claim was preempted
by the Airline Deregulation Act, 49 U.S.C. Section 41713, and thus
that leave to amend that claim would be futile. Bugarin filed the
operative SAC on Feb. 5, 2021, reasserting only the contract
claim.
Ms. Bugarin alleges that in November 2019, she purchased tickets
from a third-party online vendor, asaptickets.com ("ASAP"), for two
round-trip flights to Japan on ANA. The outbound flight from San
Jose, California to Tokyo, Japan was scheduled for March 23, 2020,
and the return flight from Tokyo to San Francisco, California was
scheduled for April 8, 2020. Bugarin paid approximately $805 per
round-trip ticket for a total of $1609.70. The return flight was
cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
When Bugarin contacted ASAP to obtain a refund for the cancelled
return flight, she was informed that she would have to pay $200 per
ticket to obtain a refund. Instead of paying the $200 fee, Bugarin
decided to seek a refund directly from ANA. According to Bugarin,
ANA was contractually obligated to provide her with a refund for
the cancelled flight under its COC. Bugarin claims that ANA
breached its COC by failing to provide her with a refund.
In the SAC, Bugarin seeks to show that her nonperformance of the
condition precedent is excused. Confusingly, she alleges that
ASAP's $200 processing fee for obtaining a refund "is direct
frustration of the condition precedent" in ANA's COC. She also
alleges that ANA "specifically prevented the Plaintiff and the
Class members from fulfilling the condition precedent by leaving
customers seeking a refund on hold for long periods of time,
dropping calls when they did get through, and otherwise creating
bottleneck to avoid processing refunds as required" under the COC.
Ms. Bugarin alleges that she "made more than one call" to ANA but
had difficulty understanding how to select the proper option to
reach a live representative because ANA's recorded message was
partially in Japanese. Once Bugarin selected the proper option, she
allegedly was placed on hold for 30 to 45 minutes, after which her
calls were dropped before she could speak to an ANA representative.
Bugarin asserts that the "Defendant's frustration of the condition
precedent was part of its policy to avoid issuing a refund to
Plaintiff and Class members."
Ms. Bugarin, a citizen and resident of California, sues ANA for
breach of the COC on behalf of herself and the following putative
nationwide class: "All persons in the United States who purchased
tickets for travel on an All Nippon flight scheduled to operate to,
from, or within the United States whose flights were cancelled or
were subject to a significant schedule change and not refunded."
She also seeks to represent a subclass of persons who purchased
tickets in California.
ANA moves to compel arbitration or, in the alternative, to dismiss
the SAC for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).
Discussion
A. Motion to Compel Arbitration
ANA moves to compel arbitration of the SAC. While ANA's COC do not
include an arbitration provision, ANA asserts that it may enforce
an arbitration provision contained in ASAP's terms and conditions
under the doctrine of equitable estoppel.
ANA argues that the doctrine of equitable estoppel applies in the
case because Bugarin relies on ASAP's conduct in asserting her
contract claim against ANA, and Bugarin's contract claim against
ANA is intertwined with her agreement with ASAP. In opposition,
Bugarin contends that ANA has not established that she entered into
an arbitration agreement with ASAP. She also contends that even if
she did enter into an arbitration agreement with ASAP, ANA cannot
enforce that agreement for four reasons. First, Bugarin argues that
ANA waived its right to move to compel arbitration. Second, she
contends that it would be inappropriate to allow ANA to compel
arbitration based on a provision in ASAP's terms and conditions,
since federal regulations bar ANA from including an arbitration
provision in its COC. Third, she asserts that ANA is not a
third-party beneficiary to the arbitration agreement. And fourth,
she argues that ANA cannot invoke ASAP's arbitration provision
under the doctrine of equitable estoppel.
Judge Freeman denied ANA's motion to compel arbitration.
1. ANA has Shown the Existence of an Arbitration Agreement
As the party seeking to compel arbitration, ANA has the burden of
proving the existence of an arbitration agreement by a
preponderance of the evidence. ANA submits screenshots of ASAP's
website showing that users must check a box agreeing to ASAP's
terms and conditions, including an arbitration provision, in order
to purchase airline tickets. Bugarin points out that the
screenshots submitted by ANA are from 2021, and she argues that ANA
has not established that the screenshots depict what she saw when
she booked her flights in 2019. She cites Maree v. Deutsche
Lufthansa AG, No. SACV 20-885-MWF (MRWx), 2020 WL 6018806, at *3
(C.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2020), for the proposition that "it would be
improper to rule on the existence of an arbitration agreement
without first determining, as a factual matter, what the website
looked like on the relevant date."
Judge Freeman holds that this evidence is sufficient to show by a
preponderance of the evidence that Bugarin entered into an
arbitration agreement with ASAP when she purchased her flights.
2. ANA Did Not Waive the Right to Move to Compel Arbitration
Ms. Bugarin contends that even if she did enter into an arbitration
agreement with ASAP, ANA has waived its right to move to compel
arbitration by waiting almost a year after commencement of the
action to file its motion. It argues that its motion to compel
arbitration is based on allegations that appeared for the first
time in the SAC, and that its motion was filed only a month after
the SAC.
Judge Freeman finds that ANA's motion to compel arbitration under
the doctrine of equitable estoppel is based on new allegations in
the SAC. Specifically, in the SAC Bugarin alleges for the first
time that she sought a refund from ASAP, that ASAP informed her
there would be a $200 charge per ticket for a refund, and that the
$200 charge "is a direct frustration of the condition precedent" in
ANA's COC. Based on these allegations, ANA contends it may compel
arbitration under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, because
Bugarin relies on ASAP's conduct in asserting her contract claim
against ANA, and Bugarin's contract claim against ANA is
intertwined with her agreement with ASAP. The SAC was filed on Feb.
5, 2021, and ANA filed the present motion to compel arbitration on
March 5, 2021. Under these circumstances, Bugarin cannot meet her
heavy burden of proof to show waiver of ANA's right to move to
compel arbitration.
3. Effect of 14 C.F.R. Section 253.10
Ms. Bugarin asserts that federal regulations bar ANA from including
an arbitration provision in its COC, and it would be inappropriate
to allow ANA to end-run this restriction by allowing ANA to enforce
ASAP's arbitration provision. ANA argues that Section 253.10 speaks
only to forum selection provisions, not arbitration provisions, and
that in any event Section 253.10 applies only to claims involving
domestic flights and not claims involving international flights
such as the one at issue in the case.
Judge Freeman declines to find that Section 253.10 applies only to
domestic flights, as did the Capua court, based on DOT commentary
in the Federal Register. In his view, there is no ambiguity in the
language of Section 253.10 that would give rise to a need to
consider commentary to aid interpretation. Section Section 253.10
states that "no carrier" may include a certain type of clause in
its conditions of carriage. Nothing in this language suggests that
"no carrier" means "no carrier of domestic flights." "Where, as
here, the statute's language is plain, the sole function of the
courts is to enforce it according to its terms." Judge Freeman
finds that ANA may not enforce ASAP's arbitration provision.
4. Third-Party Beneficiary and Equitable Estoppel
Even if it were to conclude that Section 253.10 does not bar ANA's
enforcement of ASAP's arbitration provision, Judge Freeman would
find that ANA lacks standing to enforce the provision here. ANA
contends that it may enforce ASAP's arbitration provision under the
doctrine of equitable estoppel. ANA does not argue that it has
standing to enforce the arbitration provision as a third-party
beneficiary. Judge Freeman therefore does not reach Bugarin's
argument that ANA cannot proceed on a third-party beneficiary
theory. She likewise concludes that because Bugarin's contract
claim against ANA is based solely on ANA's own COC, and not on any
obligation found in ASAP's terms and conditions, equity does not
require that the claim be subject to ASAP's arbitration provision.
II. Motion to Dismiss
In the event that the Court denies its motion to compel
arbitration, ANA moves to dismiss the SAC under Rule 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim. In its prior order, the Court found that
a request for refund, supported by evidence sufficient to prove
entitlement to a refund, is a condition precedent to obtaining a
refund under ANA's COC. The FAC did not allege facts showing
satisfaction of the condition precedent or excuse for
nonperformance. The Court granted Bugarin leave to amend to add
facts showing either that Section 13(B) is not a condition
precedent or that Bugarin's nonperformance of the condition
precedent is excused.
Judge Freeman finds that in her SAC, Bugarin asserts that ANA
prevented her from fulfilling the condition precedent to obtaining
a refund under ANA's COC. However, many of the facts supporting
this assertion are not contained in the SAC itself, but rather in
Bugarin's declaration that is attached to the SAC. Judge Freeman
holds that the facts alleged in the SAC itself are insufficient to
show excuse for nonperformance of the condition precedent. She
therefore has no choice but to grant the motion to dismiss. Viewing
Bugarin's declaration as a proffer of facts that could be alleged,
however, it appears that Bugarin could amend to cure this defect.
At the hearing, the counsel for ANA pointed out that each round of
pleading is costing ANA a great deal of money. The counsel argued
persuasively that allowing further leave to amend, particularly to
cure the very odd decision to include critical facts in a
declaration attached to the SAC rather than in the SAC itself, is
reaching the bounds of judicial economy and fairness. Judge Freeman
agrees, but based on this record it will give Bugarin one final
opportunity to amend her pleading to state a viable claim.
ANA's motion to dismiss the SAC therefore is granted with leave to
amend.
Order
Judge Freeman denied ANA's motion to compel arbitration. She
granted its motion to dismiss the SAC with leave to amend. Any
amended pleading will be filed by Nov. 16, 2021. Leave to amend is
limited to the deficiencies noted herein. No additional claims or
parties may be added without leave of the Court. The Order
terminates ECF 35.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/fjcsf86e from Leagle.com.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Court Tosses Kouchi Bid for Class Status
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Joshua Kouchi v. American
Airlines, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-07802-PSG-AGR (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Philip S. Gutierrez entered an order denying
Plaintiff's motion for class certification after considering the
moving, opposing, reply, and sur-reply papers.
The Plaintiff brought the instant wage and hour class action a year
later, alleging multiple deficiencies in Defendant's "uniform
policies" for employee timekeeping, meal and rest periods, and
business expense reimbursement.
Specifically, Plaintiff claims that Defendant lacks procedures for
employees to adequately and accurately record their time
worked. As a result, employees allegedly are not paid for any hours
worked beyond their scheduled shifts.
The Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant "did not have a meal or
rest period policy until 2018," which led to numerous unrecorded,
missed, or shortened meal and rest periods. Finally, the Plaintiff
maintains that Defendant has a "facially invalid" reimbursement
policy, prohibiting reimbursement for most business calls made from
employees' personal cell phones.
The Plaintiff worked as a "Flight Service Coordinator" for
Defendant at Los Angeles International Airport, but was terminated
after approximately one year on the job for repeatedly leaving
before his scheduled shift ended without altering his timesheet to
reflect his premature departure.
The Defendant has commercial airline operations at ten airports
throughout the State of California.
A copy of the Court's civil minutes – general dated Oct. 27, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZQ2ES8 at no
extra charge.[CC]
AMITY IMPORTS: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amity Imports Inc.
The case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Amity Imports Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-08884 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Amity Imports -- https://www.amityhome.com/ -- offers fine
beddings, comforters and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
AMMO INC: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ammo, Inc. The case
is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Ammo, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-08874
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ammo, Inc. -- https://ammoinc.com/ -- is the leader in
technological ammunition advancements. Manufacturers of STREAK
Visual Ammunition, stelTH Subsonic Ammunition, Night OPS, and
more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
ANTHONY ANNUCI: Animashaun Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Damilola Animashaun v.
Anthony Annuci and Mark Passage, Case No. 9:19-cv-00820-LEK-DJS
(N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
certifying a class of:
"prisoners who has served 305 days or more inSpecial Housing
Unit (SHU) confinement and such confinement is on going
without any release, and needs to be released from the SHU
confinement."
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 27,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mIxbKb
at no extra charge.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC]
APPLE INC: Court Narrows Claims in Franklin Suit
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT FRANKLIN v. APPLE
INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-00354-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Amos
L. Mazzant entered an order granting in part and denying in part
Apple's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)
and Motion to abate:
-- Franklin has standing to bring claims on
behalf of the proposed class;
-- Franklin has not stated a plausible design defect claim,
thus the Court dismisses this claim,
-- The action is abated and will remain in abatement until 60
days after the date Franklin provides Apple with proper
pre-suit notice as required under section 17.505(a);
-- After the abatement period ends, Franklin has 14 days to
file a second amended complaint to cure the defects in his
complaint.
-- After the abatement period ends, the parties have 14 days
to submit another joint proposed scheduling order.
The Court said, "Franklin alternatively argues that notice was not
required because notification was impracticable in light of the
impending expiration of the statute of limitations. This argument
is similarly to no avail. To benefit from the exception to the
pre-suit notification requirement, "a plaintiff must plead that he
qualifies for the exception." Here, Franklin has not pleaded that
he gave Apple the required notice or otherwise qualified for an
exception. That his response to Apple's motion to dismiss invoked
the exception to the notice requirement is insufficient.
Accordingly, Apple is entitled to have this action held in abeyance
until Franklin complies with the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act's (DTPA's) notice requirement.
This lawsuit centers around injuries allegedly caused by a
defective iPhone 6. Around August 2018, Franklin purchased the
iPhone 6 from Wal-Mart Supercenter in Sulphur Springs, Texas.
On August 15, 2019, Franklin's iPhone 6 suddenly exploded and
caught fire, causing him to fall to the ground. As a result of the
incident, Mr. Franklin suffered injuries to his eyes and wrist.
Franklin alleges a defective battery rendered his iPhone unsafe to
operate.
On May 6, 2021, Franklin filed his Original Complaint and Petition
for Class Certification. In his complaint, Franklin asserted the
following causes of action against Apple Inc.: 1) breach of the
implied warranty of merchantability, 2) breach of express warranty,
3) Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims, and 4) a Texas Deceptive
Trade Practices Act.
Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in consumer electronics, computer software and online
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nUh7El at no extra charge.[CC]
APPLE INC: March 15, 2022 Extension to File Class Cert Bid Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL ORSHAN, CHRISTOPHER
ENDARA, DAVID HENDERSON, and STEVEN NEOCLEOUS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. APPLE INC., Case No.
5:14-cv-05659-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court granting
their joint stipulation and [proposed] order extending briefing
schedule for class certification motion by 60 days, such that:
(1) Plaintiffs shall file their class certification Motion on
or before March 15, 2022;
(2) Apple shall have until May 17, 2022 to file any
opposition to the Motion;
(3) Plaintiffs shall file any reply to the Motion on or
before June 16, 2022; and
(4) a hearing shall be held as soon after as is convenient to
the Court.
Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in consumer electronics, computer software and online
services. Apple is the world's largest technology company by
revenue and, since January 2021, the world's most valuable
company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kpqjQr at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William H. Anderson, Esq.
HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
4730 Table Mesa Drive, Suite G-200
Boulder, CO 80305
Telephone: (303) 800-9109
Facsimile: (844) 300-1852
E-mail: wanderson@hfajustice.com
- and -
Clayton Halunen, Esq.
Amy Boyle, Esq.
Christopher Moreland, Esq.
HALUNEN & ASSOCIATES
80 South Eighth Street, Suite #1650
Minneopolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 605-4098
E-mail: halunen@halunenlaw.com
boyle@halunenlaw.com
moreland@halunenlaw.com
- and -
Jon M. Herskowitz, Esq.
BARON & HERSKOWITZ
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1704
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 670-0101
Facsimile: (305) 670-2393
E-mail: jon@bhfloridalaw.com
- and -
Michael McShane, Esq.
Ling Y. Kuang, Esq.
Kurt D. Kessler, Esq.
AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
711 Van Ness Ave., Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 568-2555
Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com
lkuang@audetlaw.com
kkessler@audetlaw.com
- and -
Matthew K. Handley, Esq.
Stephen Pearson, Esq.
HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
200 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Seventh Floor
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (303) 800-9109
E-mail: mhandley@hfajustice.com
spearson@hfajustice.com
- and -
Rebecca P. Chang, Esq.
HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
81 Prospect Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (303) 800-9109
E-mail: rchang@hfajustice.com
- and -
Charles J. Laduca, Esq.
C. William Frick, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
4725 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 789-3960
Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com
bill@cuneolaw.com
- and -
Robert Shelquist, Esq.
Rebecca Peterson, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
rapeterson@locklaw.com
The Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc., are:
Matthew D. Powers, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3823
Telephone: (415) 984-8700
Facsimile: (415) 984-8701
E-mail: mpowers@omm.com
APPLE PARK: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apple Park, LLC. The
case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Apple Park, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-08888 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Apple Park -- https://www.applepark.com/ -- offers the finest
certified organic cotton baby clothes, bamboo teethers, soft plush
toys and rattles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
APPLE-METRO INC: Ct. Enters Class Cert. Discovery Sched in Marin
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marin v. Apple-Metro,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-05274 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Cheryl L Pollak entered an order on the parties' proposed pre-class
certification discovery schedule.
-- A status conference is set for Feb. 1, 2022 at 2:45 pm.
The Conference will proceed via AT&T conference call, says
Judge Pollack.
The suit alleges vilation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Apple-Metro owns and operates restaurants.[CC]
APPLE-METRO INC: Pre-Class Cert. Discovery Schedule Entered in Dove
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dove v. Apple-Metro, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-01417 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Magistrate
Judge Cheryl L Pollak entered an order on the parties' proposed
pre-class certification discovery schedule:
-- A status conference is set for Feb. 1, 2022 at 2:45 pm.
-- The Conference will proceed via AT&T conference call.
Apple-Metro, Inc. owns and operates restaurants.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC]
ARIEL COMMUNITY: Goldston Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGLE GOLDSTON,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. ARIEL
COMMUNITY CARE, LLC, DONNIE MANN and PIERRE PICKENS, Case No.
1:21-cv-08892-UA (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order extending her deadline to file her motion for class
certification until set by the Court.
On August 2, 2021, the Plaintiff filed her collective action and
class action complaint, asserting causes of action against
Defendants, Ariel Community Care, LLC, Donnie Mann and Pierre
Pickens.
The Defendants were served on August 19, 2021. The Defendants filed
a Stipulation to Extend Time for Defendants to respond to
Plaintiff's complaint and toll limitation. The extension permitted
Defendants until September 29, 2021 to file an answer or otherwise
respond to Plaintiff's complaint.
The Defendants filed their Answer which contained a counterclaim
against Plaintiff on September 29, 2021. The Plaintiff answered the
counterclaim on October 1, 2021. The Plaintiff filed her first
Amended Complaint on October 21, 2021. Not only did the Amended
Complaint add a claim for retaliation, it also clarified the class
definition.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 29, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CVIWCx at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian L. Kinsley, Esq.
CRUMLEY ROBERTS, LLP
2400 Freeman Mill Road, Ste. 200
Greensboro, NC 27406
Telephone: (336) 333-9899
Facsimile: (336) 333-9894
E-mail: blkinsley@crumleyroberts.com
- and -
Philip Bohrer, Esq.
Scott E. Brady, Esq.
BOHRER BRADY, LLC
8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Telephone: (225) 925-5297
Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
E-mail: scott@bohrerbrady.com
phil@bohrerbrady.com
ASCENDTEK LLC: Holland Seeks to Certify Class of Tower Technicians
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW HOLLAND, PERRY
HOGAN, on their own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated, v. ASCENDTEK, LLC d/b/a SKY TELECOM, HAWKEYE TOWERS, LLC,
and CHRISTOPHER FUTCH, Individually, Case No. 1:21-cv-04133-MLB
(N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. conditionally certifying the class of all current and
former Tower Technicians who worked at any location of
Defendants;
2. directing the Defendants to produce to undersigned counsel
within 14 days of the Order granting this Motion a list
containing the names, the last known addresses, phone
numbers, social security numbers, and e-mail addresses of
putative class members who worked for Defendant from three
years prior to the Order granting this Motion to the
present;
3. authorizing undersigned counsel to send a notice and
consent, to all individuals whose names appear on the list
produced by Defendant's counsel by first-class mail and e-
mail and also requiring Defendant to post a hard copy of
the notice in common areas located within all of
Defendant's locations;
4. authorizing undersigned counsel to send a reminder notice,
to all putative class members who have not responded to
the initial notice 30 days after the initial notices are
mailed;
5. providing all individuals whose names appear on the list
produced by Defendants counsel with 60 days from the date
the notices are initially mailed to file a Consent to
Become Opt-In Plaintiff; and
6. any other relief that is just and appropriate.
The Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly-situated alleging that they and other employees in
the position of Tower Technician were deprived of proper overtime
wages by virtue of Defendants' unlawful unwillingness to pay
appropriate overtime.
Meanwhile, the Defendants required Plaintiffs and others
similarly-situated to regularly work more than 40 hours
per week without additional overtime pay.
The Plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of those
similarly situated, request the entry of an Order permitting, under
court supervision, notice to all Tower Technicians employed by
Defendants within the last three years.
AscendTek, LLC is a telecommunications company with offices all
over the United States. It prides itself for its ninety-five (95)
year history and its exclusivity to cell tower construction.
AscendTek, LLC acquired Sky Telecom in or around late 2019 or early
2020. The then owner of Sky Telecom, Matt Hush, is now a General
Manager at AscendTek, LLC. Prior to this acquisition, Christopher
Futch had a partnership agreement with Sky Telecom.
Hawkeye Towers, LLC, is a sub-contracting company specializing and
cell tower installation and construction. The company was
incorporated by Christopher Futch in 2020.
Christopher Futch entered into a business partnership agreement
with AscendTek, LLC following AscendTek's purchase of Sky Telecom
in which he and his company would provide workers for AscendTek's
projects. AscendTek, LLC, Hawkeye Towers, LLC, and Christopher
Futch, established a joint employer relationship in which it
employed Plaintiffs and other similarly situated workers who were
assigned to these projects.
The Plaintiffs would regularly work 30 hours of overtime each week
while employed at Defendants. The Plaintiffs expressed their
concerns of not being adequately compensated to Defendants on
several occasions with both acknowledging Defendants' failure to
pay them correctly.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 1, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/31F2vRZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeremy Stephens, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4200
Post Office Box 57007
Atlanta, GA 30343-1007
Telephone: (404) 965-1682
E-mail: jstephens@forthepeople.com
AT&T INC: Order Denying Arbitration Bid in Cottrell Suit Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID COTTRELL, Plaintiff-Appellee v. AT&T INC., et
al., Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 20-16162 (9th Cir.), the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district
court's order denying AT&T's motion to compel arbitration and
remanded with instructions to grant the motion.
Mr. Cottrell brought the putative class action asserting claims
under California law against AT&T and associated companies based on
his allegations that AT&T improperly charged its customers for
DIRECTV Now accounts without authorization. AT&T now appeals the
district court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration.
Reviewing the district court's order de novo, citing Hodges v.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 12 F.4th 1108, 1113 (9th Cir.
2021), the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions to
grant the motion. It explains that under California law, a
contractual provision purporting to waive the right to seek public
injunctive relief in any forum is unenforceable, citing McGill v.
Citibank, N.A., 393 P.3d 85, 94 (Cal. 2017).
AT&T's contract requires the parties "to arbitrate all disputes and
claims" and then limits the award of any injunctive relief to "the
individual party seeking relief and only to the extent necessary to
provide relief warranted by that party's individual claim." By
precluding injunctive relief benefitting anyone other than the
individual claimant, the contract prevents Cottrell from seeking
public injunctive relief in any forum. Therefore, if Cottrell's
requested relief qualifies as public injunctive relief, AT&T may
not compel him to arbitrate.
The district court determined that Cottrell sought public
injunctive relief, so it declined to compel arbitration. Whatever
the Ninth Circuit might think of that conclusion if it were to make
its own assessment of California law, it says it is foreclosed by
its intervening decision in Hodges.
In that case, Hodges argued that Comcast had violated the statutory
privacy rights of its residential cable subscribers and that the
injunction he requested -- which would have prevented future
violations -- constituted public injunctive relief. The Ninth
Circuit rejected that argument, holding that to qualify as public
injunctive relief, an injunction must be "for the benefit of the
general public as a whole, as opposed to a particular class of
persons." It concluded that the requested injunction was private
relief because it would "benefit only Comcast 'cable subscribers.'"
Although the injunction applied to Comcast's dealings with future
customers and therefore could be said to benefit the general public
in the form of those "persons considering entering into" a
transaction with Comcast, that was insufficient to transform
otherwise private relief into a public injunction. Instead, the
"incidental benefit to the general public" was "not enough to
classify that relief as non-waivable public injunctive relief."
Mr. Cottrell's requested relief suffers from the same flaw.
Cottrell seeks an injunction requiring AT&T "to provide an
accounting of all monies obtained" through unauthorized accounts
and services; to give customers "individualized notice" of the
violations committed and of their legal rights; and to refrain from
committing future violations of the California law by signing
customers up for products or services without authorization. He
asserts that those unlawful practices "may victimize any member of
the public who walks into" an AT&T store, so this injunction
primarily benefits the general public. That characterization elides
an important distinction. As Cottrell admits, for AT&T to create an
unauthorized account and violate California law, the victimized
individual must first transact in some way with AT&T by providing
payment and billing information. That is, the individual must
become a customer.
The benefit of Cottrell's requested relief therefore would not
primarily accrue to the general public. Rather, the beneficiaries
of the injunction would be current and future AT&T customers -- "a
'group of individuals similarly situated to'" Cottrell. Because
"there is simply no sense in which this relief could be said to
primarily benefit the general public as a more diffuse whole,"
Cottrell seeks private injunctive relief, the waiver of which is
enforceable under McGill.
The district court suggested that the arbitration agreement's
prohibition against public injunctions would make the agreement
categorically unenforceable "even if Cottrell did not himself seek
public injunctive relief." That argument, too, is foreclosed by
Hodges, which rejected the proposition "that courts should stretch
to invalidate contracts based on hypothetical issues that are not
actually presented in the parties' dispute," the Ninth Circuit
holds.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/9sc6ck4b from Leagle.com.
BACCHUS WINERY: Moore Sues Over Illegal Tip Pooling & Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, KYLIE MOORE, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BACCHUS WINERY, GOLF, AND VINEYARD
LLC d/b/a WHYTE HORSE WINERY, BETH ANN THOMAS-ADAIR, AND AMANDA
THOMAS-CRAIN, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00071 (N.D. Ind.,
October 19, 2021) is brought by the Plaintiff seeking for monetary
relief against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Indiana Right of Publicity Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a server from
September 4, 2020 until July 23, 2021.
The Plaintiff claims that she and other similarly situated servers
customarily and regularly received tips from customers in excess of
$30 per month. However, the Defendants compelled them to
participate in a mandatory tip pool and shared with employees who
do not customarily or regularly receive tips. The Defendants also
failed to reflect their servers' tips earned on their pay stubs for
tax purposes. Instead, the Defendants paid them tips in cash
without opportunity for review, correction, or reconciliation by
its servers. Moreover, the Defendants denied them of 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, says
the Plaintiff.
Bacchus Winery, Golf, and Vineyard LLC d/b/a Whyte Horse Winery
operates as a restaurant, golf course and vineyard. Beth Ann
Thomas-Adair and Amanda Thomas-Crain are co-owners of the Corporate
Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Ramsland, Esq.
RAMSLAND LAW
8520 Allison Pointe Blvd Ste 223
PMB 65298
Indianapolis, IN 46250-4299
Tel: (765) 267-1240
E-mail: jason@rams.land
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Connelly Suit Moved From D. Md. to E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RYANT CONNELLY and BELEN PEREZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY,
INC.; GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY (A/K/A GEICO); GEICO
CASUALTY COMPANY; GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY; and GEICO GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 8:21-cv-01152, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on November 2,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-06091-EK-PK to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligence, negligence
per se, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, and breach
of the Drivers Privacy Protection Act by failing to safeguard the
personal identifying information of millions of current and former
GEICO customers, particularly their drivers' license numbers.
Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. is a conglomerate holding company
headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska.
Government Employees Insurance Company, also known as GEICO, is a
nationwide automobile insurance company headquartered in Chevy
Chase, Maryland.
GEICO Casualty Company is an insurance company headquartered in
Chevy Chase, Maryland.
GEICO Indemnity Company is an insurance company headquartered in
Washington, D.C.
GEICO General Insurance Company is an insurance company
headquartered in Washington, D.C. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
KELLY GUZZO, PLC
3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
Fairfax, VA 22030
Telephone: (703) 424-7572
Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
- and –
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
John Albanese, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
43 S.E. Main Street, Suite 505
Minneapolis, MN 55414
Telephone: (612) 594-5999
E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
jalbanese@bm.net
- and –
Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
BLUE CROSS: Kelly Seeks to Extend Class Cert. Deadlines by 60 Days
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE C., KELLY W., JANE
DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC., and BLUE
CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MASSACHUSETTS HMO BLUE, INC., Case No.
1:18-cv-12278-ADB (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order extending certain deadlines in this matter in accordance
with the proposed revised schedule in order to allow the parties to
focus on their upcoming second mediation session scheduled for
November 3, 2021 with Judge Dein.
The Defendants do not oppose this request for an extension.
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts is a state-licensed
nonprofit private health insurance company under the Blue Cross
Blue Shield Association with headquarters in Boston. The Boston
location located on 133 Federal Street is currently under study as
a pending Boston Landmark by the Boston Landmarks Commission.
The Plaintiffs state as follows:
1. Class certification is currently due on November 29, 2021.
2. The parties attended an initial mediation session with
Judge Dein on October 4, 2021 and some progress was made.
3. The parties agreed to a second mediation session with
Judge Dein on November 3, 2021 and are in the process of
gathering and exchanging additional information leading up
to that session.
4. The parties believe that their time is best spent in the
coming weeks focusing on the mediation rather than
discovery leading up to the class certification deadline.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3q0ncBY at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sean K. Collins, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SEAN K. COLLINS
184 High Street, Suite 503
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (855) 693-9256
Facsimile: (617) 227-2843
E-mail: sean@neinsurancelaw.com
- and -
Jonathan M. Feigenbaum, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF
JONATHAN M. FEIGENBAUM
184 High Street, Suite 503
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 357-9700
Facsimile: (617) 227-2843
E-mail: jonathan@erisaattorneys.com
- and -
Brian S. King, Esq.
BRIAN S. KING, ATTORNEY AT LAW
336 South 300 East, Suite 200
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 532-1739
Facsimile: (801) 532-1936
E-mail: brian@briansking.com
- and -
Mala M. Rafik, Esq.
ROSENFELD & RAFIK, P.C.
184 High Street, Suite 503
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 723-7470
Facsimile: (617) 227-2843
E-mail: mmr@rosenfeld.com
- and -
Ex Kano S. Sams II (PHV), 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: esams@glancylaw.com
BMC WEST: Palma Labor Code Suit Removed to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GEOVANY CISNEROS PALMA, RODOLFO CISNEROS DOMINGUEZ,
and GERARDO CISNEROS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BMC WEST, LLC and DOES 1 TO 50, Case No.
34-2021-00304858, was removed from the Superior Court of California
for the County of Sacramento to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California on October 29, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-at-01026 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay all minimum wages, failure to pay all
overtime wages, failure to provide rest periods and pay missed rest
period premiums, failure to provide meal periods and pay missed
meal period premiums, failure to maintain accurate employment
records, failure to pay wages timely during employment, failure
provide all wages due at separation, failure to reimburse for
business expenses, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage
statements, and unfair competition.
BMC West, LLC is a provider of building materials and supplies
based in Coppell, Texas. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Matthew B. Golper, Esq.
BALLARD ROSENBERG GOLPER & SAVITT, LLP
15760 Ventura Boulevard, Eighteenth Floor
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 508-3700
Facsimile: (818) 506-4827
E-mail: mgolper@brgslaw.com
BMW AG: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Direct Buyers' Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: GERMAN AUTOMOTIVE MANUFACTURERS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION. AUDUBON IMPORTS, LLC, DBA Mercedes Benz of Baton Rouge,
et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, (BMW AG), et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case
No. 20-17139 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Direct
Purchasers' consolidated class action complaint.
The Appellants, a putative class of U.S. automobile dealers
("Direct Purchasers"), appeal the district court's dismissal of
their consolidated class action complaint alleging that five German
automakers and their American subsidiaries violated Section 1 of
the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1.
The Ninth Circuit reviews the district court's decision de novo. It
holds that the district court properly dismissed the Direct
Purchasers' claim alleging that the Defendants engaged in a
no-arms-race conspiracy to allocate market share. It says, the
Direct Purchasers' few specific examples of the Defendants' alleged
collusion were either devoid of factual development, pertinent to
technology "used predominantly in passenger vehicles sold in
Europe," or simply too narrow to establish "an overarching
conspiracy" to "restrict innovation on all, or most, aspects of
vehicle development." Moreover, the allegations that the Defendants
coordinated major product updates and refreshes "could just as
easily suggest rational, legal business behavior by the defendants
as they could suggest an illegal conspiracy." Hence, the dismissal
of the Direct Purchasers' claim premised on a no-arms-race to
allocate market share was therefore warranted.
The district court also properly dismissed the Direct Purchasers'
claim alleging that the Defendants conspired to pay higher prices
for steel because the complaint did not plausibly allege a credible
antitrust injury, the Ninth Circuit finds. It says, the Direct
Purchasers alleged that they suffered antitrust injury in the form
of inflated vehicle prices. But this overcharge theory is
implausible because the Direct Purchasers have not alleged any
facts suggesting that the price of the Defendants' vehicles
increased while the alleged steel conspiracy was in effect or
decreased after it ended.
Moreover, the Ninth Circuit finds that the allegation that steel
manufacturers "experienced 'squeezing margins'" after the alleged
conspiracy was exposed does not support the Direct Purchasers'
claim, particularly given that the market for steel is distinct
from the market alleged in the case. The complaint's remaining
allegations do not give rise to a plausible inference that the
alleged steel conspiracy caused the Direct Purchasers to suffer
antitrust injury. These allegations "could just as easily suggest
rational, legal business behavior," or are too speculative to
support a plausible antitrust injury. Thus, dismissal of the Direct
Purchasers' claim based on an alleged steel conspiracy was proper.
The Ninth Circuit further holds that district court properly
dismissed the Direct Purchasers' claim alleging that the Defendants
conspired to not develop electric vehicles. The complaint
acknowledges that three Defendants "launched plug-in/hybrid
vehicles" while the alleged conspiracy was in effect. And the
complaint alleges a benign explanation for the Defendants' conduct:
The "Defendants had already invested heavily in diesel engines"
when the demand for low-emission vehicles began to rise.
The Direct Purchasers' references to purported "plus factors" do
not save their Section 1 claim from dismissal. Contrary to the
Direct Purchasers' argument, the Ninth Circuit finds that "common
motive does not suggest an agreement." The Defendants' conduct does
not constitute an "extreme action against self-interest" because,
as the complaint observes, a non-conspirator did not release its
first all-electric vehicle until 2018.
Moreover, the Defendants' participation "in trade-organization
meetings where information is exchanged and strategies are
advocated does not suggest an illegal agreement." And the Direct
Purchasers offer no explanation for how alleged violations of
European law, arising from cars sold in Europe, render their claims
under American law and relating to cars sold in the United States
plausible. Indeed, no well-pleaded facts suggest that the
Defendants' conduct in Europe affected American commerce. Dismissal
of the Direct Purchasers' claim premised on an alleged agreement to
not develop electric vehicles was proper.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3534cx4z from Leagle.com.
BOB'S DISCOUNT: Ct. Modifies Proposed Class Definition in Espinal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OMAR A. ESPINAL, FREDY O.
CARBAJAL, ARLEN Y. MARTINEZ, OSCAR RENE CALDERON ROMERO, and
WELLINGTON TORRES, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated persons, v. BOB'S DISCOUNT FURNITURE, LLC, XPO LAST MILE,
INC., ABS CORPS., AND JANE & JOHN DOES, Case No.
2:17-cv-02854-JMV-JBC (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge John Michael entered
an order:
1. modifying the proposed class definition to the following:
"All individuals that were based out of Defendants' Edison
and Carteret, New Jersey warehouses that performed truck
driving and/or helper functions for the Defendants from
April 26, 2015 through to January 2017 out of the Edison
Facility and from May 1, 2017 through to the present out
of the Carteret Facility, who did not have direct
contracts with either Defendant, and who worked more than
40 hours per week performing deliveries for Defendants;
and
2. denying without prejudice Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
Bob's Discount Furniture is an American furniture store chain
headquartered in Manchester, Connecticut.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZTFdr3 at no extra charge.[CC]
BRIGGS TRADITIONAL: FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ROBERTO
RIOS-GUTIERREZ, JOSE JUAN MENDOZA-SERVIN, FRANCISCO JAVIER
MARTINEZ-MENDEZ, JONATHAN RODRIGUEZ-ANAYA, and CESAR EDGARDO
AVENDANO-MARTINEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. BRIGGS TRADITIONAL TURF FARM, INC.; L.C. BRIGGS TURF
FARM, LLC; LAWRENCE "LARRY" BRIGGS; CAPEN BRIGGS; and FELIX
RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 4:21-cv-00374-FJG (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order:
1. conditionally certifying this action as a Fair Labor
Standard Act (FLSA) collective action;
2. directing the Defendant to provide Plaintiffs with a list
of employees who fall within the opt-in FLSA class; and
3. allowing Plaintiffs to send notice to putative class
members in the form attached hereto; and permit
prospective opt-in Plaintiffs nine months to file their
consent to sue.
The Plaintiffs are Mexican nationals who worked for defendants
Briggs Traditional Turf Farm, L.C. Briggs Turf Farm, LLC, Lawrence
"Larry" Briggs; Capen Briggs; and Felix Rodrigues during two or
more seasons between 2018 and 2020. Each of the named Plaintiffs --
and the other workers on whose behalf they bring this action --
came to the United States from Mexico to work for Briggs with H-2A
visas, which permitted this work.
The H-2A visa program contemplates that visa holders work in
agriculture, and, when applying for the visas, Briggs reported to
government authorities that it needed the workers to "work in the
fields" at Briggs's sod farm in Missouri. Had Plaintiffs and their
similarly situated coworkers performed such work, they would have
been exempt from overtime. However, despite its representation to
the government, Briggs required the workers to lay sod and perform
other landscaping work at commercial, residential, and government
properties in western Missouri and eastern Kansas.
As landscapers, the Plaintiffs should have been paid overtime for
weeks when they worked more than 40 hours (a regular occurrence),
and Briggs should have paid Social Security contributions on behalf
of Plaintiffs. But Briggs did neither of those things.
The Plaintiffs collectively therefore seek redress under the FLSA
for unpaid overtime, for Briggs having filed false tax returns, and
for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO").
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 29,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wjPyIx
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:
Heather J. Schlozman, Esq.
Mark V. Dugan, Esq.
DUGAN SCHLOZMAN LLC
8826 Santa Fe Drive, Suite 307
Overland Park, KS 66212
Telephone: (913) 322-3528
Facsimile: (913) 904-0213
E-mail: heather@duganschlozman.com
mark@duganschlozman.com
- and -
Daniel Werner, Esq.
RADFORD & KEEBAUGH, LLC
315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave., Ste.1080
Decatur, GA 30030
Telephone: (678) 271-0304
Facsimile: (678) 271-0314
E-mail: dan@decaturlegal.com
BRIGHAM YOUNG: Reply Brief Deadlines in Evans Extended to Nov. 9
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSCOE EVANS, an
individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
v. BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY, a Utah corporation, Case No.
1:20-cv-00100-TS-CMR (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Cecilia M. Romero
entered an order granting the stipulated joint motion to extend
reply brief deadlines:
The deadline for Plaintiff to submit a Reply in Support of Motion
for Class Certification, as well as the deadline for Defendant BYU
to submit a Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment are
hereby extended to Tuesday, November 9, 2021, the Court said.
Brigham Young University is a private research university in Provo,
Utah.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EGwPtF at no extra charge.[CC]
CENTRAL METRO: Roesner Must File Class Cert Bid by August 1, 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANZICKA ROESNER, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CENTRAL
METRO REALTY LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01152-RAJ-MLP (W.D. Wash.), the
Hon. Judge Michelle L. Peterson entered an order setting pretrial
schedule:
Event Date
-- Deadline for joining additional Feb. 4, 2022
parties
-- Deadline for amending pleadings Feb. 4, 2022
-- All motions related to discovery April 4, 2022
must be filed by this date and
noted for consideration no later than
the third Friday thereafter
-- Discovery deadline May 3, 2022
-- Mediation deadline June 6, 2022
-- Reports of expert witnesses June 13, 2022
under FRCP 26(a)(2) due
-- Expert Deposition deadline July 6, 2022
-- Rebuttal expert disclosures July 20, 2022
under FRCP 26(a)(2) due
-- Deadline for Plaintiff to file Aug. 1, 2022
Motion for Class Certification
and Report of Class Certification
Expert
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kdECqS at no extra charge.[CC]
CENTURYLINK: Loses Bid to Remand Sales Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: CENTURYLINK SALES PRACTICES AND
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 0:19-cv-00284-MJD-KMM (D. Minn.),
the Court entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for
suggestion of remand.
The Court denies the motion for suggestion of remand. Keeping the
Derivative Action in the MDL and before this Court will prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. The derivative cases are
in the early stages, and there are many outstanding pretrial
matters for this Court to address before remand would be
appropriate.
The Defendants correctly note that the law, facts, and discovery
surrounding the forthcoming motion to dismiss are unique to the
Derivative Action and will likely involve little duplication of the
Court’s previous work in the MDL.
On October 5, 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JPML") filed a Transfer Order creating the CenturyLink MDL and
transferring nine consumer fraud cases against CenturyLink, Inc.
("CenturyLink") and related entities to this Court.
Each named Plaintiff alleged that they had purchased internet and,
in some cases, telephone and/or television services from
"CenturyLink." Each Plaintiff asserted sales, billing, or quality
issues. They claimed that CenturyLink promised a discount or
promotion that was not applied; charged more for services than it
advertised or promised; charged customers for services that it did
not provide; charged customers for services that they did not
request; charged undisclosed or higher-than-agreed on fees; charged
improper termination fees; and sent customers’ accounts into
collections due to unpaid overcharges.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mFXwse at no extra charge.[CC]
The Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs, are:
Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq.
David J. Stone, Esq.
Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
Liaison Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs are:
Seth Leventhal, Esq.
LEVANTHAL PLLC
The Counsel for Defendants CenturyLink, Inc., Executive Defendants,
and Non-SLC Directors, are
William A. McNab, Esq.
Thomas H. Boyd, Esq.
WINTHROP & WEINSTINE, P.A.
- and -
Patrick E. Gibbs, Esq.
Ryan Blair, Esq.
Douglas P. Lobel, Esq.
David A. Vogel, Esq.
Dana A. Moss, Esq.
Sarah M. Lightdale, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
- and -
Jerry W. Blackwell, Esq.
BLACKWELL BURKE P.A.
Counsel for SL Defendants, are:
Steven W. Usdin, Esq.
John W. Joyce, Esq
Christine M. Calogero, Esq
Laurence D. LeSueur, Esq
BARRASSO USDIN KUPPERMAN
FREEMAN & SARVER, LLC
CHARLES SCHWAB: Court Tosses Bid for Class Status in Crago Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT CRAGO, et al., v.
CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-03938-RS (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order denying motion for
class certification of:
"All clients of Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. or The Charles
Schwab Corporation, between July 13, 2011 and December 31,
2014 (the "Class Period"), who placed one or more non-
directed equity orders during the Class Period that were
routed to UBS by Schwab pursuant to the Equities Order
Handling Agreement ("EOHA") and that received price
disimprovement. Excluded from the Class are the officers,
directors, and employees of Schwab."
The Plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of the putative class under
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act"), 15 U.S.C. section 78j(b), and U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. §
240.10b-5.
Lead Plaintiffs Robert Wolfson and Frank Pino, together with
plaintiff K. Scott Posson, bring this putative class action to
redress alleged violations of securities law committed by the
Defendants. The Plaintiffs allege that between July 13, 2011 and
December 31, 2014, Schwab routed customer orders to UBS Securities
LLC ("UBS") in a manner inconsistent with Schwab's duty of best
execution. Plaintiffs aver that Schwab made material
misrepresentations by stating that it adhered to the duty of best
execution and omitted key information about an agreement to route
most orders to UBS for execution, without verifying that UBS was
providing best execution.
Broker-dealers, such as Schwab, buy and sell securities such as
stocks and bonds for their clients. After receiving an order from a
client, the broker-dealer routes the order to a venue for
execution. Although sometimes a client specifies the venue an order
should be routed to, most retail orders are "non-directed,"
including the vast majority of retail orders placed with Schwab.
The Plaintiffs aver that although Schwab stated on its website it
adhered to the duty of best execution, Schwab violated that duty in
routing most orders to UBS pursuant to the EOHA.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZW5uVm at no extra charge.[CC]
CHEP SERVICES: Hernandez Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ALEX HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CHEP SERVICES, LLC; CHEP SERVICES
PALLET SOLUTIONS, LLC; BRAMBLES USA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2123946, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on November 1, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-01838 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including unpaid overtime wages, unpaid meal period premiums,
unpaid rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not
timely paid, wages not timely paid during employment, non-compliant
wage statements, failure to keep requisite payroll records,
unreimbursed business expenses, and unfair business practices.
CHEP Services, LLC is a company that offers pallet, container,
supply chain, and logistics services, headquartered in Orlando,
Florida.
CHEP Services Pallet Solutions, LLC is a company that offers
pallet, container, supply chain, and logistics services,
headquartered in Orlando, Florida.
Brambles USA, Inc. is a pooling solutions company, headquartered in
Georgia. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Sabrina L. Shadi, Esq.
Vivian Y. Shen, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
Telephone: (310) 820-8800
Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
E-mail: sshadi@bakerlaw.com
vshen@bakerlaw.com
CHW GROUP: Class Cert. Deadlines in Adam Suit Extended
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM ADAM v. CHW GROUP,
INC. d/b/a Choice Home Warranty, Case No. 1:21-cv-00019-LRR-MAR
(N.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge Mark A. Roberts entered an order
granting the parties' joint motion to extend deadlines in the
Court's scheduling order as follows:
-- Motions for Summary Judgment on January 3, 2022
Plaintiff's individual claims:
-- Discovery open on all issues: January 3, 2022
-- Motion for Class Certification: July 5, 2022
-- Expert witness disclosures:
Plaintiff's expert(s): May 2, 2022
Defendant's expert(s): July 1, 2022
Plaintiff's rebuttal expert(s): August 1, 2022
-- Completion of all discovery: August 4, 2022
-- All dispositive motions: September 2, 2022
CHW Group, Inc. provides home repair and maintenance warranties.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BN1402 at no extra charge.[CC]
CLAY & DOMINGUE: Munoz Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Welders
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT MUNOZ; JUVENTINO
CASTILLON; AND JAMES ERIC SHORT, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, v. CLAY & DOMINGUE, LLC; AND DARRIN
CLAY, Case No. 5:20-cv-01414-HJB (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs asks
the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying this case as a
collective action on behalf of:
"all individuals who worked for Defendants as welders who
were classified as independent contractors and paid straight
time at any time in the past three years."
The Plaintiff further prays that the Court order the parties to
meet and confer regarding the form and methods of dissemination of
the notice, and if the parties are unable to agree on some or all
of these issues, decide any such disputed issues.
The Plaintiffs Robert Munoz and Juventino Castillon, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, move for
certification and notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs, as
follows:
The Plaintiff moves for authorization to send notice of this
lawsuit to all individuals who worked for Defendants as welders who
were classified as independent contractors and paid straight time
at any time in the past three years. Under Swales, certification is
proper here. The depositions and written discovery in this case
show sufficient similarity in the economic realities of the
welders' working conditions -- all of them:
C&D is an oilfield and pipeline contractor that specializes in
construction, well hook-ups, location site-prep and other oilfield
services.
It primarily provides general maintenance on oil and gas gathering
systems. C&D provides these services in South and West Texas. To
assist in providing these services, over the past three years, C&D
has hired 25 welders. All of these welders have been hired as
independent contractors and paid straight time. As C&D's corporate
representative testified.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 29,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mMsmPY
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Josh Borsellino, Esq.
BORSELLINO, P.C.
Office Address:
1020 Macon St., Suite 15
Fort Worth, TX 76102
3267 Bee Cave Rd., Ste. 107, Box No. 201
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (817) 908-9861
Facsimile: (817) 394-2412
E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com
CLOUD9 ESPORTS: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cloud9 Esports, Inc.
The case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Cloud9 Esports, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-08883 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Cloud9 Esports, Inc., or simply Cloud9 (C9) -- https://cloud9.gg/
-- is an American professional esports company based in Santa
Monica, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
COLLECTO INC: Jan. 21, 2022 Class Cert. Filing Extension Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDA DAVIS and CLARENCE
DAVIS, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, v. COLLECTO, INC. d/b/a EOS CCA, Case No.
3:21-cv-00044 (S.D.W.Va.), the Parties ask the deadline for
Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification be extended
to January 21, 2022.
On March 11, 2021, the Court entered the operative Scheduling
Order, which, inter alia, set deadlines of (i) November 12, 2021
for Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification; (ii)
discovery requests to be completed by January 21, 2022; and (iii)
dispositive motions to be filed by August 8, 2022.
The parties have been diligently engaged in formal and informal
discovery, including depositions, the exchange of written
discovery, negotiations over the production of class discovery, and
discussions with a third party about the potential for production
of information Plaintiffs aver is needed to support their motion
for class certification.
Despite these diligent efforts, the Plaintiffs require additional
time to conduct discovery relevant to their motion for class
certification.
Collecto operates as a debt management and recovery resource
company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GWlwzB at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Benjamin M. Sheridan, Esq.
KLEIN & SHERIDAN, LC
3566 Teays Valley Road
Hurricane, WV 25526
Telephone: (304) 562-7111
E-mail: ben@kleinsheridan.com
- and -
Patricia M. Kipnis, Esq.
Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP, Suite 300
923 Haddonfield Rd.
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
Telephone: (856) 324-8219
E-mail: pkipnis@baileyglasser.com
jmarshall@baileyglasser.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Katlin C. Zarisky, Esq.
Jill D. Helbling, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
707 Grant Street, Suite 3800
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
E-mail: kzarisky@grsm.com
jhelbling@grsm.com
COLORADO: Court Junks Collins Class Suit
----------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN E. COLLINS, RESORT
MEETING SOURCE, a Colorado limited liability company, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, v. PATRICK MEYERS, in his
official capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Office of
Economic Development and International Trade, Case No.
1:21-cv-02713-WJM-NYW (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge William J.
Martinez entered an order as follows:
1. granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss Under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(1);
2. dismissing without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Class-Action
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction;
3. denying as moot that portion of Plaintiffs' Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction
seeking a preliminary injunction;
4. denying as moot Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification; and
5. dissolving the Temporary Restraining Order; and
The Court said, "As an initial matter, the Court has not ruled on
the Motion for Class Certification, and as a consequence no class
has been certified in this action. And, as Defendant underscores,
there is no class of affected businesses for Plaintiffs to
represent because every eligible business that sought an award has
or will in very short order receive the full grant amount it
requested. There is no class of non-minority-owned businesses that
competed on unequal footing against minority-owned businesses for
the relief payments authorized by SB 21-001. Based on the
foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiffs lack standing because
they have not demonstrated they suffered an injury in fact.
Accordingly, their lawsuit must be dismissed for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction."
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ksKsVN at no extra charge.[CC]
COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS: Butler Seeks Case Managers' Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
JARROD BUTLER, on his behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS FOR LIFE, INC., a
Florida Corporation, and TONYA ROBINSON, in her individual
capacity, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-23677-XXXX (S.D. Fla., October 19, 2021) is a collective
action complaint brought against the Defendants seeing declaratory
relief, injunctive relief, and unpaid overtime damages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a case manager from
on or about 2014 until his termination on May 4, 2021.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated case managers regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per
week. However, the Defendants did not pay them any 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. In
addition, the Defendants failed to keep accurate time records of
the hours that their case managers worked, added the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime wages and an additional equal
amount as liquidated damages, as well as pre- and post-judgment
interest, attorney's fees and costs, and other relief as the Court
deems just and equitable.
Community Connections for Life, Inc. provides behavior health case
management services. Tonya Robinson is the owner of the company.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert S. Norell, Esq.
ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
300 N.W. 70th Ave., Suite 305
Plantation, FL 33317
Tel: (954) 617-6017
Fax: (954) 617-6018
E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com
CONAGRA BRANDS: 9th Cir. Partly Affirms Dismissal of Cohen's Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT COHEN, a consumer, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CONAGRA BRANDS,
INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 20-55969
(9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms
in part and reverses in part the district court's order dismissing
Cohen's claims as preempted by the Poultry Products Inspection
Act.
Introduction
Robert Cohen brings state claims alleging that ConAgra falsely
advertises its frozen chicken products as natural and
preservative-free, when in fact they contain synthetic ingredients.
But poultry products and their labeling are strictly regulated by
the Poultry Products Inspection Act ("PPIA").
Under the PPIA, certain poultry labels, like the ones in this case,
must be preapproved by a federal agency before the products go to
market. The district court found that the United States Department
of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service ("FSIS") had
approved ConAgra's poultry labels, and thus Cohen's claims
challenging both the label and ConAgra's website advertising were
preempted.
Background
In 2015, Cohen began purchasing various frozen chicken products
such as chicken nuggets and fried chicken. These chicken products
are produced by ConAgra and similarly labeled, with prominent
representations on the front of the packaging that read (in capital
letters of varying sizes): "Made with 100% Natural White Meat
Chicken"; "No Preservatives"; "No Artificial Colors"; "No Added
Hormones"; "No Artificial Flavors"; and "0g Trans Fat per Serving."
The chicken products allegedly contain three "synthetic"
ingredients: sodium acid pyrophosphate, sodium tripolyphosphate,
and modified corn starch. Sodium acid pyrophosphate improves the
color of canned foods and is also a leavening agent often used in
baked goods. Sodium tripolyphosphate is a preservative that slows
the spoilage of meat, helps keep its natural color, and improves
its texture. Modified corn starch has thickening properties.
Cohen alleges that, based on the representations on the product
labels, he thought the entirety of the chicken products (as opposed
to only the chicken meat contained in those products) was "free of
preservatives and synthetic ingredients." Thus, he claims the
labels are false or misleading. In early 2018, Cohen visited
ConAgra's website, which provides descriptions of the chicken
products with a picture of the front packaging. The description
paraphrases the representations on the label, and states: "The
product is made with 100% natural white-meat chicken, and without
preservatives, artificial flavors, or artificial colors." Cohen
claims that he relied on these representations and continued buying
ConAgra's chicken products until January 2019. In April 2020, Cohen
brought this putative class action against ConAgra, claiming that
its product label and website representations violated California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"), and False Advertising Law ("FAL"). He sought damages and
injunctive relief.
The district court dismissed Cohen's claims as preempted by the
PPIA. The court took judicial notice of the images of the front
packaging submitted by ConAgra and concluded that the FSIS had
"approved the labeling of the Chicken Products, including the
specific representation challenged by Cohen." It also found "no
reason to distinguish between the packaging itself and an image of
the packaging viewed over the Internet." Thus, it held that all of
Cohen's claims were preempted and dismissed them with prejudice.
Discussion
I.
Cohen mainly disputes whether there is enough evidence in the
record to support the district court's finding that ConAgra's
labels were reviewed and approved by FSIS. The only evidence before
the Ninth Circuit is the label itself—there are no affidavits or
other documentary evidence showing that the label was submitted to
and approved by FSIS.
In Webb, the Ninth Circuit found that label evidence alone was
enough to conclude that a retained water claim was federally
approved, but the plaintiff in that case did not challenge whether
the label was reviewed by FSIS. By contrast, Cohen contends that
ConAgra used the generic approval process for its labels,
improperly bypassing FSIS review.
In the case, the Ninth Circuit finds that the mere existence of the
label is insufficient to establish that it was reviewed and
approved by FSIS. Preemption is an affirmative defense, so the
Defendant bears the burden of pleading and supporting its
preemption argument. Thus, when the parties dispute whether FSIS
review occurred at all, the Defendant must produce evidence that
the label was reviewed and approved by FSIS. After all, the
Defendant producer and not the Plaintiff will have access to
evidence as to FSIS review and approval of its label. And this is
hardly a significant burden. Thus, the Ninth Circuit reverses the
district court's preemption of Cohen's claims challenging the
product labels.
The Ninth Circuit emphasizes the limited nature of our remand. On
remand, the parties should submit evidence about (and the district
court should decide) only whether ConAgra's label was reviewed and
approved by FSIS. If the evidence shows that ConAgra's label was
approved by FSIS, then Cohen's claims are preempted. Cohen may not
try to argue or show that FSIS's approval decision was wrong. Once
the agency has decided that a poultry label meets the requirements
of federal law, a plaintiff has no recourse through state law
(except for the "possible 'narrow gap'" discussed supra note 5,
which is inapplicable in the case).
II.
ConAgra's website representations, however, were not reviewed by
FSIS, the Ninth Circuit finds. It says, the federal regulations
require only the review of labels, which "means a display of
written, printed, or graphic matter upon any article or the
immediate container of any article." A website representation is
not a label.
In the case, the Ninth Circuit finds that the label and the website
are not materially identical. The website representation materially
differs from the product label. Accordingly, Cohen's state law
claims challenging ConAgra's website representation that the
chicken products as a whole contain no preservatives, artificial
flavors, or artificial colors, are not preempted (whether or not
the product labels were reviewed and approved by FSIS).
III.
ConAgra urges the Ninth Circuit to affirm the district court's
decision on different grounds, but it decline its invitation.
ConAgra argues that (1) there is no plausible claim that its
representations are false or misleading under California's
reasonable consumer standard; (2) Cohen has failed to plead "with
particularity the circumstances constituting fraud"; (3) Cohen has
not alleged an injury in fact; (4) Cohen has not alleged a future
harm, and thus cannot seek injunctive relief; and (5) the case
should be referred to the agency to decide in the first instance,
under the primary jurisdiction doctrine. The Ninth Circuit declines
to consider ConAgra's first four arguments, which ConAgra may
reassert on remand.
The Ninth Circuit reaches only ConAgra's last argument and
concludes that the primary jurisdiction doctrine is inapplicable.
It opines that the issue in the case, whether ConAgra's product
labels are false or misleading, is not a complicated issue or even
an issue of first impression, as FSIS may have already decided the
question. There is also no risk of conflict between FSIS and courts
because the PPIA preempts any state law claims that would impose
requirements different from the federal requirements imposed by
FSIS. Thus, none of the justifications for the primary jurisdiction
doctrine exist.
Moreover, the doctrine would require the Ninth Circuit to "either
stay proceedings or dismiss the case without prejudice, so that the
parties may seek an administrative ruling." But "there is no formal
transfer mechanism between the courts and the agency; rather, the
parties are responsible for initiating administrative proceedings
themselves." In the case, it is unclear how Cohen could seek an
administrative ruling, and ConAgra does not suggest a path forward.
For these reasons, the Ninth Circuit declines to invoke the primary
jurisdiction doctrine.
Conclusion
In light of the foregoing, the Ninth Circuit affirms in part,
reverses in part, and remands.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2f8msuez from Leagle.com.
Gretchen Elsner -- Gretchen@elsnerlaw.org -- (argued), Elsner Law &
Policy LLC, in Santa Fe, New Mexico; Marc L. Godino --
mgodino@glancylaw.com -- and Danielle L. Manning, Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, in Los Angeles, California; Alreen Haeggquist, Kathleen
Herkenhoff -- Kathleenh@haelaw.com -- and Ian Pike, Haeggquist &
Eck LLP, in San Diego, California; for the Plaintiff-Appellant.
Nowell Donald Berreth (argued) and Angela M. Spivey --
angela.spivey@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, in Atlanta, Georgia;
Rachel E. K. Lowe -- rachel.lowe@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP,
in Los Angeles, California; for the Defendant-Appellee.
Robert W. George, Friday Eldredge & Clark LLP, in Rogers, Arkansas;
Joshua C. Ashley, Friday Eldredge & Clark LLP, in Little Rock,
Arkansas; for Amici Curiae Consumer Brands Association, North
American Meat Institute, National Turkey Federation, National
Chicken Council, National Pork Producers Council, American
Association of Meat Processors, and American Frozen Food
Institute.
Stephen Gardner, Law Office of Stephen Gardner, Bend, Oregon; John
A. Yanchunis and Kenya J. Reddy, Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation
Group, in Tampa, Florida; for Amici Curiae National Association of
Consumer Advocates, Animal Legal Defense Fund, and Food & Water
Watch Inc.
CONCRETE INC: Wilburn Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Concrete, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Kenneth Wilburn, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Concrete, Inc. d/b/a
Knife River Construction, a California corporation; Knife river
Construction, a Delaware corporation; MDU Resources Group, Inc.,
d/b/a/ Knife River Construction, a Delaware corporation; Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2021-0010183 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Oct.
29, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Concrete Inc. -- http://www.concreteinc.ca/-- is a custom precast
concrete manufacturer and is also manufacturer a wide variety of
standard products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 510
Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145
Phone: 213-381-9988
Fax: 213-381-9989
Email: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com
CONVERSE ELECTRIC: Jones Wins Conditional Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LONNIE JONES, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, et al., v. CONVERSE
ELECTRIC, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-01830-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Sarah D. Morrison entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification and
court-authorized notice.
The Court hereby conditionally certifies the following
class:
"All current and former hourly, non-exempt
electricians/electrical technicians, electrical
superintendents, electrical forem[e]n, warehouse associates,
and pre-fab employees of Defendant whose payroll records
reflect that they worked 40 or more hours in any workweek
during the three years preceding the filing of this Motion
and continuing through the final disposition of this case."
Converse is ordered to provide Plaintiffs' counsel, within 14 days
of this Opinion & Order, a roster of all potential opt-in
plaintiffs that includes their names, dates of employment,
positions of employment, last known mailing addresses, and last
known e-mail addresses.
The Notice and Consent to Join Form shall be sent to the potential
opt-in plaintiffs within fourteen days of receipt of the roster
using their home and e-mail addresses.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H1z8t2 at no extra charge.[CC]
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Dimas Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MAYOLO DIMAS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION;
EMPLOYBRIDGE HOLDING COMPANY DBA SELECT STAFFING; and DOES 1 to
100, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2021-6024, was removed from the
Superior Court of California for the County of San Joaquin to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on
October 29, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-02006-TLN-JDP to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum
wage, failure to pay overtime wages for daily overtime worked,
failure to authorize or permit meal periods, failure to authorize
or permit rest periods, failure to timely pay earned wages during
employment, failure to provide complete and accurate wage
statements, failure to timely pay all earned wages and final
paychecks due at time of separate of employment, and unfair
business practices.
Costco Wholesale Corporation is an American multinational
corporation which operates a chain of membership-only big-box
retail stores, headquartered in Washington.
EmployBridge Holding Company, doing business as Select Staffing, is
an industrial staffing company, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.
[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
David D. Kadue, Esq.
David D. Jacobson, Esq.
Lauren S. Schwartz, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Telephone: (310) 277-7200
Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
E-mail: dkadue@seyfarth.com
djacobson@seyfarth.com
lschwartz@seyfarth.com
- and –
Geoffrey C. Westbrook, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 448-0159
Facsimile: (916) 558-4839
E-mail: gwestbrook@seyfarth.com
CREDIT SUISSE: Lead Counsel Must Report Status in Birmingham Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CITY OF BIRMINGHAM RETIREMENT AND RELIEF SYSTEM, et
al., Plaintiffs v. CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 17 Civ. 10014 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered
the Lead Counsel to file a status report regarding any outstanding
distributions, including whether the Lead Counsel anticipates
making an application for a cy pres award.
Pursuant to the Court's Final Order and Judgment Approving the
Class Action Settlement, the Lead Counsel is required to provide
the Court with interim reports every 45 days on the claims
administration process. A status report was due on Oct. 25, 2021.
The Lead Counsel failed to timely submit a status report.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2pj7fsws from Leagle.com.
DEBSTY INC: Angeles Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Debtsy Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Sarah Angeles, a/k/a Sarah Farber,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Debtsy Inc., Velocity Investments LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No.
5:21-cv-02055 (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 29, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Debtsy, Inc. -- https://www.debtsy.com/ -- is a digitally-driven
debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amichai E. Zukowsky, Esq.
23811 Chagrin Blvd., Ste. 160
Beachwood, OH 44122
Phone: (216) 800-5529
Fax: (216) 514-4987
Email: ami@zukowskylaw.com
DECORATOR'S WAREHOUSE: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Decorator's Warehouse
Management, LLC. The case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Decorator's
Warehouse Management, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-08879 (S.D.N.Y., Oct.
29, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Decorator's Warehouse -- https://decoratorswarehouse.com/ -- is the
largest Christmas decor store in Texas, now delivering
nationwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
DIGNITY HEALTH: Darling Suit Seeks to Certify Classes, Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOMERY DARLING and ANA
JARA, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
individuals, v. DIGNITY HEALTH; DIGNITY COMMUNITY CARE; DIGNITY
HEALTH MEDICAL GROUP NEVADA, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. 4:20-cv-06043-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the following classes and subclasses of persons
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure:
California Class:
All nonexempt hourly paid patient care employees who made
entries in the electronic medical record (EMR) system but
who were not clocked into the timekeeping system and who
were employed by Defendants in California at any time
during the alleged relevant time period;"
-- California Meal Break Subclass: All California Class
Members who made entries in the EMR system but who were
not clocked into the timekeeping system during a meal
break at any time during the alleged relevant time
period;"
-- Itemized Wage Statement Subclass: All California Class
Members who were employed at any time during the
alleged relevant time period;" and
-- California Waiting Time Penalties Subclass: All
California Class Members who are former employees and
who were employed at any time during the alleged
relevant time period;" and
Nevada Class:
"All nonexempt hourly paid patient care employees who made
entries in the EMR system but who were not clocked into
the timekeeping system and who were employed by Defendants
in Nevada at any time during the alleged relevant time
period;"
-- Nevada Meal Break Subclass: All Nevada Class Members
who made entries in the EMR system but who were not
clocked into the timekeeping system during a meal break
at any time during the alleged relevant time period;"
-- Nevada Waiting Time Penalties Subclass: All Nevada
Class Members who are former employees and who were
employed at any time during the alleged relevant time
period";
2. appointing Plaintiffs Tomery Darling, Ana Jara,Wendy
O'Donnell, and Lisa Ayers, as Class Representatives of
their respective Classes;
3. appointing Joshua D. Buck, Mark R. Thierman, Leah L.
Jones, and Joshua R. Hendrickson, of Thierman Buck LLP as
Counsel for the Classes;
4. directing the parties to meet and confer to develop a data
extraction plan to compile a list of persons who belong to
each of the aforesaid Classes; and
5. directing the parties to meet and confer to draft a
mutually agreeable notice to members of the Classes
advising them of this action and their right to exclude
themselves from the Classes.
In this case, Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have suffered
and/or permitted Plaintiffs and all other typical employees to
perform compensable work without compensation.
The factual underpinnings of Plaintiffs' case involve the interplay
between Defendants' employment policies that apply equally to
Plaintiffs and all putative class members.
The Plaintiffs Darling and Jara filed the original complaint in
this action on August 27, 2020. On September 22, 2020.
The Plaintiffs' complaint with respect to Plaintiff Darling's
claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and
California-law wage claims because she last worked for Defendants
more than three years from the filing of the complaint and a motion
to strike Plaintiff Jara's Nevada-law wage claims that exceeded two
years from the filing of the complaint.
The Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint on October 20,
2020, withdrawing Plaintiff Darling's FLSA claim and California-law
wage claims that were potentially limited by a 3-year statute of
limitations and, instead, rephrased Plaintiff Darling's
California-law wage claims as arising out of California's Unfair
Competition Law pursuant to California Business and Professions
Code Section 17200.
The operative Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") alleges the
following causes of action: (1) Failure to Pay Overtime in
Violation of 29 U.S.C. section 207; (2) Unfair Business Practices
Under California Law; (3) Failure to Pay Wages for All Hours Worked
Under Nevada Law; (4) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages for All Hours
Worked Under Nevada Law; (5) Failure to Pay Wages For Interrupted
Meal Breaks Under Nevada Law; and (6) Failure to Timely Pay All
Wages Due and Owing Under Nevada Law.
Dignity Health is a California-based not-for-profit public-benefit
corporation that operates hospitals and ancillary care facilities
in three states. Dignity Health is the fifth-largest hospital
system in the nation and the largest not-for-profit hospital
provider in California.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 26,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3k359qO
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
Leah L. Jones, Esq.
Joshua R. Hendrickson, Esq.
THIERMAN BUCK LLP
7287 Lakeside Drive
Reno, NV 89511
Telephone: 775.284.1500
Facsimile: 775.703.5027
E-mail: mark@thiermanbuck.com
josh@thiermanbuck.com
leah@thiermanbuck.com
joshh@thiermanbuck.com
DOORDASH INC: Ct. Enters Updated Case Management Order in Lona's
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LONA'S LIL EATS, LLC, v.
DOORDASH, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-06703-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson entered an updated case management order as
follows:
-- Deadline to Seek Leave to Amend Pleadings Jan. 14, 2022
-- Deadline to Move for Class Certification July 15, 2022
-- Deadline to Oppose Class Certification Aug. 12, 2022
-- Deadline to File Reply Briefs Sept. 16, 2022
-- Close of Discovery Sept. 16, 2022
-- Expert Depositions (Plaintiff) July 29, 2022
-- Expert Depositions (Defendant) Sept. 2, 2022
-- Rebuttal Expert Depositions Sept. 30, 2022
-- Deadline to File Dispositive Sept. 30, 2022
Motions
-- Deadline to File Opposition to Oct. 28, 2022
Dispositive Motions
-- Deadline to File Reply Nov. 18, 2022
-- Hearing on Dispositive Motions Dec. 8, 2022
-- Exchange of Pretrial Disclosures Feb. 8, 2023
DoorDash, Inc. operates an online food ordering and food delivery
platform. It is based in San Francisco, California.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kcCLCR at no extra charge.[CC]
DPEP 7 INC: Romoff Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT ROMOFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DPEP 7 INC d/b/a PEDDER POWAY CDJR,
Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-01775-TWR-BLM (S.D. Cal., October 15,
2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for
its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant caused a prerecorded voice
message to be transmitted to his cellular telephone number ending
in 8291 on or about September 3, 2021 in an attempt to promote its
business and services. The Plaintiff also asserts that he did not
provide the Defendant with his express written consent to be
contacted by prerecorded message on his cellular telephone.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's unsolicited prerecorded
messages have caused the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
individuals additional harm in the form of invasion of privacy,
aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass,
conversion, inconvenience, and disruption to their daily life.
Thus, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff seeks actual and statutory damages, as
well as an injunction requiring the Defendant to cease all
unsolicited call activity and prohibiting the Defendant from using
prerecorded messages without obtaining the recipient's consent to
receive calls made with such equipment. The Plaintiff also seeks
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief as the Court
deems necessary.
DPEP 7, Inc. dba Pedder Poway CDJR operates as a new and used car
dealership and offers maintenance and service of automobile to
consumers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Moyer, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE
401 West A St., Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (305) 479-2299
Jmoyer@ShamisGentile.com
- and –
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
DUNHAM'S ATHLEISURE: Must Oppose Migyanko Class Cert Bid by Nov. 15
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIGYANKO v. DUNHAM'S
ATHLEISURE CORPORATION, Case No. 2:19-cv-00514 (W.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge W. Scott Hardy entered an order granting motion for
enlargement of time to file Defendant's response in opposition to
class certification and Plaintiff's Reply:
-- Defendant's response in opposition to Plaintiffs Motion
for Class Certification is due Nov. 15, 2021; and
-- Plaintiff's reply is due Dec. 1, 2021.
The suit alleges violation of the The Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990.
Dunham's Athleisure operates a sporting good chain. The Company
offers sporting goods, atheltic equipment, and active sports
gear.[CC]
EDEN BRANDS: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eden Brands, Inc. The
case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Eden Brands, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-08891 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Eden Brands, Inc. doing business as Evereden --
https://www.ever-eden.com/ -- make safe baby, kids and pregnancy
skin care products formulated with natural ingredients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
ELEMENT MATERIALS: Clemons Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARK CLEMONS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ELEMENT MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY
HUNTINGTON BEACH LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No.
21STCV33693, was removed from the Superior Court of California for
the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on October 29, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-08581 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay wages, failure to provide meal
periods, failure to permit rest breaks, failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements, failure to pay all wages due upon
separation of employment, failure to provide payroll records, and
unfair business practices.
Element Materials Technology Huntington Beach LLC is a global
provider of testing, inspection, and certification services,
headquartered in Huntington Beach, California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Timothy J. Long, Esq.
Michael A. Wertheim, Esq.
Chris Cruz, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
Telephone: (310) 586-7700
Facsimile: (310) 586-7800
E-mail: wertheimm@gtlaw.com
longt@gtlaw.com
cruzc@gtlaw.com
ELITE HEALTH: Lampton Has Until Dec. 16 to File Class Status Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lampton v. Elite Health
Institute LTD, Case No. 2:20-cv-06564 (S.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson entered an order granting the
joint motion to continue deadline for class certification
The deadline for Plaintiff's motion for class certification is
extended 45 days and is now Dec. 16, 2021, says Judge Jolson.
The suit involves restrictions of use of telephone equipment.
Elite Health Institute Ltd located in Lewis Center, Ohio, and is
part of the Other Ambulatory Health Care Services Industry.[CC]
EQUILON ENTERPRISES: Nov. 22 Class Cert. Bid Hearing Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCO DIMERCURIO, CHARLES
GAETH, JOHN LANGLITZ, and MALCOLM SYNIGAL on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, v. EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC DBA SHELL
OIL PRODUCTS US, and DOES 1 THROUGH AND INCLUDING 25, Case No.
3:19-cv-04029-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order that the Further Case Management Conference and hearing on
class certification on Plaintiffs' waiting time penalties claim be
heard on November 22, 2021, or any date thereafter that is
convenient for the Court.
Equilon Enterprises LLC is an oil refining and marketing company.
A copy of Parties' motion dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wb56OG at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristina L. Hillman, Esq.
Alexander S. Nazarov, Esq.
Jannah V. Manansala, Esq.
WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD
A Professional Corporation
1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200
Alameda, CA 94501
Telephone: (510) 337-1001
Facsimile: (510) 337-1023
E-mail: courtnotices@unioncounsel.net
khillman@unioncounsel.net
jmanansala@unioncounsel.net
anazarov@unioncounsel.net
- and
Aaron Kaufmann, Esq.
David Pogrel, Esq.
LEONARD CARDER, LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2700
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 272-0169
Facsimile: (510) 272-0174
E-mail: akaufmann@leonardcarder.com
dpogrel@leonardcarder.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Gary T. Lafayette, Esq.
Brian H. Chun, Esq.
Saisruthi S. Paspulati, Esq.
LAFAYETTE & KUMAGAI LLP
1300 Clay Street, Suite 810
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 357-4600
Facsimile: (415) 357-4605
E-mail: glafayette@lkclaw.com
bchun@lkclaw.com
spaspulati@lkclaw.com
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Katz Seeks Conditional Status of Collective
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONIQUE KATZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EQUINOX
HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-09856-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. conditionally certifying her proposed collective pursuant
to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) of:
"All persons who were employed by Defendant as a Tier 3,
Tier 3+, or Tier X Trainers within the State of New York
since May 13, 2018, who were paid on a flat rate for each
personal training session performed and who were required
to work in excess of 40 hours per workweek without
compensation at the statutorily required rate of one and a
half times their hourly rate for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per workweek;"
2. approving her proposed Notice and its distribution process
to the putative collective members;
3. directing Equinox Holdings to produce in a computer-
readable file, the following information for all putative
opt-in plaintiffs: names, last known mailing addresses,
alternate addresses, all known email addresses (work and
personal), telephone numbers, and dates of employment; and
4. tolling the statute of limitations for the putative
collective members from the date of this motion until the
Court decides it if the Court deems it equitable to do so.
Equinox Group is an American luxury fitness company which operates
several lifestyle brands: Equinox, Equinox Hotels, Precision Run,
Project by Equinox, Equinox Explore, Equinox Media, Furthermore,
PURE Yoga, Blink Fitness, and SoulCycle.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 28,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bIS8yf
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by
Alexander M. White, Esq.
James A. Vagnini, Esq.
VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP
600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 203-7180
Facsimile: (516) 706-0248
E-mail: rvalli@vkvlawyers.com
skane@vkvlawyers.com
awhite@vkvlawyers.com
- and -
D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
Denise A. Schulman, Esq.
JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
32 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 688-5640
Facsimile: (212) 981-9587
E-mail: maimon@jk-llp.com
denise@jk-llp.com
ERIC GARCETTI: Suit Seeks to Certify Classes of Un-Housed Persons
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PEOPLE OF CITY OF LOS
ANGELES WHO ARE UN-HOUSED AS A CLASS REPRESENTED BY C. FINLEY, v.
ERIC MICHAEL GARCETTI, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-06003-DOC-KES (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order granting
their motion for class certification and certifying the case as a
class action under Rules 23(b)(1), |123(b)(2), and 23(b)(3):
(1) All un-housed persons who reside in the City of Los
Angeles;
(2) All un-housed persons who reside in oversize vehicles;
and
(3) All un-housed persons who reside on the streets or
sidewalks, but who do not reside in oversize vehicles.
These three classes should cover all of the City's homeless
population, the Plaintiffs contend.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Nov. 1,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kdBRpQ
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members, are:
Stephen Yagman, Esq.
Joseph Reichmann, Esq.
YAGMAN + REICHMANN, LLP
333 Washington Boulevard
Venice Beach, CA 90292-5152
Telephone: (310) 452-3200
E-mail: filing @yagmanlaw.net
filing @yagmanlaw.net
ESEMBLY INC: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Esembly Inc. The case
is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Esembly Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-08896
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Esembly -- https://esemblybaby.com/ -- is a designer of baby
products used for urban families who want to use cloth
diapers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
FAZE CLAN: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Faze Clan Inc. The
case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Faze Clan Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-08882
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
FaZe Clan -- https://fazeclan.com/ -- is the most popular esports
and entertainment organization in the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
FLEETCOR TECH: Morrison Must File Class Cert. Bid by Jan 13, 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MANDY MORRISON,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-03950-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.
entered an order that:
-- Fleetcor shall respond to the Complaint on or before
November 16, 2021; and
-- Plaintiff shall file her motion for class certification on
or before January 13, 2022.
FleetCor Technologies provides payment solutions. The Company
offers fuel, tolls, and lodging payment products including cards.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bMGHWc at no extra charge.[CC]
FLEETCOR TECHNOLGIES: Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Response
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MANDY MORRISON,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-03950-TWT (N.D. Ga.), Fleetcor asks the Court to enter an
order for enlargement of time, up to and including November 16,
2021, to respond to Plaintiff's Collective and Class Action
Complaint.
In addition, the Plaintiff moves the Court for a 21-day enlargement
of time, up to and including January 13, 2022, to file her motion
for class certification.
On September 24, 2021, the Plaintiff filed the Complaint against
Fleetcor.
FleetCor Technologies provides payment solutions.
A copy of the Parties joint motion dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/31kGqYB at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason T. Brown, Esq.
Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
Edmund C. Celiesius, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
Jersey City, NJ 007310
Telephone: (201) 630-0000
Facsimile: (805) 582-5297
E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
ed.celiesius@jtblawgroup.com
- and -
Roger Orlando, Esq.
THE ORLANDO FIRM, P.C.
315 West Ponce De Leon Avenue, Suite 400
Decatur, GA 30030
Telephone: (404) 373-1800
E-mail: roger@orlandofirm.com
Facsimile: (404) 373-6999
The Defendant is represented by:
Paul R. Barsness, Esq.
PARKER, HUDSON,
RAINER & DOBBS LLP
303 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Suite 3600
Atlanta, GA 30308
Telephone: (404) 523-5300
Facsimile: (404) 522-8409
E-mail: prb@phrd.com
- and -
Susan W. Furr, Esq.
Jessica C. Huffman, Esq.
Dennis M. McClelland, Esq.
Jason A. Pill, Esq.
PHELPS DUNBAR LLP
II City Plaza
400 Convention Street, Suite 1100
Post Office Box 4412
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Telephone: (225) 346-0285
Facsimile: (225) 381-9197
E-mail: susie.furr@phelps.com
huffmanj@phelps.com
dennis.mcclelland@phelps.com
jason.pill@phelps.com
FORD MOTOR: Thornburg Class Status Bid Filing Due Jan. 10, 2022
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Thornburg v. Ford Motor
Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-01025 (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Nanette
K. Laughrey entered an order extending deadlines related to the
motion for class certification.
-- Any motion for class certification must be filed on or
before January 10, 2022.
-- Any response to the class certification motion must be
filed on or before February 9, 2022.
-- Any reply in support of the class certification motion
must be filed on or before February 18, 2022.
The nature of suit states Real Property -- Torts to Land.
Ford Motor is an American multinational automobile manufacturer
headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan, United States.[CC]
FORWARD AIR: Lovera Seeks Unpaid Wages, Meals Breaks, Paystubs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rene Navarro Lovera, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Forward Air Services, LLC, Forward Air,
INc. and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV39280
(Cal. Super., October 25, 2021), seeks unpaid wages and interest
thereon for failure to pay for all hours worked and minimum wage
rate, compensation for missed break, 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, injunctive
relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees,
costs and interest under California Labor Code, Unfair Competition
Law of the California Business and Professions Code and applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.
Forward Air Services and Forward Air are in the airline logistics
business where Lovera was employed as a Fleet Manager where he
worked as an hourly-paid, non-exempt equipment operator. [BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
Gregory Mauro, Esq.
Michael Calvo, Esq.
Jeanne Sarmiento, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 387-7200
Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
Email: James@Jameshawkinsaplc.com
Greg@Jameshawkinsaplc.com
Michael@Jameshawkinsaplc.com
Jeanne@Jameshawkinsaplc.com
FROG HOLLOW: Estevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frog Hollow Farm,
LLC. The case is styled as Arturo Estevez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Frog Hollow Farm, LLC,
Case No. 1:21-cv-08875 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Frog Hollow Farm -- https://www.froghollow.com/ -- is an online
marketplace for organic fresh fruits and small-batch gourmet foods,
from the farm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
GEM RECOVERY: Class Certification in Ginsberg Adjourned to Dec. 6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ginsberg vs. Gem Recovery,
Case No. 3:20-cv-20135-MAS-DEA (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Douglas E.
Arpert entered an order granting Defendant's motion that class
certification be adjourned to December 6, 2021.
The Plaintiff has filed a motion for class certification returnable
on November 15, 2021.
Gem Recovery is a debt collection agency.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CQ5J2v at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Brian R. Donnelly, Esq.
COUNSELLOR-AT-LAW
913 Route 23
P.O. Box 275
Pompton Plains, NJ 07444
Telephone: (973) 839-0300
Facsimile: (973) 839-1028
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Management Plan, Scheduling Order Entered in Haft
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHER HAFT and ROBERT
FISHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY and HAIER US APPLIANCE
SOLUTIONS, INC. d/b/a GE APPLIANCES, Case No. 1:21-cv-00506-GHW
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gregory H. Woods entered a revised civil
case management plan and scheduling order as follows:
-- All fact discovery shall be completed no later than April
29, 2022.
-- Depositions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30, 31 shall be
completed by April 29, 2022.
-- All expert discovery shall be completed no later than
October 14, 2022.
-- Motions for summary judgment, if any, shall be filed no
later than March 3, 2023.
-- The parties expect that this case is to be tried to a
jury.
-- Counsel for the parties have conferred and their present
best estimate of the length of trial is 10 days.
-- The parties propose the following schedule for class
certification briefing:
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class December 16, 2022;
Certification:
Defendant's Response to Class January 20, 2023;
Certification:
Plaintiffs' Reply in Support February 3, 2023.
of Class Certification:
General Electric Company is an American multinational conglomerate
incorporated in New York State and headquartered in Boston.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GMWTVR at no extra charge.[CC]
GENERAL MOTORS: Bid to Dismiss Putative Class Action Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: GENERAL MOTORS AIR CONDITIONING
MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION, Case No.
2:18-md-02818-MFL (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Matthew F. Leitman
entered an order denying General Motors' (GM) motion to dismiss.
GM shall file an Answer to the Complaint within 45 days, says Judge
Leitman.
The Court concludes that it would be more appropriate to review
GM's arguments at the class certification stage of these
proceedings, where the parties can provide the Court a more fulsome
set of briefs on these issues. Delaying a decision
until class certification should not cause either party significant
prejudice. The majority of discovery in this action is already
complete, and class certification briefing will begin in just a few
months. Moreover, at that time, the Plaintiffs may modify the
classes they seek to certify, which could moot some or all of GM's
current motion. Accordingly, the Court will decline to strike
Plaintiffs' class allegations at this time. GM is free to re-raise
all of the arguments made in its current motion in its class
certification briefing.
In this putative consolidated class action, the Plaintiffs allege
that the air conditioning systems of vehicles manufactured by GM
are defective. In the Third Amended Consolidated Master Class
Action Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert several different claims
against GM, including a claim under the federal Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, on behalf of a nationwide class (Count I), a breach
of express warranty claim on behalf of a nationwide class (Count
III), and several state-law claims on behalf of state-specific
sub-classes.
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan. It was
founded by William C. Durant on September 16, 1908, as a holding
company, and the present entity was established in 2009 after its
restructuring.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZWfjmq at no extra charge.[CC]
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Approves Settlement Deal in Scobey Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL SCOBEY, on behalf of
himself And all similarly situated employees, v. GENERAL MOTORS,
LLC, A Michigan limited liability company, Case No.
2:20-cv-12098-DPH-RSW (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Denise Page Hood
entered an order:
1. granting the parties' motion for approval of Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) collective action settlement; and
2. dismissing the case with prejudice with this Court
retaining exclusive jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement
Agreement.
The Court further ordered that:
-- the settlement amount will be redacted from the publicly
filed agreement, but the unredacted agreement will be made
available to Potential Plaintiffs who contact the
Settlement Administrator;
-- the motion for the appointment of Jesse L. Young as class
counsel and request for attorney fees is granted;
-- the motion for certification of an FLSA Section 216(b)
opt-in class is granted; and
-- the motion for authorization of the proposed Notice and
Consent is granted.
The Parties agree to send the proposed Notice and Consent to all
potential plaintiffs who they agree are defined as follows:
"All individuals who worked for General Motors, LLC or a
subsidiary, affiliate or joint venture of GM as a
Technical Operations Specialist ("TOS") at GM Component
Holdings, LLC's Grand Rapids, Michigan facility and/or GM
Manufacturing Subsystems, LLC's Brownstown Michigan Battery
Facility from August 4, 2017 through May 27, 2021."
General Motors Company is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, United
States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mTJJi1 at no extra charge.[CC]
GOLDMAN SACHS: Ulanch Sues Over Unlawful Trading of ViacomCBS Stock
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MARK ULANCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC. and MORGAN STANLEY,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-08897 (S.D.N.Y., October 29, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections
20A, 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The case arises from the unlawful use of material non-public
information by the Defendants to avoid billions in losses by
selling shares of ViacomCBS Inc. from March 22, 2021 through and
including March 29, 2021 after confidentially learning that
Archegos Capital Management, a family office with $10 billion under
management, failed to meet a margin call, requiring it to fully
liquidate its position in ViacomCBS. The Defendants knew, or were
reckless in not knowing, that they were prohibited from trading
based on this confidential market-moving information, but traded
anyway, disposing to the Plaintiff and other members of the Class
their ViacomCBS stock before the news about Archegos was announced
and ViacomCBS's shares plummeted. As a result, the Plaintiff and
the Class have been allegedly damaged.
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. is a global financial services
institution, with its headquarters at 200 West Street, New York,
New York.
Morgan Stanley is a global financial services institution, with its
headquarters at 1585 Broadway, New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq.
Rhiana L. Swartz, Esq.
Jonathan M. Zimmerman, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
rswartz@scott-scott.com
jzimmerman@scott-scott.com
- and –
David W. Hall, Esq.
Armen Zohrabian, Esq.
Arun Ravindran, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 766-3534
Facsimile: (415) 402-0058
E-mail: dhall@hedinhall.com
azohrabian@hedinhall.com
aravindran@hedinhall.com
- and –
Brian J. Schall, Esq.
THE SCHALL LAW FIRM
1880 Century Park E, Suite 404
Los Angeles, CA 90067-1604
Telephone: (310) 301-3335
Facsimile: (310) 388-0192
E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com
GREENSKY INC: S.D. Florida Narrows Claims in Wright Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALEXISS WRIGHT, MARIA C. POZA, JERRICK BUCK, and
YVONNE BUCK, individuals, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GREENSKY, INC.; GREENSKY, LLC;
GREENSKY HOLDINGS, LLC; and GREENSKY MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-62441-BLOOM/Valle (S.D. Fla.), Judge
Beth Bloom of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims for Injunctive Relief and Motion to
Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Jerrick Buck and Yvonne Buck Based on
the Statute of Limitations.
Background
On July 17, 2020, Plaintiff Wright initiated the class action
against the Defendants in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth
Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. On Dec. 1,
2020, the Defendants removed the above-styled case to te Court,
alleging jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA")
of 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d).
On Dec. 16, 2020, Wright filed a First Amended Class Action
Complaint, which added Plaintiffs Jerrick and Yvonne Buck and Maria
C. Poza as named Plaintiffs. The Complaint asserts the following
three counts against the Defendants: Count I - Violations of
Florida's Loan Broker Law ("FLBL") (Fla. Stat. Section 687.14, et
seq.); Count II - Violations of Florida's Credit Service
Organizations Act ("CSOA") (Fla. Stat. Section 817.7001, et seq.);
and Count III - Injunctive Relief.
According to the Complaint, the Defendants are financial technology
companies that allow various types of merchants to apply for
point-of-sale loans on behalf of their customers through
Defendants' mobile application that streamlines the entire lending
process. The Defendants fund these loans through partnerships with
lending institutions that serve as the lenders. They orchestrate
the loan origination process from the initial loan application
through funding, and after brokering the loan, the Defendants act
as the loan servicer.
In July 2016, the Bucks purchased a solar system financed by a
$25,000 Greensky loan. Unbeknownst to the Bucks, Greensky took a
merchant fee of approximately 13% of the principal. The Bucks
repaid the loan entirely within the first year and unknowingly paid
some or all of the undisclosed merchant fee. In June 2016, Wright
purchased an air-conditioning system financed by a $9,522 Greensky
loan. Unbeknownst to Wright, Greensky took a merchant fee of
approximately 16% of the principal. Wright repaid the loan in late
2018 and unknowingly paid some or all of the undisclosed merchant
fee.
The claims asserted in the Complaint are premised on the allegation
that the Defendants concealed the nature and amount of the merchant
fees charged to consumers and failed to comply with loan broker
disclosure requirements in violation of the FLBL. The Plaintiffs
also claim that the Defendants acted as a credit service
organization ("CSO") without a surety bond, accepted valuable
consideration for referring customers to lenders who were offering
substantially the same loan terms to the general public, and made
false or misleading statements in violation of the CSOA.
On Jan. 20, 2021, the Defendants filed the Motion, arguing that the
Bucks' claims are barred by the statute of limitations and that the
Bucks and Wright do not have standing to make a claim for
injunctive relief. On Feb. 26, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their
Response, and attached the Declaration of Jerrick Buck, the
Declaration of Alexiss Wright, and the Declaration of Yvonne Buck.
On March 19, 2021, the Defendants submitted their Reply.
Before deciding on the Motion, on June 14, 2021, the Court stayed
Poza's claims pending arbitration, denied the Motion as moot, and
administratively closed the case. On Aug. 10, 2021, the Bucks and
Wright filed an unopposed motion to reopen the case in order to
resolve the Motion and proceed on the merits depending on the
resolution of the Motion. The Court reopened the case on Aug. 16,
2021. Central to the parties' dispute is whether the statute of
limitations bars the Bucks' claims and whether the Bucks and Wright
have standing to assert a claim for injunctive relief.
Discussion
The Defendants first seek to dismiss the Bucks' claims under the
FLBL and CSOA, arguing that the statute of limitations bars the
Bucks' claims. They also move to dismiss the Bucks and Wright's
claim for injunctive relief contending that the Bucks and Wright
lack standing to make a claim for injunctive relief. The Plaintiffs
respond that the Bucks' claims are timely as pled and that the
Bucks and Wright do have standing to make a claim for injunctive
relief.
A. Motion to Dismiss the Bucks' Claims Based on the Statute of
Limitations
As a preliminary matter, Judge Bloom must address whether the Court
may consider, in a motion to dismiss, the Defendants' affirmative
defense that the statute of limitations bars the Bucks' claim. As a
general rule, an affirmative defense must be raised in an answer,
not in a motion to dismiss. However, a statute of limitations
defense may be raised in a motion to dismiss if it is apparent from
the complaint that the claim is time-barred.
1. Consideration of the Loan Agreement
Because the Complaint does not state the precise date the Bucks
financed their home renovation through Defendants' services and
when Defendants charged the hidden merchant fee, the pertinent
issue in the case is whether the loan agreement between the Bucks
and The Brand Banking Co. ("Lender") can be considered along with
the Complaint in determining when the statute of limitations began
to accrue. The Plaintiffs argue that the Loan Agreement is not
central to the claims because the Bucks' claims do not seek to hold
the Defendants liable for contractual duties imposed by the Loan
Agreement and the Bucks' claims arise from other undisclosed
agreements that Defendants had with merchants and banks.
However, Judge Bloom finds that the fact that the Bucks' claims
depend on other agreements the Defendants had with merchants and
banks and the fact that the Bucks' claims do not raise contractual
liabilities pursuant to the Loan Agreement do not mean that the
Loan Agreement cannot also be central to the Bucks' claims. The
contents of the Loan Agreement are central to the Bucks' claims
because the Loan Agreement allegedly did not contain information
about the merchant fees or make the necessary disclosures and
thereby allowed Defendants to conceal the nature and amount of the
merchant fees. Determining the veracity of the Bucks' claims will
necessarily depend on examining the Loan Agreement. The Loan
Agreement is not merely a but-for cause of the Bucks' claims but an
essential part of demonstrating if and how the Defendants failed to
make the necessary disclosures. As such, the Loan Agreement is
properly part of the Court's consideration in a motion to dismiss.
2. Statute of Limitations
The next issue is whether the Loan Agreement makes apparent that
the Bucks' claims are time-barred. A statute of limitations defense
may be raised in a motion to dismiss only if it is apparent that
the claim is time-barred.
In summary, Judge Bloom holds that although the Loan Agreement can
be considered in addressing the Motion to Dismiss, it is not
apparent that the cause of action began to accrue on the agreement
date in the Loan Agreement because the Loan Agreement does not make
clear that the Bucks had a cause of action on the agreement date.
Therefore, it is not apparent from the Complaint and the
incorporated Loan Agreement that the Bucks' claims are time-barred
and the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Bucks' claims based on
the statute of limitations must be denied. Judge Bloom foregoes
consideration of the Plaintiffs' other arguments to toll the
statute of limitations.
B. Motion to Dismiss the Bucks and Wright's Claim for Injunctive
Relief
Judge Bloom now considers the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the
Bucks and Wright's claim for injunctive relief. To seek injunctive
relief, plaintiffs must demonstrate that they have standing by
showing that: (1) they are under threat of suffering an
injury-in-fact that is concrete and particularized; (2) the threat
is actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (3) the
injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the
defendant; and (4) it is likely that a favorable judicial decision
will prevent or redress the injury.
The Complaint alleges that the Bucks and Wright paid off their
loans. It does not allege that the Bucks and Wright signed new
loans with the Defendants since paying off their respective loans.
Therefore, the Complaint does not appear to allege that the Bucks
and Wright are under any threat of suffering an injury-in-fact,
much less a threat that is "actual and imminent."
Furthermore, given the allegations in the Complaint, it is apparent
that the Plaintiffs will be unable to include allegations in an
amended complaint that would establish standing for injunctive
relief. The Plaintiffs have already amended their Complaint and do
not seek leave to further amend. As such, Judge Bloom determines
that another opportunity to plead the necessary allegations for
standing would be futile and a second amended complaint would not
survive a motion to dismiss. Therefore, she dismisses the claim for
injunctive relief with prejudice.
Lastly, because the Bucks and Wright do not have standing to pursue
injunctive relief, they cannot represent a class seeking injunctive
relief under Rule 23(b)(2), and their class allegations on this
claim must be dismissed as well. As such, the Bucks and Wright
cannot seek injunctive relief on behalf of the proposed class.
Conclusion
Accordingly, Judge Bloom granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims for Injunctive
Relief and Motion to Dismiss Claims of Plaintiffs Jerry Buck and
Yvonne Buck Based on the Statute of Limitations. Plaintiffs Jerry
Buck and Yvonne Buck's first two claims (Count I and Count II) will
proceed against all the Defendants. Plaintiff Alexiss Wright's
first two claims (Count I and Count II) will proceed against all
the Defendants. Plaintiffs Jerry Buck, Yvonne Buck, and Alexiss
Wright's claim for injunctive relief (Count III) is dismissed with
prejudice.
The Defendants will file an Answer to Count I and Count II by no
later than Nov. 9, 2021.
Plaintiff Maria Poza's claims remain stayed pending arbitration.
Plaintiff Maria Poza and the Defendants may file a motion to lift
the stay, if necessary, once the arbitration proceedings have
concluded.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/v8tcwsyc from Leagle.com.
GREENSPOON MARDER: Final OK of Settlement in Rock Sought
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMMA ROCK, as Executrix
of the Estate of Isabel Shick, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, v. GREENSPOON MARDER, LLP; and JOHN DOES 1-25,
Case No. 2:20-cv-03522-JMV-JBC (D.N.J.), the Parties ask the Court
to enter an order certifying this case to proceed as a class action
for settlement purposes and granting final approval of the Parties'
class settlement agreement.
Greenspoon Marder is a national law firm.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wnL6sf at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Telephone: (973) 227-5900
Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Matthew Rapkowski, Esq.
GREENSPOON MARDER LLP
590 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800
New York, NY 10022
HAWAIIAN GARDENS: Chen Sues Over Discrimination, Wrongful Discharge
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GUOLIANG CHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HAWAIIAN GARDENS CASINO and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV40350 (Cal. Super.,
Orange Cty., November 2, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for discrimination, failure to prevent discrimination,
wrongful termination, and unfair business practices.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a dealer from 2004 to
March 15, 2020.
Hawaiian Gardens Casino is a casino located at 11871 Carson Street,
Hawaiian Gardens, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. DesJardins, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL DESJARDINS, INC.
210 W. Birch Street, Suite 202
Brea, CA 92821
Telephone: (714) 265-2100
Facsimile: (714) 494-8215
E-mail: md@desiardinslaw.com
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT: Gau Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD SCOTT GAU, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as a
private attorney general, and BRANDY FOSTER-GAU, as a private
attorney general, v. HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
5:20-cv-08250-SVK (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
1. Determining that class treatment is proper under Rule
23(a) as to the First, Second, Third, 8 and Fourth Causes
of Action alleged in the Class Action Complaint, on the
grounds that (1) the Class is so numerous that joinder of
all members is impracticable; (2) there are 10 questions
of law and fact common to the Class; (3) the class
representative's claims are typical of the claims of the
Class; and (4) the class representative will fairly and 12
adequately protect the interests of the Class;
2. Determining that class treatment is proper under Rule
23(b)(3)Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), on the
grounds that (i) common issues predominate and (ii) a
class action is superior to other methods of adjudicating
the controversy;
3. Certifying the following classes:
-- The Rest Period Class:
"All current and former non-exempt restaurant employees
of Defendant in the State of California who either did
not execute or revoke an arbitration agreement and
worked at least 3.5 hours in any work period since
April 6, 2016;" and
-- The Meal Period Class:
"All current and former non-exempt restaurant employees
of Defendant in the State of California who either did
not execute or revoke an arbitration agreement and
worked more than 5.0 hours in any work period since
April 6, 2016;"
4. Finding Plaintiff, Edward Scott Gau, adequate as a class
representative and certifying him as the class
representative; and
5. Finding Plaintiff's counsel—Larry W. Lee and Simon L. Yang
of Diversity Law Group, P.C. and William L. Marder of
Polaris Law Group -- adequate as class counsel and
certifying them as class counsel.
In this meal and rest break class action, the Plaintiff Gau
contends his former employer, Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc.,
requires non-exempt restaurant employees to endure unlawful meal
break practices. He also challenges Hillstone's complete lack of
rest break practices.
On September 30, 2020, Plaintiff, along with additional plaintiff
Brandy Foster-Gau, filed this meal and rest break action against
Hillstone in Santa Clara Superior Court. In the complaint, both
Plaintiff and Foster-Gau allege representative action claims under
the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Labor Code
section 2698 et seq. ("PAGA").
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 1,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H0G0XV
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
Simon L. Yang, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 488-6555
Facsimile (213) 488-6554
E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
sly@diversitylaw.com
- and -
William L. Marder, Esq.
POLARIS LAW GROUP
501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
Hollister, CA 95023
Telephone: (831) 531-4214
Facsimile: (831) 634-0333
E-mail: bill@polarislawgroup.com
HONEYWELL SAFETY: McKnight Suit Seeks to Amend Class Action Notice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA MCKNIGHT and
SHEILA ANDERSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, v. HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC. AND
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., DAVID M. COTE, CARL JOHNSON, and
MARK R. JAMES, in their Official and Individual Capacities, Case
No. 1:16-cv-00132-MSM-PAS (D.R.I.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting their motion to amend/correct notice and
consent to join the collective action to issue reminder notice.
Honeywell is a global manufacturer of leading Personal Protection
Equipment (PPE).
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 29,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EUYebr
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Louise A. Herman, Esq.
HERMAN LAW GROUP
1445 Wampanoag Trail, Suite 104
E. Providence, RI 02915
Telephone: (401) 277-4110
Facsimile: (401) 433-0139
E-mail: lherman@lhermanlaw.com
- and -
Amato A. DeLuca, Esq.
DeLUCA AND WEIZENBAUM, LTD.
199 North Main Street
Providence, R.I. 02905
Telephone: (401) 354-7233
Facsimile: (401) 453-1501
E-mail: bud@delucaandweizenbaum.com
I.C. SYSTEM: Parties in Rodriguez-Ocasio Must Finish Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODRIGUEZ-OCASIO v. I.C.
SYSTEM INC., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-13447 (D.N.J.), the Hon.
Judge John Michael Vazquez entered an order directing the Parties
to finish discovery and meet and confer on a schedule for class
certification briefing.
The Court will hold a telephone conference, to be initiated by the
plaintiff, on March 22, 2022 at 11 am.
IC System is a debt collection agency.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.[CC]
INVITATION HOMES: Rivera Seeks to Certify Class of Tenants
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE RIVERA, an
individual, v. INVITATION HOMES, INC., a Maryland corporation, Case
No. 4:18-cv-03158-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure that:
1. Certifies this case as a class action with the Class
defined as:
"All of Defendant's and its predecessor entities'
California tenants who were charged penalties or fees for
paying rent deemed as late or deficient between May 25,
2014, and the date of class certification;"
2. Appoints Plaintiff Jose Rivera as the Class
Representative;
3. Appoints the law firm of Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP as
Class Counsel;
4. Orders that Defendant provide a current
Class list within 14 days of the order
granting this motion;
5. Grants such other and further relief as the Court deems
appropriate.
The Plaintiff also moves the Court, in the alternative, to certify,
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4), the issue of
whether Defendant's and/or its predecessors' late fees charged to
the Class violate Section 1671(d), if the Court declines to certify
the case as a class action under Rule 23(b)(3) for all causes of
action and claims for monetary relief.
In this action, the Plaintiff alleges that Invitation Homes and its
predecessor entities, which owns, operates, and manages residential
leased properties in California (or did during the Class Period),
charged California tenants late fees that violate California Civil
Code, the California Unfair Competition Law, and constitute unjust
enrichment.
Invitation Homes is a single-family home leasing company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 29,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3F5XPTJ
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
Ethan T. Litney, Esq.
NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
225 Broadway, 19 th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 325-0492
Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
elitney@nicholaslaw.org
JOSE PEPPER'S: Florece Collective Action Conditionally Certified
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIRA FLORECE, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, v. JOSE PEPPER'S
RESTAURANTS, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02339-ADM (D. Kan.), the
Hon. Judge Angel D. Mitchell entered an order:
1. granting in part and denying in part without prejudice
plaintiff Kira Florece's unopposed Motion for conditional
class certification and preliminary approval of
stipulation of settlement agreement and release;
2. appointing plaintiff Kira Florece as representative of the
Missouri Minimum Wage Law (MMWL) class;
3. appointing Brendan J. Donelon of Donelon, P.C. and Brandon
Boulware and Erin Lawrence of Boulware Law as joint class
counsel; and
4. denying without prejudice as premature plaintiff Kira
Florece's unopposed motion for approval of attorney's
fees, costs and service award.
The court conditionally certifies the FLSA collective action and
certifies the MMWL class action but cannot preliminarily approve
the Settlement Agreement at this time.
The court grants the aspect of Florece's motion seeking conditional
certification of the following settlement-only FLSA collective:
"All persons who worked as hourly nonexempt servers at
Defendants' nine restaurant locations in the state of Kansas
from May 21, 2018, through May 21, 2021."
Jose Pepper's owns and operates nine restaurants in Kansas, and
Gieselman owns and operates four Jose Pepper's restaurants in
Missouri. Florece worked as a server at the Jose Pepper's
restaurant in Belton, Missouri, from April 2019 through February
2020. She filed this lawsuit as a putative collective and class
action in July 2020, alleging that she and other servers
who work at the thirteen Jose Pepper's locations were not properly
paid minimum wage and overtime compensation as required by the FLSA
and, as to Missouri employees, the MMWL.
Specifically, Florece's complaint alleges that she and similarly
situated employees were: (1) required to be present and working
before they clocked in but they were prohibited from clocking in
until they began serving customers; (2) allowed to work overtime if
they did not clock in; (3) denied overtime compensation after
defendants removed reported overtime hours from the timekeeping
system; and (4) asked to report overtime hours worked as regular
hours worked under another employee's name.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EXSSw9 at no extra charge.[CC]
JUUL LABS: Bear Lake County Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BEAR LAKE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-08438 (N.D. Cal., October 29, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit alleges.
Bear Lake County School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 39 Fielding Road in Paris, Idaho.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Caldwell School Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
------------------------------------------------------------------
CALDWELL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-08442 (N.D. Cal., October 29, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.
Caldwell School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 1502 Fillmore Street in Caldwell, Idaho.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, West Bonner County Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
WEST BONNER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-08512 (N.D. Cal., November 2, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.
West Bonner County School District is a unified school district
with its offices located at 134 Main Street in Priest River,
Idaho.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Kimberly School Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
------------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-08513 (N.D. Cal., November 2, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Kimberly School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 141 Center Street West in Kimberly, Idaho.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Moscow School Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MOSCOW SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-08429 (N.D. Cal., October 29, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, alleges the suit.
Moscow School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 650 North Cleveland Street in Moscow, Idaho.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: South Sanpete Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
----------------------------------------------------------------
SOUTH SANPETE SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-08511 (N.D. Cal., November 2, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
South Sanpete School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 39 South Main in Manti, Utah.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Wendell School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis
---------------------------------------------------------------
WENDELL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-08434 (N.D. Cal., October 29, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Wendell School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 150 East Main Street in Wendell, Idaho.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
KEEFE GROUP: Raney Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Adam Raney, et al., v.
Andrew Taylor, Executive Chairman, Chrissy Taylor, President &
Chief Executive, Keefe Group LLC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00485-bbc (W.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to allow this case
to proceed as a class action.
This class concerns all inmates in the State of Wisconsin
Department of Corrections (approximately 24,000 inmates).
The Plaintiff asserts the actions of the defendants violated the
Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Fraudulent
Representations, the Lanham Act and the Federal Trade Commission
Act.
Keefe Group operates as a supplier of products to correctional
facilities.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZP16Ya at no extra
charge.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC]
KINDER MORGAN: Pedersen ERISA Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CURTIS T. PEDERSEN and BEVERLY LEUTLOFF,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
KINDER MORGAN RETIREMENT PLAN A, KINDER MORGAN, INC., T. MARK
SMITH, JESSE ARENIVAS, and unidentified members of the Fiduciary
Committee, Case No. 2:21-cv-10388, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas on November 2,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Texas assigned Case
No. 4:21-cv-03590 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by using a detailed
calculation to decrease the accrued retirement benefits of the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated Kinder Morgan Retirement Plan A
participants and to modify the factors for early retirement to
reduce benefits further.
Kinder Morgan, Inc. is an energy infrastructure company
headquartered in Houston, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert B. June, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT JUNE, PC
415 Detroit St., 2nd Floor
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1117
Telephone: (734) 481-1000
E-mail: bobjune@junelaw.com
- and –
Stephen R. Bruce, Esq.
STEPHEN R. BRUCE LAW OFFICES
1667 K St., NW, Suite 410
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 289-1117
E-mail: stephen.bruce@prodigy.net
- and –
Tybe Ann Brett, Esq.
Joel R. Hurt, Esq.
FEINSTEIN PAYNE DOYLE & KRAVEC, LLC
429 Fourth Ave., Suite 1300
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 281-8400
E-mail: tbrett@fdpklaw.com
jhurt@fdpklaw.com
KING-KELLY INC: Rosado Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks
----------------------------------------------------------------
PRISCILLA ROSADO-CRUZ, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KING-KELLY, INC. DBA COWBOY'S
SHOWGIRLS; WARREN LEE KING; KEVIN KING; and DOES 1 THROUGH 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-00276-JMH (E.D. Ky.,
October 29, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act including failure to pay
minimum wages, illegal kickbacks, unlawful taking of tips, and
forced tipping.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an exotic dancer at
Cowboy's Showgirls located at 1515 Russell Cave Road, Lexington,
Kentucky from December 2018 to October 2020.
King-Kelly, Inc. is an operator of an adult-oriented entertainment
facility under the name Cowboy's Showgirls, located at 1515 Russell
Cave Road, Lexington, Kentucky. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Liz J. Shepherd, Esq.
DOLT, THOMPSON, SHEPHERD & CONWAY, PSC
13800 Lake Point Circle
Louisville, KY 40223
Telephone: (502) 242-8872
E-mail: lshepherd@kytrial.com
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Walker Suit Moved From E.D. La. to W.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHAEL WALKER, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V., PHILIPS NORTH
AMERICA LLC, PHILIPS HOLDING USA INC., and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA
LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01472, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on November 2,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01454-JFC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent
misrepresentation, fraud by omission, negligent misrepresentation,
unjust enrichment, redhibition, construction or composition defect,
design defect, inadequate warning, and violations of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants manufactured and sold
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and BiLevel Positive
Airway Pressure (BiLevel PAP) devices and mechanical ventilators
for sleep and home respiratory care, which contain polyester-based
polyurethane sound abatement foam (PE-PUR Foam). The Defendants
recalled CPAP and BiLevel PAP devices and mechanical ventilators
containing PE-PUR Foam because they determined that (a) the PE-PUR
Foam was at risk for degradation into particles that may enter the
devices' pathway and be ingested or inhaled by users, and (b) the
PE-PUR Foam may off-gas certain chemicals during operation health
risks associated to the devices. As a result of the health risks
associated with continued use of these devices and the recall, the
Plaintiff's CPAP device is now worthless. The Plaintiff will be
forced to replace the device at considerable cost when a
replacement is available, says the suit.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. is a health technology company with its
principal executive offices at Philips Center, Amstelplein 2, 1096
BC Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Philips North America LLC is a health technology company with its
principal place of business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Philips Holding USA Inc. is a holding company with its principal
place of business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Philips RS North America LLC is a company that manufactures and
markets medical devices with its principal place of business
located at 6501 Living Place, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ron A. Austin, Esq.
Catherine Hilton, Esq.
RON AUSTIN LAW, LLC
400 Manhattan Boulevard
Harvey, LA 70058
Telephone: (504) 227-8100
Facsimile: (504) 227-8122
E-mail: raustin@ronaustinlaw.com
chilton@ronaustinlaw.com
LABOR SOURCE: Seeks to Extend Time for Class Cert. Bid Response
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM SPEIGHT,
Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. LABOR
SOURCE, LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-00112-FL (E.D.N.C.), the Defendant
asks the Court to enter an order granting extension of time, up to
and including November 17, 2021, to respond to plaintiff's motion
for conditional certification of a collective action and to provide
notice pursuant to 29 u.s.c. section 216(b).
The Plaintiff filed his class and collective action complaint on
August 12, 2021, alleging a putative nationwide collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and putative Rule 23
class action under the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act.
On September 28, 2021, the Plaintiff served Defendant with a copy
of the Summons and Complaint, making Defendant's responsive
pleading due on October 19, 2021.
On October 15, 2021, Defendant requested a 21-day extension of time
to file its Answer or other responsive pleading to Plaintiff's
Complaint. The Plaintiff consented to the extension on the
condition that Defendant agreed to toll Plaintiff's applicable
statute of limitations.
The Defendant files the instant motion without waiving any
available defenses set forth in Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
On October 18, 2021, the Clerk of the Court granted Defendant's
requested extension via a text entry, making Defendant's Answer or
other responsive pleading currently due on November 9, 2021.
Labor Source, Inc is a staffing company.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 1, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ETmsCY at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Nestico, Esq.
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
Ori Edelstein, Esq.
Michael K. Burke, Esq.
William M. Hogg, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
6000 Fairview Road, Suite 1200
Charlotte, NC 28210
Telephone: (510) 740-2946
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: jnestico@schneiderwallace.com
ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
mburke@schneiderwallace.com
whogg@schneiderwallace.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kevin S. Joyner, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK &
STEWART, P.C.
8529 Six Forks Road, Forum IV, Suite 600
Raleigh, NC 27615
Telephone: (919) 787-9700
Facsimile: (919) 783-9412
E-mail: kevin.joyner@ogletree.com
LEGENDARY FIELD: Trustee's Bid to Compromise & Settle Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: LEGENDARY FIELD EXHIBITIONS, LLC, AAF PLAYERS,
LLC; AAF PROPERTIES, LLC; EBERSOL SPORTS MEDIA GROUP, INC.; LFE 2,
LLC; WE ARE REALTIME, LLC., Chapter 7, Debtors, Jointly
Administered Under Case No. 19-50900-cag, Case Nos. 19-50902-cag.,
19-50903-cag, 19-50904-cag, 19-50905-cag, 19-50906-cag (Bankr. W.D.
Tex.), Judge Craig A. Gargotta of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, granted the
Trustee's Application to Compromise and Settlement Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9019.
Background
The Alliance of American Football ("AAF") was formed in 2018 as a
new professional football league with teams located in eight cities
around the United States. Initially, Ebersol Sports Media Group,
LLC ("ESMG") directly or indirectly owned 100% of the interest in
each of the entities that comprised the AAF. In early 2018, AAF
arranged more than $200 million in financing through stock sales,
convertible debt, and a convertible credit line. By late 2018,
however, AAF received only sporadic funding by the line of credit
investor. In February 2019, Thomas Dundon committed additional
funding to the AAF in exchange for full control of ESMG's board of
directors and AAF's business decisions.
After hiring players, hosting pre-season training camps, and
playing eight out of ten first season football games, AAF suspended
its operations on April 2, 2019. On April 10, 2019, Lead Plaintiffs
Colton Schmidt and Reggie Northrup filed a Putative Class Action
Complaint for Damages against AAF, Dundon and Charles Ebersol in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco. On April 17, 2019, co-defendants AAF Players, LLC; AAF
Properties, LLC; Legendary Field Exhibitions, LLC; and Ebersol
Sports Media Group, Inc. ("AAF Defendants") each filed a chapter 7
bankruptcy case in the Court. After a hearing on July 3, 2019, the
Court substantively consolidated all of the AAF Defendants'
bankruptcy cases into one lead case numbered 19-50900-cag (ECF No.
150).
Post-petition, the Lead Plaintiffs' Putative Class Action Complaint
for Damages was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California and transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Texas. On July 23, 2019, the Texas
Western District Court referred the Lead Plaintiffs' lawsuit
against AAF, Dundon, and Ebersol to the Court, which is styled as
Adv No. 19-05053-cag.
The AAF Adversary asserts the following claims against the
following parties: (i) Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Estate: breach of
contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, promissory estoppel, California Business and Professions
Code Section 17200 et seq., fraud, and promissory fraud; (ii)
Ebersol: promissory estoppel, fraud, and promissory fraud; and
(iii) Dundon: fraud and promissory fraud.
In addition to filing their Putative Class Action Complaint that
resulted in the AAF Adversary, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a putative
proof of claim in the case (Claim No. 214). The Putative Class
Claim seeks more than $673 million in actual and exemplary damages
based on theories in contract, quasi-contract, common law, and
statutory tort actions. Additionally, the Putative Class Claim
includes breach of contract claims for players' wages under the SPA
which the Lead Plaintiffs contend are entitled to priority under
Section 507(a)(4) of the Code.
The Trustee objected to the Putative Class Claim. The Trustee Claim
Objection argued, in part, that unpaid player wages under the SPA
were not entitled to priority under Section 507(a)(4). It also
alleged Schmidt and Northrup's failure to certify a class before
filing a proof of claim meant a class could not be certified to
effectuate a class action lawsuit in the AAF Adversary.
The Court consolidated the Trustee Claim Objection with the AAF
Adversary. Thereafter, the parties commenced phased class discovery
in the AAF Adversary. In his Application, the Trustee states he
"collected, reviewed, and produced nearly 25,000 pages of
documents, including the Standard Player Agreement ("SPA"),
Standard Commercial Lease, and Alternative League Release for each
player signed to an AAF contract." After learning additional
information in the first phase of discovery, the Trustee filed this
Application to propose a settlement of all of the Lead Plaintiffs'
claims in the AAF Adversary against Debtors and Ebersol.
The proposed settlement class is comprised of "all players who
signed a `Standard Player Agreement' with AAF Players, LLC and who
were on an active AAF Team roster as of April 2, 2019, including
players, if any, on injured reserve." The Settlement Players Class
-- which contains approximately 416 members -- is certified as a
class solely for the purposes of resolving claims against the
Estate and Ebersol.
The essential terms of the settlement agreement are as follows:
each member of the Settlement Players Class who does (i) not opt
out and (ii) timely completes and returns the proof of claim form
including all information required pursuant to the order approving
settlement will be eligible to receive:
a. An allowed claim for $13,650 entitled to priority under 11
U.S.C. Section 507(a)(4) to be treated and disbursed pursuant to
the Trustee's ordinary practices;
b. A general unsecured claim for $180,000 representing the
second and third-year base compensation under the Standard Player
Agreement, subordinated to other general unsecured claims (not
including the Class Proof of Claim filed at 214-2) filed before
August 15, 2019 and any later filed claim approved and allowed by
Court order, to the extent and in the amount such other claims are
allowed claims and are not withdrawn; and
c. The Lead Plaintiffs will receive an additional general
unsecured claim in the amount of $135,000 that is not subordinate
to, but will receive pro rata distribution, if 05 any, at the same
time and with the same rank as other general unsecured claims. This
is in recognition of the timely filing of their claims, and that
the Lead Plaintiffs acted for and on behalf of the settlement class
on their own time at their own expense.
The Settlement also includes a clause providing that the Lead
Plaintiffs and the Settlement Players Class assign to the Estate
their rights and interests in "any and all claims against the
Debtor and Ebersol and their right to recovery of damages
recoverable against Dundon specifically for the amounts not paid
under the Standard Player Agreements." The Settlement does not
resolve any of Lead Plaintiffs' claims against Dundon.
On Aug. 24, 2021, the Lead Plaintiffs, the Trustee, and Ebersol
filed in the AAF Adversary their Joint Motion to (1) Preliminarily
Approve the Settlement Agreement; (2) Grant Class Certification
Pursuant to Settlement Agreement; (3) Appoint Class Counsel and
Class Representatives Pursuant to Settlement Agreement; (4) Approve
the Form and Manner of Notice to Class Members; (5) Set a Deadline
for Objections to the Settlement; and (6) Schedule a Hearing for
the Final Consideration and Approval of the Settlement (Adv. No.
19-05053-cag, ECF No. 175) . The Rule 23 Motion sought preliminary
approval of the Settlement Agreement at issue now. In an oral
ruling on Oct. 1, 2021, the Court granted preliminary approval of
the Settlement Agreement, along with preliminary class
certification for the purposes of settlement, under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23.
Now, the Court must consider whether to approve the Settlement
Agreement submitted by the Trustee, the Lead Plaintiffs, and
Ebersol. If it approves the Application, then the attached
Settlement Agreement will be circulated to the Settlement Players
Class through the processes prescribed by Class Counsel in the AAF
Adversary.
Analysis
Under Rule 9019, the Court may approve a trustee's application for
settlement, citing Am. Can. Co. v. Herpel (In re Jackson Brewing
Co.), 624 F.2d 599, 602 (5th Cir. 1980). A compromise must be
"fair, equitable and in the best interest of the estate." The court
"must compare the `terms of the compromise with the likely rewards
of litigation.'" When considering a settlement agreement, Fifth
Circuit precedent requires the Court to consider the following
factors: (1) the probability of success in litigating the claim
subject to settlement, with due consideration for the uncertainty
in fact and law; (2) the complexity and likely duration of
litigation and any attendant expense, inconvenience, and delay; and
(3) all other factors bearing on the wisdom of the compromise.
I. The Probability of Success in Litigation With Due Consideration
for the Uncertainty in Fact and Law
A. Resolution of Trustee's Claim Objection
The litigation between the Trustee and the Lead Plaintiffs included
an objection to the Putative Class Claim that was consolidated with
the AAF Adversary. If the Court approves the Application, the
Trustee's Claim Objection will be resolved in its entirety. The
Trustee's Claim Objection contends that the Lead Plaintiffs cannot
certify a class for litigation or claims purposes here because Lead
Plaintiffs failed to certify the class pre-petition. Further, the
Trustee's Claim Objection contends the Lead Plaintiffs cannot
certify a class under Rule 7023, generally, because the claim does
not satisfy the class certification prerequisites.
Judge Gargotta holds that the Court has already permitted
preliminary class certification under Rules 7023(a)(3) and (b)(3)
in the AAF Adversary. In a prior ruling, the Court found
numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation
were satisfied. It also found that there were questions of law and
fact common to class members, and that a class action is superior
to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating
the controversy.
Ultimately, the Trustee, Schmidt, and Northrup supported
preliminary class certification after the parties agreed to enter
the settlement. The Trustee acknowledges his position in this
Application contradicts his initial position in Trustee's Claim
Objection because "the discovery and documents revealed that
certain factual averments underlying the plaintiffs' contractual
claims were, in fact, as plaintiffs alleged" and ran contrary to
his prior understanding that Players received all ten base
compensation payments for the 2019 season. Based on Trustee's
representations, Judge Gargotta finds it is appropriate to settle
the portion of Trustee's Claim Objection that objects to class
certification as a matter of law under Rule 7023.
B. Resolution of Settlement Players Class Claims Against the
Estate
The AAF Adversary includes claims against the Estate for breach of
contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, promissory estoppel, California Business and Professions
Code Section 17200 et seq., fraud, and promissory fraud. Trustee's
proposed Settlement would resolve all claims against the Estate,
subject to final approval of the Settlement by the Settlement
Players Class.5 Under the Settlement, all members of the Settlement
Players Class would have an allowed claim for $13,650 entitled to
priority under Section 507(a)(4) representing the last two payments
due and owing for the 2019 season under the SPA. In addition,
members of the Settlement Players Class would have a general
unsecured claim for $180,000 representing the second and third-year
base compensation under the SPA, subordinated to other general
unsecured claims. Schmidt and Northrup would receive an additional
general unsecured claim in the amount of $135,000 that will receive
pro rata distribution, if any, at the same time and with the same
rank as other general unsecured claims.
Judge Gargotta holds that although the league cancelled games, the
Players' obligations under the SPAs entailed more than playing
football games. Because Plaintiffs remained subject to the terms of
the SPA of which the Debtor did not terminate pre-petition, he
concludes it is appropriate for the Settlement to treat the last
two payments due for 2019 under the SPA as a priority wage claim
under Section 507(a)(4). He also finds that awarding each member of
the Settlement Players Class a general unsecured claim for $180,000
representing the second and third-year base compensation a
reasonable outcome. The Trustee has sufficiently demonstrated he
exercised sound business judgment in negotiating the terms of the
Settlement.
II. Complexity and Likely Duration of Litigation
The Trustee's Application contends that Jackson Brewing Co. factor
two supports approval of the Settlement because the AAF Adversary
has a complex combination of common law, statutory, and contract
claims that could be applied to multiple differently situated
Defendants. Dundon does not dispute Trustee's argument that
continued litigation of the issues contemplated by the Settlement
would result in drawn out, expensive litigation.
Judge Gargotta has reviewed the dockets in the case and the AAF
Adversary. He finds credible the Trustee's belief that failure to
settle the Settlement Players Class' claims against Ebersol and the
Estate would "almost certainly deplete available Estate funds and
make it impossible for the Debtors' Estate to bring any additional
claims it may have." He says, the Declaration of Randolph N.
Osherow in Support of Application to Approve Settlement Compromise
Under Rule 9019 declares, "the settlement on the terms proposed
likely represents the only chance that the Estate will have to
settle with the Plaintiffs in this litigation, or to prevent
defense costs from consuming most of what remains in the Estate."
The Declaration of Brian S. Engel in Support of Application to
Approve Compromise Under Rule 9019 declares, "if the Estate was
required to remain in litigation, higher priority administrative
claims stemming from defense costs would likely consume a large
portion, if not all of the remaining current Estate funds, which
are just less than $4 million." The Estate has limited funds to pay
creditors, and protracted litigation would "create administrative
claims that would substantially reduce, and maybe even consume the
remaining Estate." Therefore, Judge Gargotta is satisfied that
factor two is met.
III. All Other Factors, Including Creditor Support for the
Settlement and Extent to Which Settlement is Arm's-Length
Bargaining
The Trustee's Application argues that the third Jackson Brewing Co.
factor is met because, on the whole, the Settlement proposes to
solve many issues in the bankruptcy. Dundon disagrees that the
Settlement is appropriate under factor three. In particular, Dundon
argues the Settlement involuntarily alters the priority of Dundon
and DCP's claims by subordinating them to the Player's proposed
priority claims for the two payments remaining under year one of
the SPA. In his Response, the Trustee argues it is beneficial for
the Lead Plaintiffs to assign their claims against Ebersol to the
Estate because Ebersol "was an officer of the AAF, thereby creating
the possibility that the Estate would be liable for any allegedly
wrongful conduct of his in any case."
Judge Gargotta defers to the Trustee's business judgment as to the
claim against Ebersol. He acknowledges the Trustee's representation
that failure to settle the Settlement Players Class' claims against
Ebersol and the Estate would "almost certainly deplete available
Estate funds and make it impossible for the Debtors' Estate to
bring any additional claims it may have." He also concludes that
settlement is in the best interest of creditors because, according
to the Trustee, "the settlement on the terms proposed likely
represents the only chance that the 19 Estate will have to settle
with the Plaintiffs in this litigation, or to prevent defense costs
from consuming most of what remains in the Estate." Therefore,
Judge Gargotta concludes that the third factor of the Jackson
Brewing Co. is satisfied.
Conclusion
In light of the foregoing, Judge Gargotta granted the Trustee's
Application. He denied all other relief requested.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5bvtkkee from Leagle.com.
LIBERTY OILFIELD: Correa Securities Suit Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CIPRIANO CORREA and MARC
JOSEPH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. LIBERTY OILFIELD SERVICES INC., et al., Case
No. 1:20-cv-00946-RM-NYW (D. Colo.), the Lead Plaintiff Cipriano
Correa and named plaintiff Marc Joseph ask the Court to enter an
order:
1. certifying a class, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23,
consisting of:
"All persons and entities who purchased the common stock
of Liberty Oilfield Services Inc. in Liberty's Initial
Public Offering ("IPO"), which closed on January 17, 2018,
or purchased Liberty common stock thereafter in the stock
market pursuant and/or traceable to Liberty's registration
statement and prospectus (together, the "Registration
Statement") issued in connection with the IPO during the
period from January 12, 2018 to April 3, 2020 (the "Class
Period");"
Excluded from the Class are: (a) persons who suffered no
compensable losses; and (b) Defendants; 1 the present and
former officers and directors of Liberty; members of such
excluded persons' immediate families and their legal
representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any
entity in which any of the Defendants, or any person
excluded under this subsection (b), has or had a majority
ownership interest at any time;
2. appointing them as class representatives for the Class;
3. appointing Lead Counsel, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as Class
Counsel.
This class action arises from Liberty's sale of 14.3 million shares
of common stock, priced at $17 per share, in the IPO. The Complaint
alleges that Defendants issued a Registration Statement in
connection with the IPO, and that the Registration Statement
contained false statements and omitted material facts, in violation
of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Securities Act").
Liberty provides hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking,
services to oil and gas companies in North America.
On January 17, 2018, Liberty completed a $220 million IPO and
became a publicly-traded company. In connection with the IPO,
Liberty filed a Registration Statement with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC"). The Registration Statement was
allegedly false and misleading.
Specifically, the Registration Statement failed to disclose that
the fracking industry was adding capacity at an unprecedented rate
at the time of Liberty's IPO, leading to oversupply and negatively
impacting the prices that fracking companies, including Liberty,
could charge for their services. Indeed, barely a week after the
IPO, the Houston Chronicle published an article detailing the
unprecedented build-up of supply in the fracking industry, and
reported that fracking supply was poised to reach a new record high
in 2018. Id. Former employees of Liberty admitted that the
oversupply was forcing Liberty to lower its prices and seek
discounts from vendors, the lawsuit says.
The Defendants include CHRISTOPHER A. WRIGHT, MICHAEL STOCK, CARY
D. STEINBECK, WILLIAM F. KIMBLE, PETER A. DEA, N. JOHN LANCASTER,
JR., BRETT STAFFIERI, KEN BABCOCK, JESAL SHAH, MORGAN STANLEY & CO.
LLC, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC,
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, EVERCORE
GROUP L.L.C., PIPER SANDLER & CO., TUDOR, PICKERING, HOLT & CO.
SECURITIES, LLC, HOULIHAN LOKEY CAPITAL, INC., INTREPID PARTNERS,
LLC, PETRIE PARTNERS SECURITIES, LLC, SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY,
INC., R/C ENERGY IV DIRECT PARTNERSHIP, L.P., and R/C IV LIBERTY
HOLDINGS, L.P.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Nov. 1,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3o2NIYF
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Yu Shi, Esq.
Michael Cohen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
yshi@rosenlegal.com
mcohen@rosenlegal.com
LIFE CARE: Class Certification Order in Lavrenyuk Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, OLENA LAVRENYUK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff-Respondent v. LIFE CARE
SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellant, 156393/17, Appeal No.
14504-14504A, Case No. 2021-02414 (N.Y. App. Div.), affirmed
without costs the orders of Judge Alexander M. Tisch of the Supreme
Court, New York County, entered on June 30, 2020.
The order granted the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
and leave to amend the complaint, denied the Defendant's cross
motion to strike the affidavit of a putative class member and for
counsel fees and sanctions, and approved the form and publication
of notice of the class action.
The Appellate Division finds that the Defendant's records
indicating that the putative class member never worked any shifts
are not conclusive as to her employment status, but simply raise a
question of fact as to the veracity of her affidavit, since the
records show that the putative class member was considered an
employee and participated in an in-service training program. There
is no evidence to support the Defendant's claim that the Plaintiff
or her counsel submitted the affidavit knowing that it was
materially false, and notably, one of the Plaintiff's central
claims is that the Defendant did not keep accurate records of the
hours worked by its employees.
The Appellate Division holds that the court did not improvidently
exercise its discretion in determining that the Plaintiff met her
burden of demonstrating the prerequisites for class action
certification under CPLR 901 and 902. In support of her motion for
certification, the Plaintiff submitted evidence that she worked
with at least 40 other home health aides, and also submitted her
paystubs and those of other employees. She sufficiently established
that the class was so numerous that joinder of all members was
impracticable and provided evidence that the commonality and
typicality of her claims were well suited to class action, which
has been determined to be a superior vehicle for resolving the type
of widespread wage violations alleged.
The CPLR 902 factors also weigh in favor of class certification,
given that the burden on litigants and on courts would likely be
significantly increased if aggrieved employees were forced to
pursue individual lawsuits.
The Appellate Division further holds that the court properly
granted the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint.
The proposed amendments, which consist largely of related factual
allegations, are not palpably insufficient or devoid of merit on
the face of this record. Furthermore, the Defendant fails to show
prejudice or surprise, as discovery is ongoing.
The Appellate Division has considered the Defendant's remaining
contentions and finds them unavailing.
The Order constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court,
Appellate Division, First Department.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/27s438eu from Leagle.com.
Peckar & Abramson, P.C., in New York City (Aaron C. Schlesinger --
ASchlesinger@pecklaw.com -- of counsel), for the Appellant.
Virginia & Ambinder, LLP, in New York City (LaDonna M. Lusher --
llusher@vandallp.com -- of counsel), for the Respondent.
LOS ANGELES, CA: Thai Bid for Partial Summary Judgment Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANH VAN THAI, DON DOAN,
TOMMY NGUYEN, and ROES 1-100, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; WILLIAM
VILLASENOR; DULCE SANCHEZ; and STATE AND/OR LOCAL AGENTS LADA DOES
1-10, Case No. 3:15-cv-00583-WQH-NLS (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
William Q. Hayes entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion
for partial summary judgment and supplemental motion for partial
summary judgment.
In this case, the Court has concluded that there are issues of
material fact as to whether Plaintiffs were deprived of their
constitutional rights and as to whether Defendants Villasenor and
Sanchez were acting under color of state law at the time of the
alleged deprivations. The Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate
that they were deprived of a constitutional right or that any
County policy caused the alleged deprivation as a matter of law.
Further, the evidence relied upon by Plaintiffs to support the
assertion that the County's policies caused the alleged violations
is the evidence of the alleged underlying 19 violations by
Defendants Villasenor and Sanchez. The Plaintiffs are not entitled
to summary judgment on the issue of the liability of Defendant
County for violations of Plaintiffs' Fourth and Fifth Amendment
rights under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. The Plaintiffs' motions for
Partial Summary Judgment are denied.
On April 10, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the dismissal of several claims in this case and remanded
the action to this Court. On February 19, 2021, Plaintiffs Anh Van
Thai, Don Doan, Tommy Nguyen, and Roes 1 through 100 filed a Fourth
Amended Class Action Complaint (FAC) against Defendants William
Villasenor, Dulce Sanchez, County of Los Angeles, and "State and/or
Local Agents LADA Does 1-10," the operative complaint in this
matter.
The Plaintiffs allege that in early 2014, Defendants Villasenor and
Sanchez forcibly entered Plaintiffs' homes and unlawfully
interrogated them about their Social Security applications,
pursuant to a County of Los Angeles policy.
A copy of the Court's orderdated Oct. 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wnnGmX at no extra charge.[CC]
LYFT INC: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Lowell Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HARRIET LOWELL and
WESTCHESTER DISABLED ON THE MOVE, INC., individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated, v. LYFT, INC., case No.
7:17-cv-06251-PMH-AEK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Andrew E. Krause
entered a sixth amended civil case discovery plan and scheduling
order as follows:
1. All parties do not consent to conducting all further
proceedings before a Magistrate Judge, including motions
and trial, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636(c).
2. All of Plaintiffs' claims are to be tried to the Court,
not to a jury.
3. Joinder of additional parties may be accomplished only
with leave of court.
4. Amended pleadings may be filed only with leave of court.
5. Interrogatories shall be served no later than January 8,
2021, and responses thereto shall be served within 30 days
thereafter.
6. First request for production of documents, if any, shall
be served no later than February 28, 2019.
7. The parties shall complete their data and document
production by March 5, 2021.
8. Non-expert depositions shall be completed by December 1,
2021.
Lyft, Inc. develops, markets, and operates a mobile app, offering
vehicles for hire, motorized scooters, a bicycle-sharing system,
rental cars, and food delivery.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3q49Vbo at no extra charge.[CC]
MAJESTIC CARE: Wright Suit Seeks to Certify Healthcare Worker Class
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRYSTAL WRIGHT, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. MAJESTIC CARE STAFF
LLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-02129-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"):
(a) conditionally certifying this case as a FLSA collective
action under Section 216(b) against Defendant Wise
Medical Staffing, Inc. on behalf of Named Plaintiff and
others similarly situated;
(b) directing that notice be sent by United States mail and
email to the following class:
"All current and former hourly, non-exempt healthcare
employees of Defendant who worked or were scheduled to
work at least 40 hours in any workweek and had a meal
deduction taken from their compensable hours worked,
beginning three years prior to the filing date of this
Motion and continuing through the date of the final
disposition of this case;"
(c) approving the proposed Notice form informing such present
and former employees of the pendency of this collective
action and permitting them to opt in to the case by
signing and submitting the proposed Consent to Join Form;
(d) directing Defendant to provide, within 14 days of an
order granting conditional certification, a roster of all
persons who fit the definition in Paragraph (b) (the
"Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs") that includes their full
names, their dates of employment, their locations worked,
job titles, their last known mailing addresses, and their
personal email addresses (the "Roster"); and
(e) directing that the Court-approved Notice and Consent to
Join forms be sent to such present and former employees
within 14 days of receipt of the Roster using the
Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs' mailing and email addresses.
The Named Plaintiff and other members of the proposed class are
non-exempt healthcare employees, including but not limited to
Resident Aides ("RAs"), Certified Nursing Assistants ("CNAs"),
State Tested Nursing Assistants ("STNAs"), and Licensed Practical
Nurses ("LPNs") who have not been paid wages and overtime wages for
all hours worked.
This case involves Defendant's companywide meal deduction policy
and/or practice. Named Plaintiff has submitted allegations and
evidence that under this policy and/or practice, the Defendant
requires a meal break deduction from its hourly, non-exempt
healthcare employees' daily hours worked for meal breaks that are
either never taken or are interrupted with work duties. This policy
and/or practice that requires a meal break deduction deprives
Defendant's hourly, non-exempt healthcare employees of their
hard-earned overtime pay.
Majestic Care provides community-based senior care throughout
Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 29,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3q7OXsm
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 29,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CRgIZP
at no extra charge.[CC]
MANNA PRO: Class Settlement in Hale Suit Wins Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Ashley Hale individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Manna Pro Products, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00209-KJM-DB
(E.D. Cal.), Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California granted Ms. Hale's two
unopposed motions:
a. motion seeking an award of attorneys' fees and costs and
payment of an incentive award to Ms. Hale; and
b. motion for final approval of the parties' class action
settlement.
Background
Ms. Hale, a rabbit breeder, bought "Manna Pro Select Series Pro
Formula Premium Rabbit Feed" (the feed mix). The bag was labeled
with the following: "Contains No Corn: Helps Reduce The Risk of
Digestive Disorders." The list of ingredients on the bag did not
include corn. After purchasing the bag, Ms. Hale found the feed mix
had traces of corn. She then purchased additional bags and found
those bags also contained corn.
Ms. Hale alleges she would not have purchased the feed mix had she
known there was corn because corn can be harmful to rabbits. Corn
"can increase the risk of a toxic mold, which mimics rabies and can
cause death" and also can "cause rabbits to put on 'bad' fat and
have increased health issues." She argues the Defendant's labeling
practice is deceptive in that it allows the Defendant to profit
because it can charge $17.99 per bag for its purportedly corn-free
feed mix, while competitors charge about $10 to $12 per bag for
mixes not labeled as corn-free.
On Jan. 30, 2018, Ms. Hale filed the action, and the Defendants
moved to dismiss. Ms. Hale amended the complaint, and the Court
denied the motion to dismiss as moot. Shortly thereafter, the
parties stipulated to the Plaintiff's filing another amended
complaint. The operative second amended complaint makes three
claims against the Defendant on behalf of the class: (1) unfair and
unlawful business practices in violation of California's unfair
competition law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et
seq., (2) fraudulent business practices in violation of the UCL,
and (3) violation of California's false advertising law (FAL), Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500, et seq.
After "a substantial amount of written discovery," the parties
participated in a full day of mediation before the retired
Honorable James P. Gray. Mediation resulted in a settlement and the
Plaintiff then moved for preliminary approval, which the Court
granted.
Under the settlement, the Defendant will pay $62,500 "on a claims
made basis to Class Members, with each Class Member who makes a
claim receiving a pro rata share of the amount." It has agreed to
pay the class counsel's attorneys' fees, litigation and
administration costs, and an incentive award to the class
representative. The amount of these payments will not be deducted
from the class fund. The Defendant also agrees to revise the
package labeling and advertising of the feed mix so it is no longer
advertised as corn-free.
The Court approved the following class: "All individuals in
California who purchased one or more units of Select Series Pro
Formula Rabbit Food, for which the packaging contained a
representation which stated: Contains No Corn between Jan. 30, 2014
to May 14, 2019 (the Class Period)."
At the time of preliminary approval, the parties estimated the
class would "consist of approximately 1,583 individuals whose
contact information is known and ascertainable."
The Court granted preliminary approval subject to the parties'
resolving several issues prior to final approval. First, it
"required greater detail on the question of predominance at the
final approval stage." Second, the Court required further
justification for the $125,000 attorneys' fees and directed parties
to file support showing "the negotiated fee reasonably compensates
class counsel." Finally, the Court noted further support was needed
for the proposed incentive award of $7,500 to Ms. Hale.
Originally the class counsel planned to fulfill notice requirements
by mailing notice directly to California purchasers that could be
identified from records of retailors, such as Walmart, who sold the
feed. The settlement administrator would also put the notice and
claims forms on the Settlement Website. After the Court granted
preliminary approval, the parties conferred with Walmart and found
they could not obtain the contact information for class members who
bought the feed there. The parties then stipulated to effect notice
by publication. The Court approved the amended notice plan.
Simpluris, the settlement administrator, effected notice by
multiple methods over several months. In July 2020, Simpluris
mailed direct notice to 28 identified class members. Since Feb. 9,
2021, Simpluris has been maintaining the settlement website (www.
MannaProSettlement.com), which displays the long form notice, the
claim form, and the other settlement related documents.
Simpluris also established a toll-free number, which potential
class members could call to obtain information about the
settlement. It ran a one-page ad about the settlement on March 15,
2021 and May 15, 2021 in Domestic Rabbits magazine. Simpluris also
utilized digital platforms to publish notices by placing two online
banner ads on Facebook, Google, and targeted websites; posting the
settlement information and a link to the settlement website on the
Top Class Actions website; and arranging for a leader of the
California Rabbit Breeders Group to post about this case on the
group's Facebook page. It also informed the Humane Society,
Petfinder.com, Petfinder Foundation, Friends of Rabbits, Los
Angeles Rabbit Foundation and "leaders of 60 different rabbit
breeder clubs in California, requesting them to share the class
settlement website with members."
Based on the changes to the proposed notice, the Court directed the
parties to address how any unclaimed residual funds would be
distributed, and the parties stipulated to cy pres distribution to
Public Justice. The Court approved the notice by publication and
directed the parties to provide additional support before the final
approval hearing.
The Plaintiff now moves unopposed for final approval of the class
settlement, and attorneys' fees. When the Plaintiff filed the
motion in April 2021, only 74 class members had submitted valid
claims. The estimated individual payment was approximately $844.59.
After the website Top Class Actions published an article about the
action, however, the number of claims drastically increased, with
3,891 submitted by May 21, 2021.
The Court held a final approval hearing on May 28, 2021 attended by
class counsel Morgan George and Defendant's counsel Laura Bentele,
PHV. As the new claims had not yet been verified, the Court ordered
the Plaintiff to submit supplemental briefing to identify the size
of the class. After extensive efforts by the settlement
administrator and two supplemental filings, the Plaintiffs
represented there are a total of 471 approved claims, and each
claimant will receive $132.70. No class members have made
objections or opted out.
A. Final Approval
The applicable factors favor final approval of the proposed
settlement. Judge Mueller finds no reason to displace the Court's
previous conclusion that the class counsels' representation has
been adequate. Similarly, she finds no reason to reconsider its
earlier conclusion that Ms. Hale performed adequately as class
representative. She also finds no reason to reverse its prior
finding that the agreement was negotiated at arms' length.
At the time of preliminary approval, the Court assumed "a 100
percent claim rate by the 1,583 class members, and the recovery per
claimant was approximately $39," a recovery the court considered to
be adequate given the product's retail value and "as originally
contemplated against the settlement value." Given that the 471
verified class members will receive a more generous $132.70 each,
Judge Mueller maintains its finding on this record that the
settlement amount is adequate relief for the class. That no class
member has objected or opted out bolsters her conclusions.
Judge Mueller also finds that the cy pres distribution of any
unclaimed funds to Public Justice is appropriate.
B. Attorneys' Fees and Incentive Award
The parties have agreed the defendant will separately pay
attorneys' fees and costs up to $125,000, administration costs of
$30,000 and 50 percent of any cost incurred above $30,000, and a
$7,500 incentive award to Ms. Hale. In granting preliminary
approval the Court directed the counsel to submit substantial
justification for the attorneys' fees and the incentive award. It
observed the proposed attorneys' fees award appeared "particularly
problematic," because the anticipated amount of $125,000 "is double
the value of the $62,500 settlement fund."
First, Judge Mueller approves the total request of $120,000 to
cover the attorney's fees and costs. She finds the number of hours
the counsel spent on the case reasonable given the filing date in
2018, and the need to respond to a motion to dismiss, amend the
complaint twice, engage in a full day of mediation, and make
several filings in order to obtain preliminary and now final
approval.
Judge Mueller also reduces the rates of both Bacon and George to
$495 per hour. With this adjustment, the lodestar amount is
$139,890. The requested fees are below this amount, resulting in a
negative multiplier. The proposed attorneys' fees thus are
reasonable given the lodestar calculation, the small class, the low
settlement amount, and the fact that the attorneys' fees are being
paid separately from the settlement amount. Accordingly, Jduge
Mueller approves the total request of $120,000 to cover the
attorney's fees and costs.
Second, the proposed incentive award in the amount of $7,500 also
will be paid separate from the settlement fund. Ms. Hale dedicated
many hours of her time to assisting in the litigation over the last
few years. She has answered written discovery requests, provided
documents and "information to support the notice and certification
process," and participated "in the motions and settlement
discussions reviewing and approving the settlement." An incentive
award in the range reflected is reasonable given Ms. Hale's
contributions to the litigation. Jdge Mueller approves the
incentive award of $7,500 to Ms. Hale.
Conclusion
Judge Mueller grants the motion for final approval of the class
settlement and the motion for attorneys' fees. Her Order resolves
ECF Nos. 67 & 68.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/dy652uxw from Leagle.com.
MARATHON REFINING: Continuance of Class Cert. Dates in Wood Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANICE WOOD, ANTHONY
ALFARO, and AARON DIETRICH on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, v. MARATHON REFINING LOGISTICS SERVICES LLC,
and DOES 1 THROUGH AND INCLUDING 25, Case No. 4:19-cv-04287-YGR
(N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order continuing
the remaining class certification dates as follows:
(1) Responsive/opposition brief due by January 31, 2022. If
declarant depositions are not completed prior to January
14, 2022, the Court will permit the parties to file a
furtherstipulation (should they reach one) to continue
the above class certification briefing deadlines.
Plaintiffs reserve their right to oppose any such
request.
(2) Reply brief due on February 28, 2022. If Defendant
submits declarations with the opposition, the Court will
permit the parties to file a further stipulation (should
they reach one) to continue the above class certification
briefing deadlines in order to allow Plaintiffs to depose
the declarants. Defendant reserves it right to oppose any
such request.
(3) The hearing date for the motion will be set for the week
of March 14, 2022, or other date thereafter for which the
Court is available.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3q5Z6pl at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kristina L. Hillman, Esq.
Jannah V. Manansala, Esq.
Roberta D. Perkins, Esq.
Alexander S. Nazarov, Esq.
Maximillian D. Casillas, Esq.
Kara L. Gordon, Esq.
WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD
A Professional Corporation
1375 55th Street
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (510) 337-1001
Facsimile: (510) 337-1023
E-Mail: courtnotices@unioncounsel.net
khillman@unioncounsel.net
manansala@unioncounsel.net
rperkins@unioncounsel.net
anazarov@unioncounsel.net
mcasillas@unioncounsel.net
kgordon@unioncounsel.net
- and -
Aaron Kaufmann, Esq.
David Pogrel, Esq.
LEONARD CARDER, LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2700
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone (510) 272-0169
Facsimile (510) 272-0174
E-mail: akaufmann@leonardcarder.com
dpogrel@leonardcarder.com
The Defendant is represented by:
William J. Dritsas, Esq.
Timothy M. Rusche, Esq.
Michael W. Kopp, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 397-2823
Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
E-mail: wdritsas@seyfarth.com
mmanesis@seyfarth.com
afry@seyfarth.com
mkopp@seyfarth.com
MARCUS POLLARD: Completion of Class Discovery Due April 1, 2022
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RHONDA FITZGERALD, an
individual, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v.
MARCUS POLLARD; Lieutenant C. MOORE; Sargeant H. CRUZ; Officer
JACKSON; Officer LITTLE; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
3:20-cv-00848-JM-NLS (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Nita L. Stormes
entered an order granting the motion for extension of time to
complete class discovery and to file for class certification, and
amending the scheduling order as follows:
-- The deadline for completion of class discovery is April 1,
2022.
-- Plaintiff must file a motion for class certification by
May 16, 2022.
-- The parties must contact the Magistrate Judge's Chambers
within three court days of receiving a ruling on the class
certification motion to set a date for a further Case
Management Conference.
Before the Court is the parties' joint motion for an extension of
time to complete 21 class discovery and to file the motion for
class certification. The parties state that a 91-day extension is
necessary because they have not been able to engage in class
discovery due to various motion practice and stays on class
discovery that have been in place due to the motion practice.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3q54oRT at no extra charge.[CC]
MASSACHUSETTS: Declaratory & Injunctive Orders in Reid Suit Vacated
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK ANTHONY REID; ROBERT WILLIAMS, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated; LEO FELIX CHARLES, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, Petitioners,
Appellants/Cross-Appellees v. CHRISTOPHER J. DONELAN, Sheriff,
Franklin County, Massachusetts; LORI STREETER, Superintendent,
Franklin County Jail & House of Correction; THOMAS M. HODGSON,
Sheriff, Bristol County, Massachusetts; JOSEPH D. McDONALD, JR.,
Sheriff, Plymouth County, Massachusetts; STEVEN W. TOMPKINS,
Sheriff, Suffolk County, Massachusetts; ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS,
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; DENIS C. RIORDAN,
Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Boston Field Office;
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General; JEAN KING, Acting Director of
the Executive Office for Immigration Review; EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR
IMMIGRATION REVIEW; DAVID DUBOIS, Sheriff, Strafford County, New
Hampshire; CHRISTOPHER BRACKETT, Superintendent, Strafford County
House of Corrections; TAE D. JOHNSON, Acting Director, Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, Respondents, Appellees/Cross-Appellants,
Case Nos. 19-1787, 19-1900 (1st Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit issued an Order:
a. affirming the district court's ruling that there is no per
se constitutional entitlement to a bond hearing after six
months of detention; and
b. otherwise vacating the district court's declaratory and
injunctive relief as advisory and remand for entry of
judgment.
Background
The class action, brought on behalf of noncitizen detainees held
without possibility of release pending the completion of their
removal proceedings, comes before the Court for a second time. The
Petitioners represent a certified class of noncitizens who have
been detained by the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS)
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division in Massachusetts
and New Hampshire pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(c) for more
than six months without a bond hearing.
The district court judge to whom the case was first assigned
observed that the absence of any provision for release on bond from
a prolonged detention might call the statute's constitutionality
into question. The district court therefore read into section
1226(c) a requirement that detainees receive an individualized bond
hearing once further detention becomes "unreasonable." It then
further considered whether "reasonableness" should be assessed for
each detainee based on his or her individual circumstances or
whether the statute will be read as requiring a "bright-line rule"
limiting detention without a bond hearing to six months for all
persons detained under section 1226(c).
The court concluded that the statute should be read as mandating an
individualized bond hearing after no more than six months of
detention. In the alternative, it found that even if no bright-line
rule applied, Reid's own individual circumstances required an
opportunity for a bond hearing, citing the length of his
fourteen-month detention, the uncertainty of his removal, and the
absence of any dilatory tactics by Reid himself.
On appeal, the First Circuit reversed the holding that section
1226(c) included a bright-line rule that all persons detained must
receive an individualized bond hearing after six months of
detention. It agreed, though, that the statute included "an
implicit reasonableness limitation," the length of which would turn
on the individual circumstances presented by each detainee. At the
same time, it reviewed and affirmed the district court's
alternative holding that section 1226(c) required an individualized
bond hearing in Reid's own case.
Importantly for the First Circuit's present purposes, it observed
that "the bright-line rule was an essential predicate to class
certification." In vacating the class certification order, it left
it for the district court in the first instance to decide on remand
whether "it is feasible to redefine the class."
The Supreme Court subsequently issued its decision in Jennings v.
Rodriguez, rejecting the contention that section 1226(c) can be
read as requiring bond hearings after six months of immigration
detention. The Court found that section 1226(c) clearly precludes
release on bond prior to the end of removal proceedings (except for
witness protection purposes). The Court reasoned that the canon of
constitutional avoidance had no role to play when the statute
itself spoke clearly on the matter at hand. Whether the statute for
that reason might be unconstitutional under some circumstances, the
Court did not decide.
Following Jennings, the First Circuit withdrew its 2016 opinion and
vacated the judgment. In so doing, it affirmed the district court's
judgment as to named plaintiff Mark Reid himself, vacated the
judgment as to the class members, and remanded the case to the
district court for "reconsideration of the certification order."
Following remand, a second district court judge took over the case.
After briefing and argument, the district court allowed the
addition of two new named plaintiffs to replace Reid. It also
allowed the Plaintiffs to pursue a new theory: that "the Due
Process Clause or Excessive Bail Clause requires that they at least
have the chance to plead their case after six months at an
individualized bond or reasonableness hearing."
Based on this new constitutional version of a bright-line six-month
rule, the district court allowed the case to proceed as a class
action. Analogizing to the earlier ruling certifying a class to
advocate for relief based on an implied statutory requirement of a
bright-line six-month rule, the court reasoned that the new theory
similarly posed a common question that could generate a right to
relief as a matter of law without reference to varying individual
circumstances. "A holding that the Constitution provides a right to
a reasonableness hearing during a prolonged detention would resolve
all class members' claims at once."
The district court also expanded the class slightly to include "All
individuals who are or will be detained within the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts or the State of New Hampshire pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
Section 1226(c) for over six months and have not been afforded an
individualized bond or reasonableness hearing."
After cross-motions for summary judgment "on whether mandatory
detention of the class members under 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(c) for
over six months violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause or
the Eighth Amendment Excessive Bail Clause," the district court
partially granted and partially denied each side's motion and
issued a declaratory order and a permanent injunction.
Most significantly for present purposes, the district court
rejected the Petitioners' contention that every detainee must have
the opportunity for a hearing after no more than six months of
detention. Instead, the court reasoned, determining the length of
time that might constitutionally pass without a bond hearing
requires "a fact-specific analysis" that turns on each
"noncitizen's individual circumstances."
Rather than stopping at that point, the district court also issued
declaratory and injunctive relief in favor of all class members,
irrespective of their individual circumstances. That relief
established detailed substantive and procedural rules whereby
individual detainees might pursue release. The court decreed that
detention without a bond hearing "is likely to be unreasonable if
it lasts for more than one year during removal proceedings before
the agency, excluding any delays due to the alien's dilatory
tactics."
Looking even further ahead to possible bond hearings themselves,
the district court also ordered the government to follow the
"procedural rules mandated by due process at a bond hearing." In
its view, those rules meant that in any bond hearing held for a
class member whose individual circumstances warranted such a
hearing, the government must prove the noncitizen "either dangerous
by clear and convincing evidence or a risk of flight by a
preponderance of the evidence." The immigration court would not be
allowed "to impose excessive bail, must evaluate the alien's
ability to pay in setting bond, and must consider alternative
conditions of release such as GPS monitoring that reasonably assure
the safety of the community and the alien's future appearances."
Both sides appeal.
Discussion
I.
First, the First Circuit considers the Petitioners' argument that
the district court erred in refusing to hold that all persons
detained under section 1226(c) have a constitutional right to a
hearing concerning the reasonableness of their continued detention
after they have been detained longer than six months. The First
Circuit agrees with the district court.
It explains that it adheres to the notion that "the Due Process
Clause imposes some form of 'reasonableness' limitation upon the
duration of detention under section 1226(c)." It nevertheless also
continues to view the Supreme Court's ruling in Demore v. Kim, 538
U.S. 510, 530-31 (2003), "as implicitly foreclosing our ability to
adopt a firm six-month rule" equally applicable to all section
1226(c) detainees, which caused the withdrawal of our previous
opinion in the case, did nothing to call that view into question.
Among other things, the First Circuit holds that the Petitioners
point to no court that has treated the prohibition on excessive
bail as categorically requiring an opportunity for release within a
specific amount of time. Nor do they provide any convincing reason
to think that the Excessive Bail Clause would require a bond
hearing when the Due Process Clause does not. Nor, finally, does
its recent opinion in Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19 (1st
Cir. 2021), call for a different result.
The petitioner in that case was detained under section 1226(a), not
section 1226(c). The First Circuit was therefore able to
distinguish Demore fairly, citing the "quite different"
circumstances, and noting that detention under section 1226(a) (of
persons not convicted of crimes triggering 1226(c) detention) often
lasted longer than the "brief" detention at issue in Demore.
II.
Both sides appeal from the declaratory and injunctive relief. The
Petitioners complain about being ordered to bring their requests
for bond hearings before district courts rather than immigration
judges; they also assert that a detainee should be presumptively
entitled to a bond hearing well before the passage of one year of
detention. And they object to the ruling that they can be denied
bail if the government proves they are a flight risk by a
preponderance of the evidence, rather than by clear and convincing
evidence. The government marshals a more global assault on the
declaratory and injunctive relief. It argues, among other things,
that the district court's rulings are free-floating advisory
opinions untethered to any actual case or controversy between any
of the parties.
The First Circuit cannot say that the court's declaration and
injunction, beyond rejecting the per se six-month claim, resolves
"an issue that is central to the validity of each person's claims
in one stroke." It holds that although a class can be certified
even if there are some individual issues that can be efficiently
and fairly adjudicated individually, see In re Asacol Antitrust
Litigation, no precedent of which we are aware supports using a
properly certified class as a bootstrap to then adjudicate, on a
class-wide basis, claims that hinge on the individual circumstances
of each class member. Whether it call it a lack of standing, or the
absence of a case or controversy, the result is the same: The
district court lacked the jurisdiction necessary to turn its
considered guidance into binding equitable relief.
The First Circuit recognizes that having clear standards for
determining whether and when a section 1226(c) detainee need be
released pending the conclusion of the detainee's removal
proceedings would make life simpler for all involved. Such
standards might arise in the form of agency regulations. Or they
might emerge like common law rules of precedential force, through
case-by-case adjudication, as in our recent decision in
Hernandez-Lara. The First Circuit simply holds that this particular
Rule 23(b)(2) class action does not provide a vehicle for
preemptively announcing such rules.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the First Circuit affirms the judgment
against the class rejecting the claim that persons detained for six
months under section 1226(c) are automatically entitled to a
hearing before an immigration judge that might lead to their
release on bond pending the conclusion of removal proceedings. It
otherwise vacates the district court's declaratory and injunctive
orders, and remands for the entry of final judgment in accord with
its Opinion. Nothing in its Opinion precludes any class member from
pursuing a claim that he or she is entitled to a bond hearing or to
release based on his or her individual circumstances. Each party is
to bear its own costs.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/25fwrm9u from Leagle.com.
Anant K. Saraswat -- Anant.Saraswat@WolfGreenfield.com -- and
Michael Tayag, with whom Michelle Nyein --
Michelle.Nyein@WolfGreenfield.com -- Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks,
P.C., Grace Choi, Kayla Crowell, Aseem Mehta, Alden Pinkham, Bianca
Rey, Marisol Orihuela, Michael Wishnie, Jerome N. Frank Legal
Services Organization, Michael K.T. Tan, and ACLU Immigrants'
Rights Project were on brief, for the Appellants/Cross-Appellees.
William Tong, Attorney General of the State of Connecticut, Clare
Kindall, Solicitor General of the State of Connecticut, Joshua
Perry, Special Counsel for Civil Rights, Kathleen Jennings,
Attorney General of the State of Delaware, Keith Ellison, Attorney
General of the State of Minnesota, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General
of the State of Nevada, Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General of the
State of New Mexico, Letitia James, Attorney General of the State
of New York, Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General of the State of
Oregon, Thomas J. Donovan, Jr., Attorney General of the State of
Vermont, Maura Healey, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, Mark R. Herring, Attorney General of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, and Karl A. Racine, Attorney General of
the District of Columbia, on brief for the States of Connecticut,
Delaware, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and
Vermont, the Commonwealths of Massachusetts and Virginia, and the
District of Columbia, amici curiae.
Alina Das, Rebecca Suldan, and Washington Square Legal Services,
Immigrant Rights Clinic, on brief for Boston College Immigration
Clinic, Boston University School of Law, Immigrants' Rights and
Human Trafficking Program, Detention Watch Network, Families for
Freedom, Greater Boston Legal Services, Harvard Law School
Crimmigration Clinic, Immigrant Defense Project, Immigrant Legal
Resource Center, Lawyers for Civil Rights, National Immigration
Project of the National Lawyers Guild, and Suffolk University Law
School Immigration Clinic, amici curiae.
Kevin P. Martin -- kmartin@goodwinlaw.com -- Madelaine M. Cleghorn
-- mcleghorn@bruman.com -- and Goodwin Procter LLP, on brief for
The American Immigration Lawyers Association, amicus curiae.
Sarah H. Paoletti and Transnational Legal Clinic, University of
Pennsylvania Law School, on brief for International Law Professors
and Human Rights Clinicians, amici curiae.
James J. Beha II -- jbeha@mofo.com -- and Morrison & Foerster LLP,
on brief for Retired Immigration Judges and Board of Immigration
Appeals Members, amici curiae.
Nina Rabin and Immigrant Family Legal Clinic, UCLA School of Law,
on brief for 35 Scholars and Researchers in Sociology, Criminology,
Anthropology, Psychology, Geography, Public Health, Medicine, Latin
American Studies, and Law, Whose Work Relates to Incarceration,
Detention, and the Effect of U.S. Immigration Detention and Removal
Policies on Migrant Populations, amici curiae.
Jonathan D. Selbin -- jselbin@lchb.com -- Jason L. Lichtman --
jlichtman@lchb.com -- Katherine I. McBride, Elizabeth J. Cabraser,
Andrew R. Kaufman, and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, on
brief for Civil Law Professors, amici curiae.
Lauren E. Fascett, Senior Litigation Counsel, Civil Division,
Office of Immigration Litigation, with whom Joseph H. Hunt,
Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, William C. Peachey,
Director, District Court Section, Office of Immigration Litigation,
Elianis N. Perez, Assistant Director, Sarah S. Wilson, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Appellate Counsel Section, Office of
Immigration Litigation, and Catherine M. Reno, Trial Attorney,
Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, were on brief for
the Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
MBM DELIVERY: Bunnell Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages & OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
TODD BUNNELL, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MBM DELIVERY AND LOGISTICS, LLC, and DHL
EXPRESS (USA) INC d/b/a DHL EXPRESS, Defendants, Case No.
5:21-cv-00511 (M.D. Fla., October 15, 2021) is a collective action
complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a courier driver
from approximately July 2020 to October 2020.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated courier drivers were regularly scheduled to work 5 or more
days per week with shifts that exceeded 8 hours in length. They
were required by the Defendant to complete all assigned routes
regardless of the length of their shifts. Additionally, they worked
through their meal period due to the volume of work. However, the
Defendants did not compensate them for all hours worked despite
regularly working more than 40 hours per workweek. The Defendants
denied them of 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, says the suit.
DHL is the world's leading delivery company. MBM Delivery and
Logistics, LLC provides last-mile delivery services to DHL Express.
Both Defendants jointly employ non-exempt Courier Drivers to
transport packages from DHL's facilities to DHL's customers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
1101 E. Cumberland Ave.
Suite 201H, #105
Tampa, FL 33602
Tel: (352) 753-8600
Fax: (352) 504-3301
E-mail: bwarwick@vandwlaw.com
jvarnell@vandwlaw.com
kstroly@vandwlaw.com
- and –
Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
Reginald Streater, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market St., Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (215) 875-3000
Fax: (215) 875-4620
E-mail: crodriguez@bm.net
apiazza@bm.net
rstreater@bm.net
MDL 2818: Bid to Dismiss GM AC Mktg. & Sales Practices Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: GENERAL MOTORS AIR CONDITIONING MARKETING AND
SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION. ALL CASES, Case No. 18-md-02818 (E.D.
Mich.), Judge Matthew F. Leitman of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, denied GM's motion
to dismiss the Plaintiffs' express warranty claims and to strike
their nationwide class allegations underlying their Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act and warranty claims.
Background
In the putative consolidated class action, the Plaintiffs allege
that the air conditioning systems of vehicles manufactured by
Defendant GM are defective. In the Third Amended Consolidated
Master Class Action Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert several
different claims against GM, including a claim under the federal
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 2301 et
seq., on behalf of a nationwide class (Count I), a breach of
express warranty claim on behalf of a nationwide class (Count III),
and several state-law claims on behalf of state-specific
sub-classes.
On Dec. 16, 2020, GM moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' express
warranty claims and to strike their nationwide class allegations
underlying their MMWA and warranty claims. Judge Leitman held a
video hearing on the motion on May 18, 2021.
Discussion
I.
GM first argues that the Court should dismiss the Plaintiffs'
claims that GM breached the express limited warranty included with
each class vehicle.
GM says that this warranty "limits coverage" to defects related to
"materials or workmanship" and does not cover design defects. And
GM asserts that in the case, the Plaintiffs have alleged only a
design defect. Thus, GM insists that the Plaintiffs' express
warranty claims are not viable "because the alleged air
conditioning design defect is not covered by the warranty."
Judge Leitman disagrees. He concludes that GM's reading of the
warranty is not the only plausible one. Indeed, it would not
necessarily be unreasonable to conclude that the warranty could
apply to design defects. That conclusion is supported by the
rulings of two other Judges on the Court who recently reviewed the
same warranty that is at issue. Judge Leitman agrees that it is
plausible to read the warranty as covering design defects. And the
Plaintiffs' allegations in the Complaint incorporate a design
defect claim. Therefore, for all of these reasons, Judge Leitman
declines to dismiss the Plaintiffs' express warranty claims.
II.
A.
Judge Leitman next turns to GM's argument that the Court should
strike the Plaintiffs' nationwide class allegations under the MMWA.
GM argues that the Plaintiffs' MMWA class allegations are
insufficient as a matter of law because they do not satisfy the
requirement in subsection 310(d)(3)(C), 15 U.S.C. Section
2310(d)(3)(C), that an MMWA federal class action must have at least
100 named plaintiffs ("Class Action Jurisdictional Threshold"). The
Plaintiffs respond that the Court has jurisdiction to hear their
MMWA class claim despite the lack of 100 named plaintiffs because
the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the claim under the
Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d) ("CAFA"). They
insist that CAFA provides a viable, independent basis for
subject-matter jurisdiction over the MMWA class claim.
Judge Leitman concludes that the Court does have jurisdiction to
hear the Plaintiffs' MMWA class claims. The Sixth Circuit agrees
with the Plaintiffs in Kuns v. Ford Motor Co., 543 F. App'x 572,
574 (6th Cir. 2013). In Kuns, a single plaintiff sought to pursue
an MMWA class action in a federal district court. The district
court granted summary judgment on the plaintiff's claims, and
plaintiff appealed. Before addressing the merits of the claims, the
Sixth Circuit undertook a jurisdictional analysis to "ensure that
it has subject matter jurisdiction" over the plaintiff's appeal.
The Sixth Circuit noted that the district court had "identified two
potential problems with subject-matter jurisdiction," including the
MMWA's Class Action Jurisdictional Threshold that requires a class
"complaint to list at least one hundred named plaintiffs." The
district court held that despite the Class Action Jurisdictional
Threshold, it could nonetheless hear plaintiff's MMWA class claim
because it independently had subject-matter jurisdiction over the
claim under CAFA.
The Sixth Circuit agreed with that conclusion. It observed that the
district court's decision reflected the "general rule" adopted by
most district courts that confronted the subject-matter
jurisdiction question under the MMWA. The Sixth Circuit then joined
those district courts and held that because the claims of the
single plaintiff satisfied CAFA's jurisdictional requirements, it
"had subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's proposed MMWA
class claim notwithstanding the MMWA's Class Action Jurisdictional
Threshold."
In sum, the Sixth Circuit's holding in Kuns that a class of less
than 100 named plaintiffs may pursue an MMWA claim in federal court
so long as the class claim satisfies CAFA is harmonious with the
purpose of the MMWA's Class Action Jurisdictional Threshold. That
Kuns is consistent with the purposes of the MMWA further persuades
Judge Leitman to follow that decision.
B.
The Ninth Circuit reached the contrary result in Floyd v. American
Honda Motor Co., 966 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2020), and GM insists that
Floyd forecloses the Plaintiffs' class claim. For two reasons,
Judge Leitman declines to follow Floyd over Kuns.
First, Kuns "is a Sixth Circuit decision, and though unpublished it
is authority the Court would be inclined to follow over an
out-of-circuit case." Second (and more importantly), the plaintiffs
in Floyd presented only a narrow argument to the Ninth Circuit.
There is no indication that they argued that the MMWA's Class
Action Jurisdictional Threshold applied only to the subject-matter
jurisdiction conferred by section 310(d)(1)(b) of the MMWA. Nor
does it appear that they cited or relied upon the line of cases
cited in which numerous courts have recognized a federal court may
exercise jurisdiction over an MMWA claim that falls below the Act's
Jurisdictional Thresholds where a federal statute other than
section 310(d)(1)(B) provides an independent basis for the Court's
subject-matter jurisdiction. Judge Leitman concludes that Floyd
does not bar the Plaintiffs' MMWA class claim.
III.
Finally, GM argues that the Court should strike all of Plaintiffs'
nationwide class allegations. It says that because "Plaintiffs'
'nationwide' class claims for breach of warranty under the MMWA,
beach of express and implied warranty, and fraudulent concealment
would be governed by the different laws of fifty states, the
variation in state laws would defeat the commonality, predominance,
and superiority requirements of Rule 23" of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure that governs class actions.
Judge Leitman concludes that it would be more appropriate to review
GM's arguments at the class certification stage of these
proceedings, where the parties can provide the Court a more fulsome
set of briefs on these issues. Delaying a decision until class
certification should not cause either party significant prejudice.
The majority of discovery in this action is already complete, and
class certification briefing will begin in just a few months.
Moreover, at that time, the Plaintiffs may modify the classes they
seek to certify, which could moot some or all of GM's current
motion. Accordingly, Judge Leitman will decline to strike the
Plaintiffs' class allegations at this time. GM is free to re-raise
all of the arguments made in its current motion in its class
certification briefing.
Conclusion
For all of the reasons he stated, Judge Leitman denied GM's motion
to dismiss. GM will file an Answer to the Complaint within 45
days.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/p52h9c84 from Leagle.com.
MDL 2975: Court Dismisses Ski Pass Insurance Suit Without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: UNITED SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY SKI PASS
INSURANCE LITIGATION, Case No. 20-md-02975-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California grants the USIC's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint
without prejudice.
Background
The Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("SAC")
asserts counts for breach of contract and for declaratory relief.
The Plaintiffs purchased ski passes, or "Epic Passes," for access
to the mountain resorts owned and/or operated by Vail Resorts for
the 2019/2020 ski season. Along with the purchase of Epic Passes,
the Plaintiffs also purchased ski pass insurance from defendant,
which is the subject of the litigation.
The terms of the ski pass insurance purchased by the Plaintiffs are
evidenced by the Certificate of Ski Season Ski Pass Insurance.
Although the Certificate also contains a list of definitions,
"quarantined" is not defined.
On March 14, 2020, having "been closely tracking every new
development related to coronavirus (COVID-19) and having been in
constant contact with local health officials for guidance," Vail
Resorts announced it would "suspend the operations of all North
American mountain resorts and retail stores beginning Sunday, March
15, 2020 through Sunday, March 22, 2020 and we use that time to
reassess our approach for the rest of the season." That same day,
the Governor of Colorado issued an executive order for the closure
of downhill ski resorts "due to the presence of COVID-19 in the
State of Colorado." On March 17, 2020, Vail Resorts made the
decision to close its North American resorts for the entirety of
the 2019/2020 season "amidst the continued challenges associated
with the spread of coronavirus (COVID-19)."
The Plaintiffs allege that "as a result of the closure, which was
intended to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 virus, they were
excluded from entering upon and using the facilities of any of Vail
Resorts' properties and deprived of the use of their Epic Passes."
"Vail Resorts' decision to shut down its resort locations and
exclude its passholders was a 'quarantine' -- given the commonly
understood meaning of that term -- as it was a measure aimed at
restricting access of Epic Pass holders from publicly gathering at
resort locations to prevent further spread of COVID-19." The
"Plaintiffs, who had intended to continue to make sure of their
Epic Passes, were excluded from Vail Resorts when their Epic Passes
still had value remaining." "As set forth in the Certificate, this
was a Peril Insured Against by USIC and Plaintiffs are entitled to
receive from USIC payment of the cost of their Epic Passes less the
applicable 'Daily Rate' for each day that they used their Epic
Passes during the ski/snowboarding season."
The Certificate provides that any notice of loss should be made to
American Claims Management ("ACM") by mail, email, or by report
online via smartphone or computer at
https://www.acmclaims.com/secureforms2/claim/vail. That link
previously opened a form that stated: "There is no coverage under
the insurance policy for Resort Closure. We suggest you go to the
2019/2020 Pass Holder Credit section of epicpass.com for more
information prior to filing a claim." Vail Resorts informed Epic
Pass purchasers that ski pass insurance would not provide coverage
related to the COVID-19 resort closures. Notwithstanding, one
Plaintiff submitted a claim to ACM, which was ultimately denied.
The denial letter stated, in pertinent part: "In the event of
quarantine, as mentioned by peril (e), coverage may apply in the
event you are diagnosed as having or suspected of having COVID-19.
If you are quarantined, by 'Physician's' orders, before March 15,
2020, provide us with your 'Physician's' certification that your
'Physician' placed you in quarantine. We will review the
'Physician's' order to determine whether coverage applies." The
Plaintiffs allege that the denial letter "ignored the commonly
understood meaning of the word and that Plaintiff and Class Members
were excluded from the resorts because of Vail Resorts' decision to
suspend and then close the resorts to prevent COVID-19 from
spreading."
According to the Plaintiffs, "'quarantine' is commonly understood
to be associated with measures aimed at the restraint of activities
of persons to prevent the spread of a disease," citing dictionary
definitions, Wikipedia, publications, and federal statutes, among
other sources. They therefore submit that they and "other
purchasers of USIC's pass insurance are entitled to coverage as a
result of their exclusion from Vail Resorts due to the COVID-19
pandemic." Having previously rejected this argument at the hearing
on Defendant's motion to dismiss the first amended class action
complaint, the Court granted the Plaintiffs leave to file the SAC.
Currently pending in the multidistrict litigation is Defendant
USIC's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' SAC that asserts counts
for breach of contract and for declaratory relief.
Discussion
The Defendant moves to dismiss the action on two grounds: first,
the SAC fails to plead coverage under the Policy; and second, the
SAC fails to plead that the claimed loss occurred while coverage
was in effect. Judge Rogers begins with addressing the first issue.
If there is no contractual obligation for coverage, both causes of
action for breach of contract and for declaratory relief fail and
the second issue is moot.
Interpreting the Policy with the assistance of dictionary
definitions, surrounding terms, and common sense, Judge Rogers
concludes that the Plaintiff's expansive definition of
"quarantined" to include any measure excluding individuals from a
particular area to prevent the spread of disease, without any other
restriction, is patently unreasonable. She finds instead that, at
minimum, the meaning of quarantine encompasses a limitation of
movement to a particular area, a meaning which is clear and
unambiguous. Further, the language reflects a condition which
applies to the person. For instance, jury duty is required but
whether a person is specifically called to served, and therefore
triggering the provision is a separate inquiry.
Under principles of California law, an ambiguity may not be created
by adopting a strained or absurd interpretation. Although the
Plaintiffs are correct that any ambiguities must be resolved
against the insurer, "this rule of construction is applicable only
when the policy language is found to be unclear." In the case, it
is not. Accordingly, having failed to allege plausible coverage
under the Policy, the Plaintiffs cannot state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.
In light of this conclusion, Judge Rogers need not reach the
Defendant's alternative argument that coverage was no longer in
effect at the time of the alleged losses as it would be advisory
only.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Rogers granted with prejudice the
motion to dismiss, and judgment will be entered in favor of the
Defendant. Her Order terminates the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mdsw5z35 from Leagle.com.
MILLIMAN INC: Court Extends Discovery Deadlines in Healy Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES HEALY, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. MILLIMAN, INC., d/b/a
INTELLISCRIPT, Case No. 2:20-cv-01473-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge John C. Coughenour entered an order extending discovery
deadlines as follows:
Event Current Proposed
deadline Deadline
Deadline for class Oct. 29, 2021 Dec. 10, 2021
certification fact
discovery
Plaintiff's class Dec. 3, 2021 Jan. 7, 2022
expert disclosures
and reports due
Defendants' class expert Jan. 7, 2022 Feb. 4, 2022
disclosures and reports
due
Plaintiff's class Feb. 4, 2022 March 4, 2022
rebuttal expert
disclosures and
reports due
This is a proposed class action case that was filed on October 5,
2020. The Plaintiff alleges among other things that Defendant
failed to ensure that the consumer reports it prepares and
disseminates—which contain sensitive prescription or medical
history bearing on the ability to obtain life insurance -- include
accurate information, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.
The Defendant has denied these allegations. The Defendant filed
motions for a protective order and for summary judgment.
Milliman, formerly Milliman & Robertson, is an international
actuarial and consulting firm based in Seattle, Washington. The
company was founded in 1947, by Wendell Milliman and Stuart A.
Robertson and operates 59 offices internationally, with over 3,000
employees.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nZjoOG at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
Adrienne D. McEntee, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103-8869
Telephone: (206) 816-6603
Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
jmurray@terrellmarshall.com
amcentee@terrellmarshall.com
- and -
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Rodney L. Umberger, Esq.
Daniel Brown, Esq.
Sean T. James, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Wells, Esq.
WILLIAMS, KASTNER & GIBBS PLLC
601 Union Street, Suite 4100
Seattle, WA 98101-2380
Telephone: (206) 628-6600
Facsimile: (206) 628-6611
E-mail: rumberger@williamskastner.com
dbrown@williamskastner.com
sjames@williamskastner.com
jwells@williamskastner.com
MONARCH RECOVERY: Nov. 9 Class Cert. Bid Reply Sought in Goldring
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tzvi Goldring v. Monarch
Recovery Management, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-07893-PGG (S.D.N.Y.),
the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order that the parties be
permitted to provide replies in support of their respective Motions
for Summary Judgment and in support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification by November 9, 2021.
On October 26, 2021 counsel for Plaintiff, Daniel Zemel, Esq.,
consented to this request, Defendant's counsel said.
Monarch Recovery operates as a collection agency.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nUyGnH at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Ronald M. Metcho, Esq.
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
www.margolisedelstein.com
Scranton Office
220 Penn Avenue, Suite 305
Telephone: (570) 257-6510
E-mail: rmetcho@margolisedelstein.com
MRS BPO: Seeks Nov. 15 Response Extension to Class Cert Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Naftali Rosenberg, et al.,
v. MRS BPO, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02200-PKC-RML (E.D.N.Y.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending the time for
them to respond to Plaintiff's motion for class certification by
November 15, 2021, with Plaintiff's reply due by November 30, 2021.
On October 1, 2021, the Plaintiff's counsel filed a motion to
certify class by Naftali Rosenberg. On October 2, 2021, the Court
ordered Defendant MRS to respond to Plaintiff's motion by November
1, 2021, with Plaintiff's reply by November 15, 2021.
The parties are scheduled to be deposed in this matter on November
9, 2021. Defendant maintains that Plaintiff's deposition will be
relevant to its response to Plaintiff's motion for class
certification. Counsel for the parties conferred and Plaintiff's
counsel graciously consented to an extension of time through and
including November 15, 2021 for Defendant's response to the motion
for class certification, with Plaintiff's reply being due on or
before November 30, 2021. No prior request for an enlargement of
time has been requested of, or denied, by this Court.
MRS BPO is a debt collection agency.
A copy of Defendant's motion dated Oct. 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZUV5cj at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael T. Etmund, Esq.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
Telephone: (612) 877-5309
Facsimile: (612) 877-5050
E-mail: Mike.Etmund@lawmoss.com
MULTNOMAH CO: Bid to Dismiss Lancey Suit Nixed
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB LANCEY v. MULTNOMAH
CO. INVERNESS JAIL; MULTNOMAH COUNTY SHERIFF'S
OFFICE, Case No. 3:21-cv-00217-AA (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Ann
Aiken entered an order:
1. denying with leave to renew Defendants' motion to dismiss;
and
2. stating action pending the resolution of class
certification in Clark v. Multnomah Cty., Case No. 3:21-
cv-501-AA.
The Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee at the Multnomah County
Inverness Jail, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section
1983 and alleged violations of his rights under the Fourteenth
Amendment.
Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that he contracted COVID-19 as
a result of the conditions at the Inverness Jail and defendants'
alleged failure to protect inmates from contracting the virus.
In Clark v. Multnomah Cty., the plaintiffs filed a proposed class
action on behalf of inmates who contracted COVID-19 in Inverness
Jail or the Multnomah County Detention Center.
The Plaintiff arguably would be a member of the proposed class in
Clark, and I find that a stay in this case is appropriate pending a
decision on class certification in Clark.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kdijSh at no extra charge.[CC]
MY FIRST PEEKABOO: Fleming Seeks to Certify Ultrasound Tech Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Arianna Fleming, On behalf
of Herself and all others similarly situated, v. My First Peekaboo
Ultrasound WI LLC; Jeremy Rodekuhr; and Anna Rodekuhr, Case No.
2:20-cv-00252-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order pursuant to section 216(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) to conditionally certify a collective action
consisting of:
"all ultrasound technicians who worked at the Defendants'
Milwaukee and Racine clinics during the time period starting
four years and 72 days in advance of the date that the Court
grants this motion for conditional certification."
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 28,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nTCFB4
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by
Yingtao Ho, Esq.
THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C.
310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW
13Milwaukee, WI 53203
Telephone: (414) 271 4500
Facsimile: (414) 271 6308
E-mail: yh@previant.com
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Beeson RESPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARY BEESON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC d.b.a. MR.
COOPER AS SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO SETERUS, INC., Case No.
CACE-21-017153, was removed from the Circuit Court of the
Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
November 1, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 0:21-cv-62262 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act by failing to provide the
Plaintiff and other Class members with notice of the right to
appeal their respective loss mitigation applications.
Nationstar Mortgage LLC, doing business as Mr. Cooper, is a company
that offers mortgage services, headquartered in Coppell, Texas.
[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Emily Y. Rottmann, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
50 N. Laura Street, Suite 3300
Jacksonville, FL 32202
Telephone: (904) 798-3200
Facsimile: (904) 798-3207
E-mail: erottmann@mcguirewoods.com
NATIONWIDE PROPERTY: Nov. 22 Extension to File Class Cert Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNI KOVICH, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED INSUREDS, v. NATIONWIDE
PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, AND
CODY MCCONNELL, Case No. 3:20-cv-00518 (S.D.W.Va.), the Parties
jointly request that the Court further extend the class
certification briefing schedule for a brief period, such that the
following schedule will apply:
-- Plaintiff's motion for class November 22, 2021
certification due:
-- Nationwide's opposition to December 13, 2021
class certification due:
-- Plaintiff's reply in support December 27, 2021
of class certification due:
Nationwide Property operates as an insurance company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3k0c18A at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent K. Kesner, Esq.
Ernest G. Hentschel, II, Esq.
KESNER & KESNER, PLLC
P. O. Box 2587
Charleston, WV 25329
Telephone: (304) 345-5200
Facsimile: (304) 345-5265
E-mail: bkesner@kesnerlaw.com
ehentschel@kesnerlaw.com
- and -
Robert V. Berthold, Jr., Esq.
Robert V. Berthold, III, Esq.
BERTHOLD LAW FIRM, PLLC
P.O. Box 3508
Charleston, WV 25335
E-mail: rvb@bertholdlaw.com
rvb3@bertholdlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Marc E. Williams, Esq.
J.L. Brydie, Esq.
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP
949 Third Avenue - Suite 200
Huntington, WV 25701
E-mail: marc.williams@nelsonmullins.com
jl.brydie@nelsonmullins.com
- and -
Jennifer A.L. Battle, Esq.
CARPENTER LIPPS & LELAND, LLP
200 N. High Street -- Suite 1300
Columbus, OH 43215
E-mail: battle@carpenterlipps.com
NEUTROGENA CORPORATION: Brennan Consumer Suit Goes to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KATHERINE BRENNAN and MICHELLE MANG, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NEUTROGENA
CORPORATION and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., Case
No. RG21101025, was removed from the Superior Court for the State
of California for the County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California on November 1, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 0:21-cv-62254-AHS to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California's Unfair Competition Law, the California's False
Advertising Law, the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and
various California common law theories by manufacturing,
distributing, and marketing adulterated sunscreen products under
the brand name Neutrogena.
Neutrogena Corporation is an American company that markets skin
care, hair care and cosmetics products, headquartered in Los
Angeles, California.
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. is a manufacturer of
consumers products based in New Brunswick, New Jersey. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Steven A. Zalesin, Esq.
Jonah M. Knobler, Esq.
Andrew D. Cohen, Esq.
PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP
1133 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 336-2000
Facsimile: (212) 336-2222
E-mail: sazalesin@pbwt.com
jknobler@pbwt.com
acohen@pbwt.com
- and –
Gary T. Lafayette, Esq.
Brian H. Chun, Esq.
Barbara L. Lyons, Esq.
Saisruthi Paspulati, Esq.
LAFAYETTE & KUMAGAI LLP
1300 Clay Street, Suite 810
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 357-4600
Facsimile: (415) 357-4605
E-mail: glafayette@lkclaw.com
bchun@lkclaw.com
blyons@lkclaw.com
spaspulati@lkclaw.com
NEW YORK: Court Narrows Claims in Smith Suit Against Gov. Hochul
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JANE SMITH, et al., Plaintiffs v. KATHY HOCHUL, as
Governor of the State of New York, et al., Defendants, Case No.
5:21-CV-0035 (LEK/ATB) (N.D.N.Y.), Judge Lawrence E. Kahn of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granted
in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Complaint.
Background
Plaintiffs Jane Smith, Jill Park, Mary Doe, Ann Jones, and Dr. Amy
Moe commenced the present action, challenging certain amendments
and provisions of the New York Reproductive Health Act ("RHA").
Simultaneously, Plaintiffs Doe and Jones each filed motions to be
appointed as next friend under Rule 17(c)(2) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
In January 2019, the Governor of New York State signed the RHA into
law. Among many other things, the RHA added Article 25-A of the
Public Health Law and decriminalized abortion. Furthermore, the RHA
eliminated abortion as a crime and removed from the homicide
statutes the qualifying act of causing the death of "an unborn
child with which a female has been pregnant for more than
twenty-four weeks."
Presently before the Court is the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
The Court has already denied the Doe Motion and Jones Motion.
Discussion
A. First Cause of Action - Substantive Due Process Claim
Plaintiffs Smith and Park allege that Penal Law Section 125.05, as
amended by the RHA, violates their, and the Violence Against Women
and Women Lacking Recourse Classes' substantive due process right
to freedom from state-created threats of violence guaranteed by the
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
1. Plaintiffs Smith's and Park's Standing
The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge
Penal Law Section 125.05 because they have not suffered an injury
in fact, while the Plaintiffs disagree. The Defendants' main
contention is that the Plaintiffs are making a pre-enforcement
challenge to a criminal statute, without alleging fear of a
criminal prosecution.
Judge Kahn disagrees with the Defendants and denies the Rule
12(b)(1) motion to dismiss. He holds that the Plaintiffs do
sufficiently allege that they were victimized while pregnant. The
RHA eliminated criminal penalties for abortions, which may have
made it more likely for potential wrongdoers to weigh the pros and
cons of their actions in favor of engaging in violence. In other
words, at this stage of the case, the logic follows that the RHA
reduced disincentives for violence against pregnant women. Finally,
it makes no difference in the case that the named the Plaintiffs
were able to give birth. Were it not for the RHA, the violence the
Plaintiffs experienced could have potentially been charged as an
attempt crime. As such, Judge Kahn does not find that the injury
the Plaintiffs allege is merely hypothetical. The Plaintiffs have
sufficiently alleged that they suffered an injury-in-fact because
of the Defendants' repeal of New York's fetal homicide law.
Although the Defendants do not argue traceability and
redressability, Judge Kahn finds that they too are met. At the
pleading stage, he says, the Plaintiffs' burden is to allege facts
"showing that third parties will likely react in predictable ways"
to the RHA's elimination of criminal penalties. It is well-settled
that "for standing purposes, petitioners need not prove a
cause-and-effect relationship with absolute certainty; substantial
likelihood of the alleged causality meets the test." Taking the
Plaintiff's allegations as true, there is a "substantial
likelihood" that by eliminating the fetal homicide law, the RHA
reduced disincentives for violence against pregnant women, making
it more likely that third parties will inflict violence against
pregnant women. Finally, redressability is met because it is
plausible that declaring the RHA's various changes to N.Y. Penal
Law Section 125 to be unlawful would reduce that risk.
2. Failure to State a Claim
Judge Kahn begins by recognizing that there is no clear line
between "affirmative" and "passive" conduct. In the case, however,
he easily finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to adequately
allege that Defendants' actions fall under the ambit of this
state-created danger exception. Specifically, there is nothing in
the Complaint alleging that any of the Defendants communicated an
official sanction of private violence. In their Response, the
Plaintiffs point to the fact that the RHA was widely publicized by
state officials and the former Governor directed all of New York's
landmarks to be lit in pink to celebrate the RHA. Judge Kahn,
however does not find this to amount to affirmative conduct because
there was no "interaction or relationship with the wrongdoer."
In addition, the Plaintiffs fail to allege that the Defendants
condoned violence against pregnant women. Without anything more, a
state official who publicizes a legislative victory to the general
public does not engage in the type of action that falls under the
ambit of this state-created danger exception. Thus, the motion to
dismiss is granted with respect to Count I.
B. Second Cause of Action - Right to Legal Redress
Next, Plaintiffs Smith and Park allege that Penal Law Section
125.05, as amended by the RHA, violates their, and the Women
Lacking Recourse Classes' First Amendment right to legal redress.
1. Plaintiffs Smith and Park's Standing
For largely the same reasons as explained in section IV(A)(1),
Smith and Park have established standing, and the Defendants'
12(b)(1) motion to dismiss is denied.
2. Failure to State a Claim
Under the First Amendment, Judge Kahn sees no difference between a
state official preventing the filing of criminal charges and the
absence of a state law authorizing such criminal charges. In
neither case is the First Amendment violated because a private
citizen does not have a constitutional right to bring a criminal
complaint against another individual.
Instead, the Plaintiffs argue that the present case is similar to
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996). Specifically, "in eliminating
this protection, like Colorado voters in Romer, the Defendants have
made it impossible to criminally punish those who deprive mothers
of the care and custody of their children by killing the children,
and deprive the children of their very lives."
In Romer, in response to Colorado municipalities passing ordinances
to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,
Colorado voters adopted an amendment to the state constitution via
a referendum that "prohibited all legislative, executive or
judicial action at any level of state or local government designed
to protect the named class, a class we will refer to as homosexual
persons or gays and lesbians." The Supreme Court invalidated the
amendment under the Equal Protection Clause because it made gay
individuals "unequal to everyone else" by "imposing a broad and
undifferentiated disability on a single named group."
Although the Plaintiffs acknowledge that Romer was an equal
protection case, they seek to apply its rationale by arguing "that
a part of the violation of their rights is the denial of judicial
relief for any harms suffered." The Defendants disagree, contending
that even if Romer is applicable, there are still criminal laws
that can protect Plaintiffs and nothing prevents the Plaintiffs
from lobbying the Legislature to amend the RHA.
Judge Kahn finds Romer inapplicable in the context of a right to
redress claim. He says, the Plaintiffs have not provided any case
law support for their novel theory. Moreover, he does not find the
present situation analogous to Romer. It is true that under prior
state law "a criminal assailant could be charged with the murder of
an unborn child with whom a woman had been pregnant for more than
twenty-four weeks." Now that the RHA eliminated criminal penalties
for abortion crimes, the Plaintiffs have lost that particular legal
protection. The Plaintiffs argue that they experienced a denial of
judicial relief for any harms suffered. However, pregnant mothers
are still protected under other criminal statutes (e.g., homicide
and assault) that still provide a deterrent effect. Furthermore,
nothing prevents the Plaintiffs from lobbying the state legislature
to repeal the RHA. Thus, Romer is not applicable and the Plaintiffs
have failed to state a claim for their right to redress claim.
C. Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Causes of Action
Judge Kahn can easily dispense with the next four causes of action.
They each depend on next friend standing for Plaintiffs Mary Doe
and Ann Jones. However, Judge Kahn has already declined the two
appointments to serve as next friend. Thus, Mary Doe and Ann Jones
lack standing to proceed in the Court. Accordingly, the Defendant's
12(b)(1) motion to dismiss is granted with respect to Counts III,
IV, V, and IV.
D. Seventh Cause of Action - Void for Vagueness
Finally, Plaintiff Dr. Amy Moe, on behalf of herself and the
Physician Class, allege that two terms of Section 2599-BB.1 of New
York Public Health Law are void for undue vagueness.
1. Plaintiff Moe's Standing
After the parties submitted their original briefing, the Supreme
Court issued California v. Texas, 141 S.Ct. 2104 (2021), which
found that parties did not have standing to attack an unenforceable
statutory provision. Since both parties agreed that the RHA does
not have an enforcement mechanism, the Court instructed the parties
to file supplemental briefing addressing how California v. Texas
applies to the standing of Dr. Moe and the Physician Class.
Upon reviewing the parties' briefing, Judge Kahn finds that the
facts present are not similar to California. In California, the
plaintiffs could not "point to any way in which the defendants, the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, will act to enforce the statutory provision." Since
the plaintiffs could not show "how any other federal employees
could do so either," "they have not shown that any kind of
Government action or conduct has caused or will cause the injury
they attribute to the statutory provision." The unenforceable
statutory language alone was not sufficient to establish standing.
The Supreme Court concluded that "the plaintiffs failed to show a
concrete, particularized injury fairly traceable to the defendants'
conduct in enforcing the specific statutory provision they attack
as unconstitutional."
By contrast, the Plaintiffs sufficiently show that Government
action will cause such injury attributable to Section 2599-BB.1 of
New York Public Health Law. Although California does not apply,
Judge Kahn ultimately finds that Plaintiff Dr. Moe lacks standing.
Plaintiff Dr. Moe has not sufficiently alleged a concrete intention
to violate the law. Notably, Dr. Moe does not allege "concrete
plans' to perform, in the near future, the conduct that officials
would consider illegal." Because he finds that Plaintiff Dr. Moe
failed to allege a concrete intention to violate the law, Judge
Kahn need not determine whether there was a credible threat of
prosecution. Thus, Dr. Moe has failed to meet her burden to
establish standing for Counts VII(A) and VII(B).
Conclusion
Judge Kahn concludes that termination of pregnancy is a deeply
fraught and contested issue, and few can doubt the wrongfulness of
terminating a pregnancy through violence against a pregnant person.
In the case, the state legislature has chosen to forgo a particular
approach to punishing such wrongful conduct, and it is not a
court's role to substitute its moral judgments for those of the
legislature.
Accordingly, Judge Kahn granted in part and denied in part the
Motion to Dismiss under 12(b)(1). He granted the motion as to
Plaintiffs Mary Doe, Ann Jones, and Dr. Amy Moe. He denied the
motion as to Plaintiffs Jane Smith and Jill Park. The Motion to
Dismiss under 12(b)(6) against Plaintiffs Jane Smith and Jill Park
is granted.
Judge Kahn dismissed the Complaint.
The Clerk is directed to close the action.
The Clerk of the Court serves a copy of the Memorandum-Decision and
Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2021 Memorandum-Decision &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/48zkjvyt from
Leagle.com.
NEW YORK: Has Until Nov. 22 to Oppose Inzinga Class Status Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES INZINGA, et al., v.
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, et al., Case No.
6:21-cv-06344-CJS-MJP (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mark W. Pederson
entered an order that the Defendants shall have until November 22,
2021, to file their opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
The New York State Department of Labor is the department of the New
York state government that enforces labor law and administers
unemployment benefits. The mission of the New York State Department
of Labor is to protect workers, assist the unemployed and connect
job seekers to jobs, according to its website.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qfoA3T at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Peter O'Brian Dellinger, Esq.
EMPIRE JUSTICE CENTER
One West Main Street, Suite 200
Rochester, New York 14614
Telephone: (585) 454-4060
E-mail: pdellinger@empirejustice.org
The Defendants are represented by:
Joel J. Terragnoli, Esq.
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Buffalo Regional Office
350 Main Street, Suite 300A
Buffalo, NY 14202
Telephone: 716-853-8419
E-mail: joel.terragnoli@ag.ny.gov
NEWARK, NJ: Alberto et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, GEORGE ALBERTO and CLIFTON BURCHETT, individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-19066 (D.N.J.,
October 19, 2021) alleges the Defendant of willful and intentional
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs, who have worked for the Defendant as municipal
court bailiffs, assert that the Defendant improperly compensated
them and other similarly situated municipal court bailiffs for the
overtime wages for hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek at the legally mandated overtime rate. As a result, the
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated municipal bailiffs have
allegedly suffered damages.
City of Newark is the largest city in New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John C. Luke, Jr., Esq.
SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP
488 Madison Ave., 20th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Tel: (212) 922-0906
NEWEGG INC: Fails to Provide Proper Wage Pay, Nelson Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN JOHN NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEWEGG, INC.; NEWEGG STAFFING,
INC., and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
21STCV38157 (Cal. Sup. Ct., October 15, 2021) alleges the
Defendants of engaging in a systemic pattern of wage and hour
violations under the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders.
The Plaintiff, who has worked for the Defendant, asserts these
claims:
-- The Defendants failed to pay all wages, including minimum
wages and overtime wages;
-- The Defendants failed to provide lawful meal periods and to
authorize or permit lawful rest breaks or provide compensation in
lieu thereof;
-- The Defendants failed to reimburse necessary
business-related costs;
-- The Defendants failed to provide accurate itemized wage
statements; and
-- The Defendants failed to pay all wages due upon separation
of employment.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated employees seeking to recover monetary
damages, civil penalties, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses.
Newegg, Inc. and Newegg Staffing, Inc. operates as an online
retailer. The Company offers consumer electronics, entertainment,
smart home, computers, software, cell phones, household appliances,
jewelry, accessories, and gaming products. Newegg serves customers
worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kashif Haque, Esq.
Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Tel: (949) 379-6250
Fax: (949) 379-6251
E-mail: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com
NISSAN NORTH: Bid to Certify Class Junked as Moot in Johnson Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Johnson v. Nissan North
America, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00517 (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick entered an order terminating motion to
certify class as moot in light of the parties' stipulation to defer
consideration until other matters are ruled on.
The plaintiffs may re-notice the motion or file a new motion, as
appropriate, in line with the schedule the parties adopt pursuant
to their agreement, says Judge Orrick.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Property
Damage Product Liability.
Nissan North America, Inc., doing business as Nissan USA, is the
North American headquarters, and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Nissan Motor Corporation of Japan.[CC]
NORTHRUP GRUMMAN: Directed to Meet & Confer with Behar et al.
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JED BEHAR, et al., v.
NORTHRUP GRUMMAN CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-03946-FMO-SK
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order
regarding motions for class certification:
1. Joint Brief:
The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single,
fully integrated joint brief covering each party's
position, in which each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a
party is immediately followed by the opposing
party's/parties' response.
2. Citation to Evidence:
All citation to evidence in the joint brief shall be
directly to the exhibit and page number(s) of the
evidentiary appendix, or page and line number(s) of a
deposition.
3. Unnecessary Sections:
The parties need not include a "procedural history"
section, since the court will be familiar with the
procedural history. The court is also familiar with the
general standard for class certification, so that need not
be argued.
4. Schedule for Preparation and Filing of Joint Brief:
A. Meet and Confer: In order for a motion for class
certification to be filed in a timely manner, the
meet and confer must take place no later than 35 days
before the deadline for class certification motions set
forth in the Court's Case Management and Scheduling
Order.
B. No later than 7 days after the meet and confer, the
moving party shall personally deliver or e-mail to the
opposing party an electronic copy of the moving
party's portion of the joint brief, together with the
moving party's portion of the evidentiary appendix.
C. No later than 14 days after receiving the moving
party's papers, the opposing party shall personally
deliver or e-mail to the moving party an electronic
copy of the integrated motion, which shall include the
opposing party's portion of the joint brief, together
with the opposing party's portion of the evidentiary
appendix.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nZsriB at no extra charge.[CC]
NVR INC: Cossaboom Seeks Conditional Status of Two Collectives
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA COSSABOOM f/k/a
MELISSA COLLINS, ANN ADAIR HATCH, and JESSICA PETTRY, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. NVR, INC. and NVR
MORTGAGE FINANCE, INC., Case No. 9:21-cv-80627-AMC (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting Plaintiffs'
renewed motion and conditionally certifying the two proposed,
Florida-only collectives pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").
Until putative plaintiffs receive notice and join this action,
their statute of limitations continues to run, thereby severely
prejudicing them with the diminishment of their claims with each
passing day, the suit says.
NVR, Inc. is a company engaged in home construction. It also
operates a mortgage banking and title services business.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 28,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bIhf47
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
Logan A. Pardell, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 447-8888
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
E-mail: pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com
gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
lpardell@shavitzlaw.com
- and -
Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
Kayla M. Kienzle, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
80 South 8th Street, Suite 4700
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
E-mail: fisher@nka.com
kkienzle@nka.com
OHIO LIVING: Kordie Seeks to Certify Healthcare Worker Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLE KORDIE, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. OHIO LIVING, et al.,
Case No. 2:21-cv-03791-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"):
(a) conditionally certifying this case as a FLSA collective
action under Section 216(b) against Defendant Wise
Medical Staffing, Inc. on behalf of Named Plaintiff and
others similarly situated;
(b) directing that notice be sent by United States mail and
email to the following class:
"All current and former hourly, non-exempt healthcare
employees of Defendant who worked or were scheduled to
work at least 40 hours in any workweek and had a meal
deduction taken from their compensable hours worked,
beginning three years prior to the filing date of this
Motion and continuing through the date of the final
disposition of this case;"
(c) approving the proposed Notice form informing such present
and former employees of the pendency of this collective
action and permitting them to opt in to the case by
signing and submitting the proposed Consent to Join Form;
(d) directing Defendant to provide, within 14 days of an
order granting conditional certification, a roster of all
persons who fit the definition in Paragraph (b) (the
"Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs") that includes their full
names, their dates of employment, their locations worked,
job titles, their last known mailing addresses, and their
personal email addresses (the "Roster"); and
(e) directing that the Court-approved Notice and Consent to
Join forms be sent to such present and former employees
within 14 days of receipt of the Roster using the
Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs' mailing and email addresses.
The Named Plaintiff and other members of the proposed class are
non-exempt healthcare employees, including but not limited to
Resident Aides ("RAs"), Certified Nursing Assistants ("CNAs"),
State Tested Nursing Assistants ("STNAs"), and Licensed Practical
Nurses ("LPNs") (collectively "healthcare employees") who have not
been paid wages and overtime wages for all hours worked.
This case involves Defendant's companywide meal deduction policy
and/or practice. Named Plaintiff has submitted allegations and
evidence that under this policy and/or practice, the Defendant
requires a meal break deduction from its hourly, non-exempt
healthcare employees' daily hours worked for meal breaks that are
either never taken or are interrupted with work duties. This policy
and/or practice that requires a meal break deduction deprives
Defendant's hourly, non-exempt healthcare employees of their
hard-earned overtime pay.
Ohio Living is not-for-profit provider of life plan communities and
services in Ohio.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 29,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ESxg3Y
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
ONE BRANDS: Class Cert Briefing Schedule Entered in Sebastian
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sebastian v. One Brands,
LLC, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00009 (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Anthony J Battaglia entered an order setting briefing schedule for
motion to certify class:
-- Responses due by Nov. 12, 2021;
-- Replies due by Nov. 19, 2021; and
-- Sur-replies will not be accepted.
-- Motion Hearing continued to Dec. 23, 2021 at 2:00 PM in
Courtroom 4A.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC]
The suit alleges violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act.
OS RESTAURANT: Moxley Seeks to Certify Class of Assistant Managers
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TROY MOXLEY and THOMAS
SPIEGEL, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly
Situated, v. OS RESTAURANT SERVICES, LLC and BLOOMIN' BRANDS, INC.,
together doing business as BONEFISH GRILL, Case No.
8:21-cv-01760-JLB-JSS (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
1. conditionally certifying the nationwide Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) Collective of salaried Assistant
Managers (AMs) defined as:
"all similarly situated exempt-classified AMs who worked
for the Defendants OS Restaurant Services, LLC and
Bloomin' Brands, Inc., doing business as Bonefish Gill, at
any location in the United States during any part of the
period between July 20, 2018, through to the date of the
Court's Order on this Motion, p
2. requiring the Defendants to produce in an electronic or
computer-readable format the full name, address(es), work
and personal telephone number(s), and email address(es)
(including personal email addresses to the extent they are
available) for each member of the FLSA Collective;
3. authorizing notice with a form of Consent to Join to the
members of the FLSA Collective, disseminated by U.S. Mail,
email, text, and via website (returnable via mail, email,
fax, or via website);
4. authorizing reminder notices halfway through the 60-day
notice period; and
5. granting any further relief that this Court deems just and
proper
Together, the Defendants own and operate over 1,000 restaurants
across the United States under the brands Bonefish Grill, Outback
Steakhouse, Carrabba's Italian Grill, Aussie Grill, and Fleming's
Prime Steakhouse & Wine Bar. As of December 27, 2020, 180 of those
restaurants were Bonefish Grill locations across states. Bonefish
Grill restaurants are managed by a Managing Partner. Bonefish also
employs salaried Kitchen Managers (also called Culinary Managers)
and Front-of-House Managers (also called FOH or Hospitality
Managers) at its Bonefish Grill locations. Kitchen Managers and
Front-of-House Managers, however variously titled, are referred as
Assistant Managers.
The Named Plaintiffs and the 11 Opt-In declarants worked for
Defendants as AMs at a total of over 30 Bonefish Grill locations in
12 different states. The Defendants classify AMs as exempt from the
FLSA's overtime requirements.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 27,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZKmtK1
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 447-8888
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
aquiles@shavitzlaw.com
- and -
Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
Christopher M. Timmel, Esq.
KLAFTER & LESSER LLP
Two International Drive, Suite 350
Rye Brook, NY 10573
Telephone: (914) 934-9200
E-mail: seth@klafterlesser.com
christopher.timmel@klafterlesser.com
PALO VERDE: Acevedo Suit Claims Unpaid Wages, Unreimbursed Expenses
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH ACEVEDO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PALO VERDE, INC. dba VERDE
RESTAURANT; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
21STCV39798 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., October 28, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Private
Attorneys' General Act including unpaid wages and overtime, failure
to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure
to keep accurate payroll records and provide accurate itemized wage
statements, failure to pay wages due upon termination of
employment, and failure to indemnify for expenditures or losses in
discharge of duties.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee
from July 23, 2016 until November 2020.
Palo Verde, Inc., doing business as Verde Restaurant, is a
restaurant owner and operator in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Lo, Esq.
Berkeh Alemzadeh, Esq.
WORK LAWYERS PC
22939 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 202
Telephone: (424) 355-8535
Facsimile: (213) 784-0032
E-mail: justin@caworklawyer.com
beyonca@caworklawyer.com
- and –
Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
MAHONEY LAW GROUP
249 E. Ocean Blvd. Suite #814
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (562) 590-5550
Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
PEI WEI: Clarke Seeks to Extend Deadlines for Class Cert. Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON CLARKE, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. PEI WEI ASIAN
DINER, LLC, dba PEI WEI ASIAN KITCHEN, Case No. 3:20-cv-00800-N
(N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
granting a 90-day extension of the deadlines for conducting class
certification discovery and filing a motion for decertification due
to emergency health situations involving Plaintiff's Counsel.
The Parties initially engaged in settlement discussions, which have
not been fruitful unfortunately, and also engaged in discussions
regarding which class members are appropriately in this class.
The Parties have also exchanged written discovery requests,
including Defendant serving an omnibus set of written discovery on
all potential class plaintiffs who filed a notice of consent to
join this suit. Defendant has currently responded to Plaintiff's
written discovery requests and Plaintiff has begun responding and
is continuing to respond on behalf of the class members who remain
in the class.
Unfortunately, in the last two months, Plaintiff's Counsel who was
the lead on conducting discovery for Plaintiffs, Andrew Stuart and
Ashley Landers, experienced severe health issues. Ms. Landers also
suffered from severe Covid, and while she was never hospitalized,
she was wholly unable to discharge her duties as a lawyer and was
physically limited for a period of three weeks.
Pei Wei is an American restaurant chain serving Pan Asian fare,
operating in at 119 locations in the U.S.. Pei Wei's dishes are
made to order in an open concept kitchen using cooking methods like
wok firing.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3k6v1SJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1600
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
- and -
Andrew Frisch, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) WORKERS
Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com
- and -
Ashley M. Landers, Esq.
Andrew H. Stuart, Esq.
STUART & JOHNSTON, LLC
3343 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 530
Atlanta, GA 30326
E-mail: pashley@stuartandjohnston.com
astuart@stuartandjohnston.com
PHILIP MORRIS: Dismissal of New York Consolidated Suit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the
plaintiffs in the putative shareholder class action suit entitled,
In re Philip Morris International Inc. Securities Litigation, filed
a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Second
Circuit.
A putative shareholder class action lawsuit, In re Philip Morris
International Inc. Securities Litigation, is pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Philip Morris International
Inc. stock between July 26, 2016 and April 18, 2018.
The lawsuit names Philip Morris International Inc. and certain
officers and employees as defendants and includes allegations that
the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose information about PMI's business, operations,
financial condition, and prospects, related to product sales of,
and alleged irregularities in clinical studies of, PMI's Platform 1
product. The lawsuit seeks various forms of relief, including
damages.
In November 2018, the court consolidated three putative shareholder
class action lawsuits with similar allegations previously filed in
the Southern District of New York (namely, City of Westland Police
and Fire Retirement System v. Philip Morris International Inc., et
al, Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters' Pension Fund v. Philip Morris
International Inc., et al., and Gilchrist v. Philip Morris
International Inc., et al.) into these proceedings.
A putative shareholder class action lawsuit, Rubenstahl v. Philip
Morris International Inc., et al., that had been previously filed
in December 2017 in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff
due to similar allegations in these proceedings.
On February 4, 2020, the court granted defendants' motion in its
entirety, dismissing all but one of the plaintiffs' claims with
prejudice. The court noted that one of plaintiffs' claims
(allegations relating to four non-clinical studies of PMI's
Platform 1 product) did not state a viable claim but allowed
plaintiffs to replead that claim by March 3, 2020.
On February 18, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of the court's February 4th decision; this motion
was denied on September 21, 2020.
On September 28, 2020, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
seeking to replead allegations relating to four non-clinical
studies of PMI's Platform 1 product.
On September 10, 2021, the court granted defendant's motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint in its entirety.
On October 8, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit.
Philip Morris said, "We believe that this lawsuit is without merit
and will continue to defend it vigorously."
Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
PHILIP MORRIS: Jacklin Class Suit Underway in Canada
----------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Suzanne Jacklin
v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.
In the ninth class action pending in Canada, Suzanne Jacklin v.
Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., Ontario Superior
Court of Justice, filed June 20, 2012, the company, Rothmans,
Benson & Hedges Inc., and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and
Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants.
The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD")
resulting from the use of tobacco products.
She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked a minimum
of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or suffer, from
COPD, heart disease, or cancer, as well as restitution of profits.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
PHILIP MORRIS: Kunta Class Suit Ongoing in Canada
-------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Kunta v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.
In a class action pending in Canada, Kunta v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Winnipeg,
Canada, filed June 12, 2009, the company, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges
Inc. ("RBH"), and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria),
and other members of the industry, are defendants.
The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
("COPD"), severe asthma, and mild reversible lung disease resulting
from the use of tobacco products.
She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents
and family members, as well as restitution of profits, and
reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by
tobacco products.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
PHILIP MORRIS: Letourneau Suit in Canada Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the
company's subsidiary in Canada continues to defend a class action
suit entitled, Cecilia Letourneau v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd.,
Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp.
In a class action pending in Canada, Cecilia Letourneau v. Imperial
Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI-Macdonald
Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in September 1998, RBH
and other Canadian cigarette manufacturers (Imperial Tobacco Canada
Ltd. and JTI-Macdonald Corp.) are defendants.
The plaintiff, an individual smoker, sought compensatory and
punitive damages for each member of the class who is deemed
addicted to smoking. The class was certified in 2005.
The trial court issued its judgment on May 27, 2015. The trial
court found RBH and two other Canadian manufacturers liable and
awarded a total of CAD 131 million (approximately $106 million) in
punitive damages, allocating CAD 46 million (approximately $37
million) to RBH.
The trial court estimated the size of the addiction class at
918,000 members but declined to award compensatory damages to the
addiction class because the evidence did not establish the claims
with sufficient accuracy.
The trial court found that a claims process to allocate the awarded
punitive damages to individual class members would be too expensive
and difficult to administer.
On March 1, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued a decision largely
affirming the trial court's findings of liability and the total
amount of punitive damages awarded allocating CAD 57 million
including interest (approximately $46 million) to RBH.
RBH and PMI believe the findings of liability and damages in both
Létourneau and the Blais cases were incorrect and in contravention
of applicable law on several grounds including the following: (i)
defendants had no obligation to warn class members who knew, or
should have known, of the risks of smoking; (ii) defendants cannot
be liable to class members who would have smoked regardless of what
warnings were given; and (iii) defendants cannot be liable to all
class members given the individual differences between class
members.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
PHILIP MORRIS: McDermid Class Action Underway in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, McDermid v.
Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al.
In a class action pending in Canada, McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco
Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada,
filed June 25, 2010, the company, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.,
and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other
members of the industry, are defendants.
The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to
tobacco products and heart disease resulting from the use of
tobacco products.
He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12,
2007, and who suffered from heart disease allegedly caused by
smoking, their estates, dependents and family members, plus
disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1,
1954, to the date the claim was filed.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
PHILLIPS & COHEN: Settlement in Haston Suit Wins Initial Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY HASTON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PHILLIPS & COHEN ASSOCIATES, LTD., and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case
No.2:20-cv-01069-WSS (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge William S.
Stickman entered an order that:
1. The Motion for Preliminary Approval of the proposed
settlement is granted, and the Parties are hereby ordered
to comply with the schedule as set forth in this Order,
and to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
2. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this
action and over all Parties hereto.
3. The following Settlement Class is certified for
purposes of settlement:
"All persons residing in Delaware, Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, and the U.S. Virgin Islands who, from April 1,
2020 through August 13, 2020, received a letter from
Defendant that stated in some form that Defendant would
assume the debt at issue in the letter was valid unless
the consumer sent a written dispute to Defendant."
4. The Court finds that, for the purpose of this Settlement,
the requirements of Rule of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure are satisfied, and that a class action is an
appropriate method for resolving the disputes in this
litigation. Specifically, the Court finds that the
Settlement Class satisfies the prerequisites for class
certification.
In the Class Action Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
violated the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"),
when it sent collection letters to Plaintiff and members of the
putative classes.
The Defendant has denied any and all liability alleged in the
Complaint.
As a result of arm's-length negotiations between the Parties via
counsel, which included a mediation, the Parties reached a
settlement that provides, among other relief, monetary relief to
the Settlement Class members.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kyEouX at no extra charge.[CC]
PILLPACK LLC: Bid to Seal in Williams TCPA Suit Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AARON WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PILLPACK, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
19-5282 RJB (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert J. Bryan of the U.S.
District Court of the Western District of Washington, Tacoma,
granted in part and denied in part PillPack's Motion to Seal.
Facts
In the class action, the Plaintiffs allege that PillPack violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C.
Section 227, et seq. The class was certified on Feb. 12, 2021.
The Plaintiffs now move to modify the class definition. PillPack
filed a response and, in the instant motion, move to seal certain
documents and deposition transcripts filed in support of their
response. The deposition transcripts and some of the documents were
from entities who are not parties to the case, Fluent, Inc.,
Citadel Marketing Group, and Byte Success Marketing LLC.
PillPack points out in its motion that it is not the entity seeking
to keep some of these items under seal. Some of the items sought to
remain under seal were designated as "confidential" by either
Fluent, Citadel, or Byte and were provided, at least in part, under
a stipulated protective order.
The counsel for each of these non-parties were served with a copy
of the motion. The Plaintiffs respond and agree that the motion to
seal is appropriate as to some of the documents filed (those that
contain personal identifying information) and oppose the motion as
to the deposition testimony and some of the documents provided by
Byte.
Discussion
The following documents are sought to be remain under seal:
(1) the unredacted Declaration of Eric A. Franz (Dkt. 192,
1-12);
(2) Exhibit A to Franz Declaration (Dkt. 192, at 14);
(3) Exhibit E to Franz Declaration (Dkt. 192, at 16-42)(Rule
30(b)(6))(deposition of Jeff Richard for non-party
Fluent)(designated as "confidential" by Fluent pursuant to a
stipulated protective order);
(4) Exhibit H to Franz Declaration (Dkt. 192, at 44-73)(Rule
30(b)(6) deposition of David Andras for non-party Citadel)
(designated as "confidential" by Citadel pursuant to a stipulated
protective order);
(5) Exhibit P to Franz Declaration (Dkt. 192, at
75-103)(emails and call statistics from non-party Byte)(designated
as "confidential" by Byte pursuant to a stipulated protective
order);
(6) Exhibit Q to Franz Declaration (Dkt. 192, at 105);
(7) Exhibit R to Franz Declaration (Dkt. 192, at
107-113)(service contract between nonparty Byte and another entity
as well as emails from and to non-party Byte)(designated as
"confidential" by Byte pursuant to a stipulated protective order);
and
(8) Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, and G to the Declaration of
Kimberly Spicer (Dkt. 190, at 1-15).
Judge Bryan holds that PillPack's motion to seal should be granted
to as to the unredacted Declaration of Eric A. Franz; Exhibit A to
Franz Declaration; Exhibit Q to Franz Declaration; and Exhibits A,
B, C, D, E, F, and G to the Declaration of Kimberly Spicer. He
holds that PillPack has provided "compelling reasons" to keep these
pleadings under seal. Each of these documents contain personally
identifying information, including names, addresses, phone numbers.
PillPack has shown that (i) there are legitimate private and public
interests in keeping these pleadings under seal, (ii) the
individuals whose information is in these documents may suffer
privacy invasions if they are not kept under seal, and (iii) there
is not a less restrictive alternative to keeping these documents
under seal. Accordingly, these documents should remain under seal.
This ruling applies only to the present motion and may be
reassessed at a later stage in the case.
However, Judge Bryan holds that PillPack's motion to seal should be
denied as to: Exhibit E to Franz Declaration (Dkt. 192, at
16-42)(Rule 30(b)(6)(deposition of Jeff Richard for non-party
Fluent); Exhibit H to Franz Declaration (Dkt. 192, at 44-73)(Rule
30(b)(6) deposition of David Andras for non-party Citadel); Exhibit
P to Franz Declaration (Dkt. 192, at 75-103)(emails and call
statistics from non-party Byte); and Exhibit R to Franz Declaration
(Dkt. 192, at 107-113)(service contract between non-party Byte and
another entity as well as emails from and to non-party Byte).
He says, at this point, no reason, much less a "compelling reason,"
to keep these documents under seal has been provided. The parties
who designated the information as "confidential" failed to respond
to the motion despite having notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Local Rule 5(g)(3)(B). Exhibits E, H, P and R to the Franz
Declaration should not remain under seal.
Judge Bryan is unable to unseal portions of a document in the
court's filing system CM/ECF. Due to PillPack's decision to file
all the documents together under seal in one entry in CM/ECF (Dkt.
192), PillPack should be ordered to refile Exhibit E to Franz
Declaration (Dkt. 192, at 16-42); Exhibit H to Franz Declaration
(Dkt. 192, at 44-73); Exhibit P to Franz Declaration (Dkt. 192, at
75-103); and Exhibit R to Franz Declaration (Dkt. 192, at 107-113).
These documents should be refiled by Oct. 29, 2021.
Order
Therefore, Judge Bryan granted in part and denied in part
PillPack's Motion to Seal. The Clerk is directed to send
uncertified copies of the Order to all counsel of record and to any
party appearing pro se at said party's last known address.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2b2e6e2x from Leagle.com.
PLURIS WEDGEFIELD: Kohl Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA KOHL and MATTHEW
KOHL, individually, and on behalf of a class of persons similarly
situated, v. PLURIS WEDGEFIELD, LLC, PLURIS HOLDINGS, LLC, and
PLURIS WEDGEFIELD, INC., Case No. 6:20-cv-01683-CEM-GJK (M.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the proposed Class;
2. appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives;
3. appointing Matthew S. Mokwa, Timothy C. Davis and Jacob
Phillips as Class Counsel; and
4. directing the Parties to submit a Notice Plan.
The Plaintiffs respectfully move this Court to enter an order
certifying this case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiffs seek to represent over 5,500 residents of the Wedgefield
residential housing community located in Orange County, Florida.
The proposed class members receive their potable water from
Defendant Pluris Wedgefield, LLC.
The Plaintiffs contend has maintained an inadequate community water
system and provided the proposed class members with drinking water
laden with dangerous chemicals and contaminants. Even during the
pendency of this lawsuit, testing by Pluris' own experts has
demonstrated dangerously high levels of contaminants.
The Defendants operate a public water system that treats raw
groundwater sourced from the Floridian aquifer. The Floridian
aquifer is one of the world's most productive aquifers and supplies
drinking water to nearly 10 million people living throughout the
Southeastern United States.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 29,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mNZIOk
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew S. Mokwa, Esq.
Steven R. Maher, Esq.
Jason R. Fraxedas, Esq.
THE MAHER LAW FIRM, P.A.
271 W. Canton Ave.. Suite 1
Winter Park, FL 32789
Telephone: (407) 839-0866
Facsimile: (407) 425-7958
E-mail: smaher@maherlawfirm.com
mmokwa@maherlawfirm.com
jrfraxedas@maherlawfirm.com
- and -
Christopher B. Hood, Esq.
Timothy C. Davis, Esq.
HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
2224 First Avenue North
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 326-3336
E-mail: chood@hgdlawfirm.com
tim@hgdlawfirm.com
- and -
Jacob L. Phillips, Esq.
NORMAND PLLC
3165 McCrory Place, Ste. 175
Orlando, FL 32803
Telephone: (407) 603-6031
Facsimile: (888) 974-2175
E-mail: Jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com
Michelle.montecalvo@normandpllc.com
Service@normandpllc.com
POLARIS INC: Guzman Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Polaris Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2021, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2021, that plaintiffs in the Guzman
class action lawsuit have taken an appeal from a court decision to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
As of September 30, 2021, the Company is party to four putative
class actions pending against the Company in the United States.
These class actions allege that the Company violated various
California consumer protection laws related to rollover protection
structure certification in California, Oregon, Nevada, and Texas.
The Company is unable to provide an evaluation of the likelihood
that a loss will be incurred or an estimate of the range of
possible loss on the putative class actions.
The first putative class action is pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota and alleges excessive
heat hazards on Sportsman ATVs, seeking damages for alleged
economic loss: Riley Johannessohn, Daniel Badilla, James Kelley,
Kevin Wonders, William Bates and James Pinion, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Polaris Industries (D.
Minn.), October 4, 2016.
On March 31, 2020, the district court judge denied class
certification. The plaintiffs appealed denial of class
certification to the Eighth Circuit. On August 20, 2021, the Eighth
Circuit affirmed denial of class certification.
The second putative class action is pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota and arises out of
allegations that certain Polaris products suffer from purportedly
unresolved fire hazards allegedly resulting in economic loss, and
is the result of the consolidation of the three putative class
actions that were filed between April 5-10, 2018 and that the
Company disclosed in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
period ended March 31, 2018: In re Polaris Marketing, Sales
Practices, and Product Liability Litigation (D. Minn.), June 15,
2018.
On February 26, 2020, the district court dismissed the majority of
plaintiffs and claims.
Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed the remaining
plaintiffs and have appealed to the Eighth Circuit on behalf of the
Court dismissed plaintiffs.
On August 16, 2021, the Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the
claims brought by the plaintiffs who appealed.
The third putative class action is pending in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California and alleges
violations of various California consumer protection laws focused
on rollover protection systems' certifications, for various Polaris
off-road vehicles sold in California: Paul Guzman and Jeremy
Albright v. Polaris Inc., Polaris Industries Inc., and Polaris
Sales Inc., August 8, 2019.
On May 12, 2021, the district court granted summary judgment and
dismissed the plaintiffs' claims.
Plaintiffs have appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit.
The fourth putative class action is pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California and alleges
violations of various California consumer protection laws focused
on rollover protection systems' certifications, for various Polaris
off-road vehicles sold in California, Oregon, Nevada and Texas:
Michael Hellman, Francisco Berlanga, Tim Artoff, Cy Mitchell and
Jonathan Lollar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Polaris Industries Inc. (DE), Polaris Sales Inc. and
Polaris Industries Inc. (MN) (E.D. Cal.), May 25, 2021.
The Hellman class action was brought by the same plaintiffs'
counsel as in the Guzman case noted above and is based on
substantially similar allegations.
The Company has moved to dismiss the non-California plaintiffs.
With respect to each of these four putative class action lawsuits,
the Company is unable to provide any reasonable evaluation of the
likelihood that a loss will be incurred or any reasonable estimate
of the range of possible loss.
Polaris Inc. is an American manufacturer of motorcycles,
snowmobiles, ATV, and neighborhood electric vehicles.
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Arbitration Bid in Neff FDCPA Suit Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHARLES M. NEFF, JR. individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated and STACY MARIE ADAMS-NEFF individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19cv1028
(W.D. Pa.), Judge David Stewart Cercone of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania issued his Opinion in
support of his order granting the Defendant's motion to compel
arbitration.
Plaintiffs Stacy Adams-Neff and Charles Neff, Jr. commenced the
action seeking redress for themselves and on behalf of a class of
all others similarly situated for alleged violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1693, et seq.
("FDCPA"). The violations assertedly arise from the Defendant's
attempt to collect on a loan initiated by OneMain Financial, a
consumer discount company regulated by Pennsylvania's Consumer
Discount Company Act, 7 P. S. Section 6201, et seq. ("CDCA").
The Plaintiffs defaulted on the loan and OneMain charged the loan
off. OneMain then assigned the account to the Defendant, an entity
that does not have a license under section 6203 of the CDCA. The
Plaintiffs maintain that "the CDCA specifically prohibits
non-licensed, non-bank entities such as the Defendant from
purchasing CDCA loans from non-bank entities licensed under the
CDCA such as OneMain." It also prohibits licensed entities such as
OneMain from selling CDCA regulated loans to non-licensed entities
except where approval for the assignment is obtained from the
Pennsylvania Department of Banking. As a result, the
purchase/assignment of the debt purportedly was "void."
The Defendant answered the complaint and admitted it is not a
licensed consumer discount company. It maintains that it is not
required to have such a license to purchase the account in
question. It further raised through affirmative defense the
contention that the Plaintiffs' claims are subject to resolution
through mandatory individual arbitration. The parties then engaged
in an initial phase of fact discovery. Thereafter, the Defendant
filed a motion to compel arbitration. On Sept. 30, 2021, an order
was entered granting the motion.
Judge Cercone's Opinion is issued in support of that order. He
explains that the parties agreed to engage in an initial phase of
fact discovery relative to the arbitrability of the parties'
dispute. They do not dispute the historical facts leading to the
Defendant's asserted attempt to collect on the loan. Instead, they
rigorously dispute whether defendant acquired a right to compel
arbitration in the first instance.
The Plaintiff relies on the assignment and the Defendant's lack of
a license as a consumer discount company and/or OneMain's lack of
authorization from the Department to sell the account to the
Defendant. The Defendant relies on the breadth and scope of the
arbitration provision in the loan to have the arbitrator determine
in the first instance whether defendant can rely on the loan
documents to invoke the arbitration provisions contained therein.
Thus, the inquiry on the issue of arbitrability extends beyond the
face of the complaint and its supporting documents and it follows
that Rule 56 supplies the governing standards of review.
Judge Cercone opines that the Plaintiffs' contention that the
assignment of the account was the result of an illegal transaction
that precluded the transfer of any contractual rights is not
without support. The Plaintiff has failed to supply sufficient
grounds to deny the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. His
reasons for this are two-fold.
First, the federal "severability rule" requires a court to treat a
provision or agreement to settle a controversy by arbitration as
severable from the contract or series of contractual instruments in
which it is contained. This "doctrine" recognizes "that an
arbitration clause is 'severable' and independently enforceable
from the rest of the contract in which it is contained." Under this
severability rule, a party cannot avoid arbitration by attacking
the contract containing the arbitration clause as a whole
("container contract")." Instead, in order to defeat a motion to
compel arbitration the opposing party must mount a specific
challenge to "the arbitration clause itself."
The second impediment to the Plaintiff's challenge to the
Defendant's motion is what has become known as the delegation
principle. This principle relates to the parties' contractual
ability to assign initial determinations (often called "gateway
questions") to the arbitrator. The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA")
"reflects the fundamental principle that arbitration is a matter of
contract." At base, arbitration "is a way to resolve those disputes
-- but only those disputes -- that the parties have agreed to
submit to arbitration."
It is undisputed that the Plaintiffs assented to the initial
arbitration provisions as part of the loan documents giving rise to
the account. Those arbitration provisions contained a delegation
provision that committed disputes about the enforceability of the
loan documents and the Plaintiffs' indebtedness on the account to
an arbitrator in the first instance. This state of affairs created
an arbitration provision containing a delegation clause requiring
the parties to submit to arbitration all threshold issues
pertaining to enforceability. Against this backdrop, the
severability rule requires the Court to submit to the arbitrator
the parties' dispute as to whether defendant can avail itself of
the contractual rights in the account in defense of the Plaintiffs'
FDCPA claims.
The Plaintiffs' efforts to mount a challenge to the delegation
clause itself fall short of the mark, Judge Cercone opines. He
says, the Plaintiffs do not identify anything in the initial
transaction with OneMain that indicates or draws into question the
validity of the arbitration provisions or, more importantly, the
delegation clause. They have not advanced any basis to demonstrate
that the initial contract containing those provisions was "not
concluded" to a point where they gained legal force and effect.
The Plaintiffs' attack on the enforceability of the contract
containing the arbitration provisions and the delegation clause
within them comes from an independent source: The validity of the
transaction between OneMain and defendant. The Plaintiffs' thus do
not question or dispute their assent to or the enforceability of
the container contract itself, or more importantly its arbitration
provisions and delegation clause. They do not attack the
Defendant's assent to that container contract or its delegation
clause. Because that delegation clause clearly and unmistakably
commits the enforceability of the arbitration provisions to the
arbitrator, Judge Cercone holds that the Court lacks the power to
further resolve the parties' dispute as to enforceability at this
juncture.
Consequently, Judge Cercone is obligated to grant the Defendant's
motion to compel arbitration and await the arbitrator's
determination on the Defendant's ability to 1) enforce the loan
documents to compel arbitration and, if so, 2) use them in defense
of the Plaintiffs FDCPA claim.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4h5rprkv from Leagle.com.
PREPAID ATTORNEY: Appeal From Arbitration Order in Meza Suit Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARIA MEZA, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants v.
PREPAID ATTORNEY SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants and
Respondents, Case No. B308033 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of
California for the Second District, Division Three, dismissed Maria
Meza's appeal from the trial court's order granting the Defendants'
motion to compel arbitration.
Background
Defendant/respondent Prepaid Attorney Services, Inc. (PASI) is a
California corporation that contracts with individuals for prepaid
attorney services. Defendants/respondents Law Offices of Kim, Au &
Associates, Jason Kim, Roland Au, Jason Yoon, Ted Yoon, Robert
Morris, and Lavonna Hayashi are California attorneys.
In 2016, Plaintiffs Maria Meza, Edwin Meza, and Meza Auto Inc.
entered into a prepaid attorney service agreement with PASI. They
subsequently were served with a complaint in a personal injury
action and sought legal services under the PASI agreement. The
attorney defendants defended the Plaintiffs in the personal injury
action, at the conclusion of which a judgment was entered against
plaintiffs for more than $550,000.
The Plaintiffs filed the present action in September 2018 and filed
the operative first amended class action complaint against PASI and
the attorney defendants in March 2019. The complaint alleges that
the Plaintiffs represent a class consisting of all persons who
entered into PASI agreements during the relevant period (Sept. 24,
2014 to the present).
On behalf of the putative class, the complaint alleges that PASI's
collection of monthly premiums in exchange for prepaid legal
services constitutes either the unauthorized practice of law or the
operation of an unlawful attorney referral service, giving rise to
five causes of action: (1) violation of the Unfair Competition Law
(Bus. & Prof. Code, Section 17200 et seq.); (2) violation of the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, Section 1750 et seq.); (3)
breach of fiduciary duty; (4) money had and received and unjust
enrichment; and (5) declaratory relief. With regard to the fifth
cause of action, the complaint seeks a declaration that "charging
and retaining the above described Premiums, enrollments and other
fees and costs, paid directly or indirectly, as described herein is
unlawful."
On behalf of the named Plaintiffs only, the complaint alleges three
additional causes of action, for legal malpractice, constructive
fraud, and fraudulent concealment.
In July 2019, the Defendants moved to compel arbitration, and in
October 2019, the Plaintiffs moved to certify a class. The trial
court heard the class certification motion first, and on Nov. 20,
2019, it denied class certification as to the first four causes of
action, but granted class certification as to the fifth cause of
action for declaratory relief. As to that cause of action only, the
court certified a class of "All persons who in the Relevant Period
entered into Prepaid Attorney Service Membership Plan Contracts for
PASI's Prepaid Attorney Service and paid a Premium," and a subclass
of persons who entered into such contracts "primarily for personal,
family, or household use."
The Defendants renewed the motion to compel arbitration in May
2020. Defendants contended that each member of the Plaintiff class
had signed an agreement to arbitrate any dispute or claim between
the parties arising out of the PASI agreements, and thus that all
of the Plaintiffs' claims were subject to arbitration.
The Plaintiffs disagreed; they urged that the PASI agreements had
an unlawful object and were void. As a result, the Plaintiffs
contended, no portion of the PASI agreements, including the
arbitration provisions, were enforceable. Alternatively, they
contended the arbitration agreements were unconscionable, there was
fraud in the execution of the PASI agreements, the arbitration
provision did not require the Plaintiffs to arbitrate with the
nonsignatory defendants, and the Defendants had waived their right
to compel arbitration.
The trial court took the motion to compel arbitration under
submission and, on Aug. 12, 2020, granted it. The court noted that
under Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, if a contract
includes an arbitration agreement, and grounds exist to revoke the
entire contract, such grounds would also vitiate the arbitration
agreement. Thus, if an otherwise enforceable arbitration agreement
is contained in an illegal contract, a party may avoid arbitration
altogether. By contrast, when the alleged illegality goes only to a
portion of the contract (that does not include the arbitration
agreement), the entire controversy, including the issue of
illegality, remains arbitrable
Applying Moncharsh's principles to the present case, the trial
court found (1) the PASI agreements were not illegal under Business
and Professions Code section 6125 (prohibiting the unlicensed
practice of law) because they did not contemplate that PASI itself
would practice law on behalf of any of its members; (2) although
PASI's failure to register as a professional law corporation was a
technical violation of law, the object of the PASI agreements was
not a violation of law, and thus PASI's failure to register as a
professional law corporation was not a defense to arbitration; (3)
PASI appeared to be a valid group or legal services plan under
California law; (4) PASI was not a lawyer referral service subject
to Business and Professions Code section 6155; and (5) the PASI
agreements were not void for fraud in the execution.
The court further found that the arbitration agreements were not
procedurally unconscionable, and the non-signatory defendants were
intended third-party beneficiaries of the PASI agreements. It thus
granted the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration of the
individual claims and the remaining class claim, and it ordered the
Plaintiffs' action stayed until arbitration was complete pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4.
On Oct. 8, 2020, Maria Meza, in her capacity as class
representative, filed a notice of appeal from the Aug. 12, 2020
order compelling arbitration.
Discussion
As an initial matter, the Court of Appeals must consider whether
the order compelling arbitration is appealable. It finds that Meza
has not directed the its attention to any case in which the death
knell doctrine has been applied to an order compelling arbitration;
the single case she cites for that proposition, Nixon v. AmeriHome
Mortgage Co., LLC (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 934 (Nixon), does not
support it. Nixon did not hold that an order compelling arbitration
is appealable under the death knell doctrine. To the contrary, it
found that the arbitration order at issue may not have been
appealable even under the facts of that case, where the order
compelling arbitration was issued simultaneously with an appealable
order dismissing Nixon's class claims. Nixon therefore does not
support Meza's contention that the death knell doctrine applies in
the present context.
Nor is the Court of Appeals persuaded that the order compelling
arbitration is appealable because it "'effectively rang the death
knell'" for the class claims. Meza's contrary conclusion assumes
that there is nothing left of the class claims for the arbitrator
to decide because the illegality claim asserted in the complaint
has already been decided by the trial court. But that assertion
presupposes that the illegality issue decided by the trial court,
and the illegality question to be decided by the arbitrator, are
the same. They are not.
Finally, the Court of Appeals holds that Meza has not directed it
to any authority for the proposition that the arbitrator deciding
the declaratory relief claim will be bound by the trial court's
findings such that the arbitrator will have no choice but to find
the PASI agreement lawful. Therefore, the Court of Appeals cannot
assume, without analysis, that the legal principles that bound the
trial court will be equally binding on the arbitrator.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court of Appeals concludes that the
trial court's order compelling arbitration does not have a "death
knell" effect on Meza's class claims. It, therefore, is not
appealable. The Court of Appeals further concludes that this is not
an appropriate case in which to exercise our discretion to treat
the purported appeal as a petition for writ of mandate.
The appeal is dismissed. The Defendants are awarded their appellate
costs.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yj8vhep9 from Leagle.com.
Catanzarite Law Corporation, Kenneth J. Catanzarite --
kcatanzarite@catanzarite.com -- and Nicole M. Catanzarite-Woodward
-- ncatanzarite@catanzarite.com -- for the Plaintiffs and
Appellants.
Law Offices of Allan E. Perry and Allan E. Perry --
aeplawyer@gmail.com -- for the Defendants and Respondents.
PRESIDIO INC: LaPrairie Suit Moved From W.D.N.Y. to S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ERIC LAPRAIRIE, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. PRESIDIO, INC., PRESIDIO HOLDINGS, INC.,
PRESIDIO LLC, PRESIDIO NETWORKED SOLUTIONS LLC, PRESIDIO NETWORKED
SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC and PRESIDIO TECHNOLOGY CAPITAL, LLC, Case No.
6:21-cv-06306, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on October 28, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-08795-JFK to the proceeding.
The case arises from a personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
as a result of the Defendants' alleged misconduct.
Presidio, Inc. is an information technology service management
company headquartered in New York, New York.
Presidio Holdings, Inc. is an information technology service
management company headquartered in New York, New York.
Presidio LLC is a provider of information technology services based
in New York, New York.
Presidio Networked Solutions LLC is an information technology
service management company headquartered in Maryland.
Presidio Networked Solutions Group, LLC is an information
technology solutions company based in Texas.
Presidio Technology Capital, LLC is a provider of information
technology services based in Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Nelson Thomas, Esq.
Jessica Lynne Lukasiewicz, Esq.
Jonathan W. Ferris, Esq.
Thomas Tallet, Esq.
THOMAS & SOLOMON LLP
693 East Avenue
Rochester, NY 14607
Telephone: (585) 272-0540
Facsimile: (585) 272-0574
E-mail: nthomas@theemploymentattorneys.com
jlukasiewicz@theemploymentattorneys.com
jferris@theemploymentattorneys.com
ttallet@theemploymentattorneys.com
PRINCESS CRUISE: Class Cert. Pretrial Deadlines Extended in Chung
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUC CHUNG, et al., v.
PRINCESS CRUISE LINES, LTD., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-04954-DDP-GJS
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dean D. Pregerson entered an order
granting the Parties' stipulation to extend certain pretrial
deadlines as follows:
Item Deadline
-- Fact Discovery cut-off Feb. 28, 2022
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs to No change
submit motion for class
certification
-- Deadline for Defendants to No change
submit response in opposition
to motion for class
certification
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs to Dec. 23, 2021
submit reply in support of
motion for class
certification
-- Deadline for Parties to March 31, 2022
exchange affirmative expert
reports
-- Deadline for parties to April 29, 2022
exchange rebuttal expert
reports
-- Deadline to Complete Expert April 29, 2022
Discovery
-- Deadline for Daubert Motions May 13, 2022
-- Deadline for responses in May 27, 2022
opposition to Daubert Motions
-- Deadline for Replies in Support June 3, 2022
of Daubert Motions
-- Deadline for Summary Judgment June 17, 2022
Motions
-- Deadline for Responses to July 1, 2022
Summary Judgment Motions
-- Deadline for Replies to Summary Juky 15, 2022
Judgment Motions
-- Pretrial Conference/Motions in No change
Limine
-- 3 Week Jury Trial No change
Princess Cruises is an American-British cruise line owned by
Carnival Corporation & plc. The company is incorporated in Bermuda
and its headquarters are in Santa Clarita, California.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3o6S80B at no extra charge.[CC]
PSL ASSOCIATES: Class Status Bid Filing Due March 8, 2022
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXIS AGAR-VALENCIA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PSL
ASSOCIATES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No.
2:21-cv-04306-GW-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge George H. Wu
entered an order setting a continued briefing schedule as follows:
1. The Plaintiff shall file the motion for class
certification on or before March 8, 2022.
2. The Defendant shall file the opposition on or before April
18, 2022.
3. The Plaintiff's deadline to file the reply shall be
continued from February 14, 2022 to on or before May 9,
2022.
4. The hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification
is continued from February 28, 2022 to May 23, 2022 at
8:30 a.m.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H9hgwL at no extra charge.[CC]
QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Gusloff Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMY GUSLOFF, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. QUINCY BIOSCIENCE HOLDING COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00662 (W.D. Wis., October 19, 2021)
brings this complaint as a collective and class action against the
Defendant for its alleged illegal pay policies and practices that
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a sales
representative for the last three years.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated sales representatives were classified by the Defendant as
non-exempt from overtime wages. However, the Defendant failed to
properly pay their overtime compensation. Although the Defendant
paid them overtime compensation, the Defendant allegedly failed to
include commissions or bonuses earned by its sales representatives
when calculating the overtime premium due for hours worked in
excess of 40 in a workweek.
Quincy Bioscience Holding Company, Inc. is a biotechnology company.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David C. Zoeller, Esq.
Aaron J. Bibb, Esq.
HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
Post Office Box 2155
Madison, WI 53701-2155
Tel: (608) 257-0040
Fax: (608) 256-0236
E-mail: dzoeller@hq-law.com
abibb@hq-law.com
RANGE RESOURCES: Mulls Bid to Dismiss Investor Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Range Resources Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the Company is
planning to seek dismissal of a class action lawsuit.
On March 4, 2021, a punitive class action lawsuit was filed in the
Western District of Pennsylvania in Case No. 2:21-CV-301 in which
the Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of Range stockholders who
purchased or acquired stock from April 29, 2016 to February 10,
2021.
The lawsuit has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas (Fort Worth Division).
The lawsuit claims Range misclassified certain wells as inactive
rather than having plugged the wells and that such alleged
misclassification affected the determination of our asset
retirement obligation accrual.
The lawsuit claims the disclosure of a $294,000 agreed penalty that
the company paid to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) in connection with the DEP's investigation of the
company's application for inactive status for a small number of its
wells which the DEP disclosed during market hours on February 10,
2021, was the basis for the Plaintiffs' discovery of the alleged
misrepresentations.
"We maintain that the factual allegations and the claims made in
the litigation are baseless; there were no misrepresentations made
and our asset retirement obligation was properly calculated," the
Company said.
"We also maintain that the market fully absorbed the information
disclosed by the DEP on February 10, 2021 and the stock price on
that day did not decrease," the Company added.
Given the company's view of the litigation as baseless, the company
plan to vigorously defend the litigation and moved for its
dismissal.
Range Resources Corporation, Texas-based independent natural gas,
natural gas liquids (NGLs) and oil company primarily engaged in the
exploration, development and acquisition of natural gas properties
in the Appalachian region of the United States.
RCM TECHNOLOGIES: Hubbard Settlement Deal Gets Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RHONDA HUBBARD v. RCM
TECHNOLOGIES (USA), INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-06363-YGR (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order:
1. granting motion for final approval of class action
settlement; and
2. granting motion for attorney's fees, costs, and service
award:
-- Class Counsel is awarded $375,000.00 in attorneys' fees
and $7,661.91 in litigation costs.
-- Plaintiff Rhonda Hubbard is granted an incentive award
of $10,000.00.
3. directing the parties to file a post-distribution
accounting no later than April 15, 2022; and
4. setting a compliance deadline on April 22, 2022 on the
Court's 9:01 a.m. calendar to verify timely filing of the
post-distribution accounting.
The Court previously granted a motion for preliminary approval of
the Class Action Settlement in this matter on May 12, 2021. On July
6, 2021, plaintiff filed her unopposed motion for attorney's fees,
costs, and service award. Thereafter, plaintiff filed her unopposed
motion for final settlement approval on September 21, 2021. The
Court held a hearing on October 26, 2020.
The Plaintiff filed the putative class action complaint on October
4, 2019, alleging that defendant, Procedural History
a healthcare staffing company, underpaid employees staffed on
travel assignments in California by excluding the value of weekly
per diem and stipend payments from the “regular rate” when
calculating overtime pay. The complaint asserts California state
law claims for unpaid overtime under California Labor Code section
510, (2) unfair business practices under California Business &
Professions Code section 17200, et seq., and (3) waiting time
penalties under California Labor Code section 203. (Id.) Defendant
denied any liability.
RCM provides information technology services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZXgktU at no extra charge.[CC]
REACH AIR: Kettler Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIELLE KETTLER, et. al.,
v. REACH AIR MEDICAL SERVICES, LLC, a California Company, Case No.
4:20-cv-03021-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure for the following classes:
-- General Class
"All natural persons from whom standard California base
rate and mileage charges have been sought for emergency
air medical transportation by Defendant from a location in
California from May 1, 2016 to present;"
-- Non-Signing Subclass
"General Class members where the person transported, or
the person's legal representative did not sign the
Ambulance Billing Authorization Form ("ABA Form");"
-- First Signing Subclass
"General Class members where the person transported, or
the person's legal representative signed an ABA Form not
specifying the price for transport;" and
-- Second Signing Subclass
"General Class members where the person transported, or
the person's legal representative signed an Authorization
to Bill Form ("ATB Form") specifying the price for
transport."
Venture capital firms bought air ambulance companies thinking that
they had carte blanche to charge patients an unlimited price
without any court having the power to second-guess their unilateral
and undisclosed pricing scheme. The people transported by air
ambulance lacked any choice about whether to be transported, by
whom they would be transported, or the charges that would be
assessed.
For many years, venture capital firms fought tooth and nail against
legislation that would have brought more fairness to air ambulance
billing. The venture capital firms eventually lost that battle
December 29, 2020, and starting on January 1, 2022, the No
Surprises Act is expected to prevent air ambulance companies from
sticking their insured patients with outrageous balance bills.
However, the Plaintiffs and hundreds of thousands of others
transported by air ambulance remain in the legal netherworld for
their transports prior to implementation of the No Surprise Act on
January 1, 2022. The air ambulance companies worked exceptionally
hard for years to create the current legal conundrum, and they
should not be heard to complain when it comes back to bite them.
Reach Air provides air ambulance services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify classes dated Oct. 29,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3o7BvSy
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert W. Thompson, Esq.
THOMPSON LAW OFFICES, P.C.
700 Airport Boulevard, Suite 160
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 513-6111
Facsimile: (650) 513-6071
E-mail: bobby@tlopc.com
- and -
Edward L. White, Esq.
EDWARD L. WHITE, P.C.
829 East 33rd Street
Edmond, OK 73013
Telephone: (405) 810-8188
Facsimile: (405) 608-0971
E-mail: ed@edwhitelaw.com
RECONNAISSANCE ENERGY: Muller Hits Share Drop Over Shady Operations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Muller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Reconnaissance Energy Africa Ltd., James
Jay Park, Scot Evans, Ian D. Brown, Carlos Escribano, Shiraz
Dhanani, Mark Gerlitz, James Granath, Claire Preece, Ndapewoshali
Shapwanale, Chris Gilmour and Sindila Mwiya,, Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-05910, (E.D. N.Y., October 25, 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.
Reconnaissance Energy Africa engages in the identification,
exploration, and development of oil and/or gas assets in Namibia
and Botswana, including in the Kalahari Desert and other fragile
areas.
Defendants allegedly failed to disclose that Reconnaissance's plan
for using unconventional means for energy extraction (including
fracking) involved unlicensed drilling tests, illegally using water
for well testing, illegally storing used water in unlined pools,
evading Namibian law and hiring shady consultants. Muller alleges
that Reconnaissance risked future well, drilling, and water-related
licenses in Namibia and Botswana because of this. On this news,
Reconnaissance's shares fell 6% on October 28, 2021 after a series
of reports filed by various agencies.
Muller purchased Reconnaissance securities at artificially inflated
prices and was damaged upon the revelation of corrective
disclosures. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10116
Phone: (212) 686-1060
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
RESCARE INC: Court Extends Class Cert. Deadlines in Diaz Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSANA DIAZ, on behalf of
herself, all others similarly situated, v. RESCARE, INC., a
Kentucky Corporation; RSCR CALIFORNIA, INC., a Kentucky
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
4:20-cv-01333-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez
Rogers entered an order having considered the Parties' joint motion
to extend deadlines, as follows:
1. Non-Expert discovery cutoff is hereby extended to January
31, 2022;
2. The current deadline for Plaintiff to file Motion for
Class Certification is hereby extended to February 15,
2022;
3. Defendants' opposition to Motion for Class Certification
is hereby extended to March 30, 2022;
4. Plaintiff's Reply in support of Motion for Class
Certification is hereby extended to April 28, 2022; and
5. Class Certification Motion hearing is set for May 30, 2022
at 2:00pm.
No further extensions will be granted absent extraordinary and
compelling reasons, says Judge Rogers.
ResCare provides services and support to seniors, people with
intellectual and developmental disabilities, children, and job
seekers.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2YfTvBj at no extra charge.[CC]
ROYAL BP: Faces Ivey Suit Over Failure to Reimburse Expenses
------------------------------------------------------------
HOPE IVEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROYAL BP CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
5:21-cv-00367-TES (M.D. Ga., October 15, 2021) brings this
complaint as a collective action against the Defendant alleging the
Defendant of violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
delivery driver from approximately February 2019 until July 2020.
The Plaintiff claims that she and other similarly situated delivery
drivers were underpaid by the Defendant by paying them less than
minimum wage per hour for all hours worked outside of the
restaurant making deliveries. In addition, the Defendant allegedly
failed to track their actual expenses and failed to keep records of
all of those expenses while making deliveries, thereby failing to
reimburse them for their all their actual expenses.
The Plaintiff seeks unpaid minimum wages and overtime premiums for
all hours worked for the Defendant in excess of 40 each week,
liquidated damages, pre-judgment interest, attorney's fees and
costs, and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Royal BP Corporation owns and operates multiple Papa John's
franchises throughout Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Tel: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
- and –
Matthew Herrington, Esq.
DELONG, CALDWELL, BRIDGERS,
FITZPATRICK & BENJAMIN
101 Marietta St., Suite 2650
Atlanta, GA 30303
Tel: (404) 979-3150
E-mail: matthew.herrington@dcbflegal.com
RUIXUE SHI: Wu Loses Bid for Default Judgment
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jun Wu v. Ruixue Shi, et
al., Case No. 2:20-cv-11799-FMO-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Fernando M. Olguin entered an order granting in part and denying in
part plaintiff's Ex Parte Application to Extend Hearing Date as
follows:
-- Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is taken under
submission, and the October 28, 2021, hearing date is
vacated.
-- Plaintiff's Motions for Default Judgment are denied
without prejudice.
-- Plaintiff may file a consolidated renewed motion for
default judgment by no later than January 6, 2022, and
notice it for hearing on February 3, 2021, pursuant to the
Local Rules.
A copy of the Court's civil minutes -- general dated Oct. 26, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nSUSyB at no
extra charge.[CC]
S.C. JOHNSON: Court Stays Windex Non-Toxic Litigation
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned RE: S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC.
WINDEX NON-TOXIC LITIGATION, Case No. 4:20-cv-03184-HSG (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order
granting the motion to stay this case in its entirety through
December 10, 2021.
The Court further directs the parties to file a status report
within 48 hours of the grant or denial of the final approval motion
in Clark. In addition to informing the Court about the outcome of
the Clark case, the parties should identify any remaining issues
for adjudication in this case.
S. C. Johnson is an American multinational, privately held
manufacturer of household cleaning supplies and other consumer
chemicals based in Racine, Wisconsin.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3q3pH6n at no extra charge.[CC]
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Motion to Quash Subpoena Filed in Reed Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action lawsuit styled DONNA REED,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
SCIENTIFIC GAMES CORP., Case No. 1:21-mc-00006-MAR, non-party
Natalie Morfitt and SciPlay Corporation filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Iowa a motion to quash
the subpoena issued by the Plaintiff in this case.
Ms. Morfitt and her employer, SciPlay Corp., move this court to
quash the subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. The
subpoena has allegedly multiple defects. Ms. Morfitt and SciPlay
are said to undue burden because it demands the production of a
huge quantity of documents that have little or no relevance to any
claims or defenses in the underlying litigation. The subpoena also
improperly seeks burdensome discovery when discovery in the
underlying litigation should be stayed given a pending appeal of
the denial of a motion to compel arbitration. There is no basis for
compelling Ms. Morfitt to produce the voluminous discovery the
Plaintiff has requested or to sit for a deposition at this
juncture.
Scientific Games Corp. is a gambling company headquartered in Las
Vegas, Nevada. [BN]
The Non-party is represented by:
Daniel C. Taylor, Esq.
BARTLIT BECK LLP
1801 Wewatta Street, 12th Floor
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 592-3100
Facsimile: (303) 592-3140
E-mail: daniel.taylor@bartlitbeck.com
- and-
Jason J. O'Rourke, Esq.
LANE & WATERMAN LLP
220 North Main Street, Suite 600
Davenport, IA 52801
Telephone: (563) 324-3246
Facsimile: (563) 324-1616
E-mail: jorourke@l-wlaw.com
SEATTLE, WA: Ct. Amends Class Cert Schedule in Hunters Capital Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUNTERS CAPITAL, LLC, a
Washington limited liability company, et al., on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, v. CITY OF SEATTLE, Case
No. 2:20-cv-00983-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Thomas S. Zilly
entered an order amending the case schedule in consideration of the
parties' stipulation, as follows:
-- Deadline for any motions related January 13, 2022
to class certification:
-- Deadline for oppositions to February 7, 2022
motions on class certification:
-- Deadline for replies in support of February 18, 2022
motions on class certification:
The Plaintiffs include HUNTERS PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington
limited liability company; GREENUS BUILDING, INC., a Washington
corporation; NORTHWEST LIQUOR AND WINE LLC, a Washington limited
liability company, SRJ ENTERPRISES, d/b/a CAR TENDER, a Washington
corporation, THE RICHMARK COMPANY d/b/a RICHMARK LABEL, a
Washington company, ONYX HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, a Washington
registered homeowners association, WADE BILLER, an individual,
MADRONA REAL ESTATE SERVICES LLC, a Washington limited liability
company, MADRONA REAL ESTATE INVESTORS IV LLC, a Washington limited
liability company, MADRONA REAL ESTATE INVESTORS VI LLC, a
Washington limited liability company, 12TH AND PIKE ASSOCIATES LLC,
a Washington limited liability company, REDSIDE PARTNERS LLC, a
Washington limited liability company, OLIVE ST APARTMENTS LLC, a
Washington limited liability corporation, and BERGMAN'S LOCK AND
KEY SERVICES LLC, a Washington limited liability company.
Hunters Capital is a real estate firm that renders real estate
development, and commercial brokerage.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bxWzMc at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tyler S. Weaver, Esq.
Patricia A. Eakes, Esq.
Angelo J. Calfo, Esq.
Tyler S. Weaver, Esq.
Gabe Reilly-Bates, Esq.
Andrew DeCarlow, Esq.
Henry Phillips, Esq.
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2800
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 407-2200
Facsimile: (206) 407-2224
E-mail: pattye@calfoeakes.com
angeloc@calfoeakes.com
tylerw@calfoeakes.com
gaber@calfoeakes.com
andrewd@calfoeakes.com
henryp@calfoeakes.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Joseph Groshong, Esq.
SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2050
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 684-8200
Facsimile: (206) 684-8284
E-mail: Joseph.Groshong@seattle.gov
- and -
Shane Cramer, Esq.
Arthur W. Harrigan, J., Esq.
Tyler L. Farmer, Esq.
Kristin E. Ballinger, Esq.
Caitlin B. Pratt, Esq.
HARRIGAN LEYH FARMER & THOMSEN LLP
999 Third Avenue, Suite 4400
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 623-1700
Facsimile: (206) 623-8717
E-mail: tylerf@harriganleyh.com
arthurh@harriganleyh.com
kristinb@harriganleyh.com
shanec@harriganleyh.com
caitlinp@harriganleyh.com
SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Dismissal of Gabriele's Agency Fees Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK GABRIELE; JEN-FANG LEE, Plaintiffs-Appellants v.
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 1000; SERVICE
EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, Defendants-Appellees, and NATIONAL
EDUCATION ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 20-16353 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the
Plaintiffs-Appellants' putative class action.
Plaintiffs-Appellants Gabriele and Lee appeal the district court's
dismissal of their putative class action brought against Service
Employees International Union Local 1000 and Service Employees
International Union. They seek declaratory and monetary relief
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for agency fees collected from
paychecks in violation of the First Amendment. They also bring
common law conversion and restitution claims.
The Ninth Circuit reviews de novo. It holds that the district court
properly dismissed Appellants' First Amendment claim, as it is
established law in the Circuit that a public sector union may
"invoke an affirmative defense of good faith to retrospective
monetary liability under section 1983" for agency fees it collected
prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Janus v. American
Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Council 31, 138
S.Ct. 2448 (2018).
The Appellants' claim for prospective declaratory relief is moot,
the Ninth Circuit holds. It explains that it is an inexorable
command of the United States Constitution that the federal courts
confine themselves to deciding actual cases and controversies. The
limitations that Article III imposes upon federal court
jurisdiction are not relaxed in the declaratory judgment context.
When the Supreme Court issued Janus, the Appellants' union stopped
collecting agency fees from non-union members. Shortly thereafter,
the California Attorney General issued an advisory opinion
explaining that the state "may no longer automatically deduct a
mandatory agency fee from the salary or wages of a non-member
public employee who does not affirmatively choose to financially
support the union."
Similarly, the Ninth Circuit finds that state administrative agency
that enforces public employment collective bargaining statutes
stated that it "will no longer enforce existing statutory or
regulatory provisions requiring non-members to pay an agency fee
without having consented to such a fee." Accordingly, it holds that
the conduct found unconstitutional in Janus has ceased and "could
not reasonably be expected to recur."
The district court also properly dismissed the Appellants' state
law claims. The Ninth Circuit finds that the collection of agency
fees was permitted by the Dills Act, California Government Code
Section 3513(k), 3515.7, 3515.8. The Appellants' common law claims,
asserting conversion and seeking restitution for such collection,
are inconsistent with the statute. Furthermore, the common law
claims are preempted.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3pbuxnxd from Leagle.com.
SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Dismissal of Hamidi Suit Over Agency Fees Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KOUROSH KENNETH HAMIDI, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
and CECILIA STANFIELD; MOZELLE YARBROUGH, Plaintiffs v. SERVICE
EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 1000; BETTY T. YEE,
Controller, State of California, Defendants-Appellees, Case No.
19-17442 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the
Plaintiffs-Appellants' class action lawsuit.
Employees Kourosh Hamidi and over a dozen other public sector
employees appeal from the district court's dismissal of their class
action lawsuit against the Union and the California State
Controller. The Employees seek declaratory and monetary relief
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for agency fees collected from their
paychecks in violation of the First Amendment.
The Ninth Circuit reviews both the dismissal of a complaint for
failure to state a claim and the grant of summary judgment de novo.
First, it finds that the Employees' claim for prospective
declaratory relief is moot. It holds that that the Union stopped
collecting agency fees in light of Janus v. American Federation of
State, County & Municipal Employees, Council 31, 138 S.Ct. 2448
(2018). Thus, the challenged opt-out system has not been used for
more than a year.
Next, the Ninth Circuit agrees that "subsequent events made it
absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not
reasonably be expected to recur." The Attorney General's and the
Union's acceptance of the unconstitutionality of mandatory agency
fee collection, along with the termination of the opt-out system
itself, make it clear that their "allegedly wrongful behavior is
not likely to occur or continue and that there is no threatened
injury certainly impending." There is no reasonable likelihood that
the Union or the State Controller will resume collecting fees or
using the challenged opt-out procedure.
That the California statutes about agency fees, such as Cal. Gov't
Code Sections 3513(i) & (k), 3515, 3515.7, and 3515.8, have not
been repealed does not give standing to the Employees.
Unconstitutional statutes, without more, give no one a right to
sue. Thus, the Ninth Circuit holds that the Employees' allegations
do not "plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief," and
affirms.
The Employees' claim for retroactive relief is also foreclosed by
Danielson v. Inslee, 945 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2019), the Ninth
Circuit further finds. It says, the Employees ask the Union for a
refund of all agency fees collected from their paychecks after July
2013. Danielson ruled that unions are entitled to a good-faith
defense under Section 1983 and are not liable to pay back the
agency fees collected before Janus. Danielson also held that
"private parties" are entitled "to rely on judicial pronouncements
of what the law is, without exposing themselves to potential
liability for doing so."
Even though the Employees' claim in the case is slightly different
from Danielson, the Ninth Circuit holds that the Union's use of the
opt-out system still complied with then-existing Supreme Court and
Ninth Circuit law. Even with the Supreme Court's decision in Knox
v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298
(2012), the Union was entitled to rely on Mitchell's pronouncement
of the law in good faith. Because the Union's collection of agency
fees through the opt-out system was "sanctioned not only by state
law, but also by directly on-point" Ninth Circuit precedent, the
Ninth Circuit holds that the Union is entitled to a good-faith
defense to "retrospective monetary liability under section 1983 for
the agency fees it collected pre-Janus." Thus, Danielson precludes
the Employees' recovery of agency fees.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5f5f6423 from Leagle.com.
SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Dismissal of Penning's Agency Fees Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STACY PENNING, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SERVICE
EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 1021; SERVICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-15226 (9th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court's dismissal of Penning's putative class action.
Plaintiff-Appellant Penning appeals the district court's dismissal
of his putative class action brought against Service Employees
International Union Local 1021 and other local unions affiliated
with Service Employees International Union nationwide. She seeks
declaratory and monetary relief under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for
agency fees collected from paychecks in violation of the First
Amendment. She also brings common law conversion and restitution
claims.
The Ninth Circuit reviews de novo. It holds that the district court
properly dismissed Penning's First Amendment claim, as it is
established law in the Circuit that a public sector union may
"invoke an affirmative defense of good faith to retrospective
monetary liability under section 1983" for agency fees it collected
prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Janus v. American
Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Council 31, 138
S.Ct. 2448 (2018).
Mr. Penning's claim for prospective declaratory relief is moot, the
Ninth Circuit finds. It explains that when the Supreme Court issued
Janus, Penning's union immediately stopped collecting agency fees
from non-union members. Shortly thereafter, the California Attorney
General issued an advisory opinion explaining that the state may no
longer automatically deduct a mandatory agency fee from the salary
or wages of a non-member public employee who does not affirmatively
choose to financially support the union.
Similarly, the Ninth Circuit holds that the state administrative
agency that enforces public employment collective bargaining
statutes stated that it will no longer enforce existing statutory
or regulatory provisions requiring non-members to pay an agency fee
without having consented to such a fee. Accordingly, it is clear
that the conduct found unconstitutional in Janus has ceased and
could not reasonably be expected to recur.
The district court also properly dismissed Penning's state law
claims, the Ninth Circuit finds. It says, the collection of agency
fees was permitted by the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, California
Government Code Section 3508.5. Penning's common law claims,
asserting conversion and seeking restitution for such collection,
are inconsistent with the statute. Furthermore, the common law
claims are preempted.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/kteme7uf from Leagle.com.
SIMPSON STRONG-TIE: Class Cert. Hearing Continued to Dec. 16
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAVI SALHOTRA, et al., v.
SIMPSON STRONG-TIE COMPANY, INC., et al., Case No. 19-cv-07901-TSH
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thomas S. Hixson entered an order
continuing hearings on motion for class certification and all
related matters to December 16, 2021, at 18 10:00 a.m. by Zoom
video conference.
Simpson Strong-Tie manufactures structural building products. The
Company offers anchors, angles, bases, caps, connectors, fasteners,
and hangers.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CSmSsF at no extra charge.[CC]
SOCLEAN INC: Cleaning Devices for CPAP "Defective," Seicol Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID SEICOL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOCLEAN, INC., Defendant, Case No.
7:21-cv-08854 (S.D.N.Y., October 29, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of contract, unjust enrichment,
breach of warranty, fraudulent misrepresentation, and violations of
Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged manufacturing and
marketing of a defective medical device for clean continuous
positive airway pressure (CPAP) machines. The SoClean device is
marketed as being able to sanitize CPAP machines by generating
ozone and circulating it throughout the CPAP equipment. The SoClean
device's packaging does not disclose that the device generates
ozone or the levels of ozone generated. During a cleaning cycle,
the SoClean device consistently generates prohibited amounts of
ozone by volume of air circulating through the device and the CPAP
machine. Ozone levels remain within the CPAP mask, hose and tank
after cleaning by the SoClean device, causing damage to the
component parts of the CPAP machine owned by the Plaintiff and
other consumers. As a result of the Defendant's unfair trade
practices, the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered damages.,
the suit alleges.
SoClean, Inc. is a manufacturer of cleaning devices, with its
principal place of business in New Hampshire. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Bailly, Esq.
707 Westchester Avenue, Suite 405
White Plains, NY 10604
BAILLY and McMILLAN, LLP
Telephone: (914) 684-9100
Facsimile: (914) 684-9108
E-mail: jbailly@bandmlaw.com
- and –
Michael C. Rader, Esq.
Edward "Kip" Robertson, Esq.
Edward "Chip" Robertson, Esq.
James P. Frickleton, Esq.
BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON RADER, P.C.
4000 W. 114th St., Suite 310
Leawood, KS 66211-2298
Telephone: (913) 266-2300
Facsimile: (913) 266-2366
E-mail: mrader@bflawfirm.com
krobertson@bflawfirm.com
crobertson@bflawfirm.com
jimf@bflawfirm.com
- and –
Brett Votava, Esq.
Andrew Nantz, Esq.
Todd Johnson, Esq.
VOTAVA, NANTZ & JOHNSON, LLC
9237 Ward Parkway, Suite 100
Kansas City, MO 64114
Telephone: (816) 895-8800
Facsimile: (816) 895-8801
E-mail: bvotava@vnjlaw.com
andrew@vnjlaw.com
tjohnson@vnjlaw.com
STATE FARM: Extension of Class Cert. Briefing Schedule Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANNY PEDERSEN, as
Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert L. Lindsay; BETTY
L. RADOVICH; WANDA WOODICK; and ROSALIE KIERNAN, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Rebecca Nicholson; individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Case No.
4:19-cv-00029-BMM-JTJ (D. Mont.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order pursuant to Rule 16(b)(4) that the discovery
deadline and class certification briefing schedule be extended as
follows:
Discovery Cutoff: January 28, 2022 (currently November
19, 2021)
Motion for Class February 18, 2022 (currently January
Certification: 21, 2022)
Response to Motion March 18, 2022 (currently
for Class February 18, 2022)
Certification:
Reply to Motion for April 1, 2022 (currently March 4,
Class Certification: 2022)
State Farm Insurance is a large group of insurance companies
throughout the United States with corporate headquarters in
Bloomington, Illinois.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZXVNWu at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lon J. Dale, Esq.
MILODRAGOVICH, DALE
& STEINBRENNER, P.C.
P.O. Box 4947
Missoula, MT 59806-4947
Telephone: (406) 728-1455
E-mail: lon@bigskylawyers.com
- and -
Charles S. Lucero, Esq.
CHARLES S. LUCERO, P.C.
P.O. Box 3505
Great Falls, MT 59403
Telephone: (406) 771-1515
E-mail: charlie@charlielucero.com
- and -
Lawrence A. Anderson, Esq.
ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C.
P.O. Box 2608
Great Falls, MT 59403 2608
Telephone: (406) 727-8466
E-mail: laalaw@me.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Dale R. Cockrell, Esq.
MOORE, COCKRELL,
GOICOECHEA & JOHNSON, P.C.
145 Commons Loop, Suite 200
P.O. Box 7370
Kalispell, MT 59904-0370
Telephone: (406) 751-6000
Facsimile: (406) 756-6522
E-mail: dcockrell@mcgalaw.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Moseley, Esq.
Hannah R. Seifert, Esq.
SPENCER FANE LLP
1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 2000
Denver, CO 80203
Telephone: (303) 839-3800
Facsimile: (303) 839-3838
E-mail: jmoseley@spencerfane.com
hseifert@spencerfane.com
STATE FARM: Jaunich Wins Bid to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as John E. Jaunich,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
State Farm Life Insurance Company, Case No. 0:20-cv-01567-PAM-JFD
(D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge Paul A. Magnuson entered an order that:
1. The Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied;
2. The Defendant's motion to exclude expert testimony denied;
and
3. The Plaintiff's Motion to Certify the Class is granted.
The Plaintiff Jaunich moves to certify a class consisting of "[a]ll
persons who own or owned a universal life policy issued by State
Farm on its policy form 94030 in the State of Minnesota whose
policy was in-force on or after January 1, 2002 and who was subject
to at least one monthly deduction."
Mr. Jaunich purchased a $50,000 flexible-premium adjustable whole
life insurance policy from Defendant State Farm on December 7,
1995. Along with a death benefit, the policy includes a savings
component, called an "Account Value." The money in the Account
Value is the insured's property, which State Farm holds in trust.
The policy's terms allow State Farm to access the Account Value
only to withdraw funds to pay the premiums and cover a "premium
expense charge" and "Monthly Deduction." The Monthly Deduction
includes the cost of insurance ("COI"), the monthly charges for any
riders, and the monthly expense charge.
State Farm operates as an insurance company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bQ6z3q at no extra charge.[CC]
STEMGENEX MEDICAL: Settlement in Moorer Suit Gets Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SELENA MOORER,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
STEMGENEX MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a California corporation; STEMGENEX,
INC., a California corporation; STEM CELL RESEARCH CENTRE, INC., a
California corporation; ANDRE P. LALLANDE, D.O., an Individual;
SCOTT SESSIONS, M.D., an Individual; RITA ALEXANDER, an Individual;
and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 3:16-cv-02816-AJB-AHG (S.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Battaglia entered an order granting the
plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement in its entirety.
The Court additionally (1) appoints A.B. Data, Ltd. as the
settlement administrator and approves of Plaintiffs' proposed Class
notice, (2) orders the 30-day notice period to begin within 21 days
of the entry of this preliminary approval order, in which any
comments/objections can be filed by Class Members, and (3) sets a
final approval briefing schedule to begin within 21 days of the end
of the 30-day notice period, with a hearing on fairness and final
approval of the settlement to be held on February 24, 2022 at 2:00
PM.
-- The Settlement Terms
The StemGenex Defendants, through their insurer, Admiral,
will pay $1,150,000.00) (the "Settlement Amount") as a no
eversion/no refund settlement payment to settle and
resolve all claims in the action by or on behalf of the
1,063 Class Members against the StemGenex Defendants. The
Settlement Amount will only be used: to pay claim shares
to the 1,063 Class Members; to pay a settlement claims
administrator; to pay any amounts that may be awarded as
service fees; and to pay Class Counsel for any award of
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred in the
action.
-- Amount and Distribution
The parties have agreed to a class-wide settlement,
comprising of $1,150,000 from this proposed settlement and
an additional $2,500,000 from the Lallande settlement,
totaling $3,650,000.
The parties intend to subtract a number of payments from
this gross settlement amount. These payments consist of
service payments to named plaintiffs, attorneys' fees,
reimbursement to Class Counsel, and costs of
administration incurred by the settlement administrator.
The parties have agreed that each of the named Plaintiffs
should receive service payments of up to $3,000 each for
their role in representing the litigation, totaling
$15,500. Also uncontested is Class Counsel's request of
attorneys' fees awarding 30% of the common fund of
$3,650,000 from this settlement and the Lallande
settlement, equal to $1,095,000.
Additionally, Class Counsel requests reimbursement of
their out-of-pocket costs of an estimated $439,000.
Finally, the Plaintiffs seek approval of settlement
administration costs, "estimated to be in the range of
$43,000." Therefore, from a total gross settlement amount
of $3,650,000, the net settlement amount is estimated at
$2,057,500.
On August 22, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
complaint against the StemGenex Defendants, Andre Lallande, D.O.,
and Scott Sessions, M.D., in the Superior Court of California,
County of San Diego, alleging violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law, Business and Professions Code; California's False
Advertising Law; Business and Professions Code; California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); California's Health and Safety
Code; Fraud, Negligent Misrepresentation, and Unjust Enrichment.
On September 15, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Complaint to include a claim for damages under the CLRA. The FAC
contained similar factual allegations but added Plaintiff Stephen
Ginsberg to the action and alleged an additional claim for
Financial Elder Abuse.
On November 16, 2016, Defendants removed the action to this Court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1441(a) and (b).
The operative complaint alleges that Defendants engaged in a
nationwide scheme to "wrongfully market and sell 'stem cell
treatments'" to consumers who are often "sick or disabled,
suffering from incurable diseases and a dearth of hope."
Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendants advertised
their "stem cell treatments" to consumers via their website and
made misrepresentations that the treatments "effectively treat a
multitude of diseases," when, in actuality, Defendants maintained
"no reasonable basis" to make these claims.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wfIaOq at no extra charge.[CC]
TD AMERITRADE: Must Respond to Klein Class Cert Bid by Dec. 15
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Klein v. TD Ameritrade
Holding Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-00396 (D. Neb.), the
Hon. Magistrate Judge Susan M. Bazis entered an order that the
Defendants shall respond to the renewed motion for class
certification, appointment of class representative, and appointment
of class counsel by December 15, 2021.
TD Ameritrade is a broker that offers an electronic trading
platform for the trade of financial assets including common stocks,
preferred stocks, futures contracts, exchange-traded funds, forex,
options, cryptocurrency, mutual funds, fixed income investments,
margin lending, and cash management services.
The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act.[CC]
TEA STATION: Court Sustains Objections to Zhou's Class Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: Tea Station Investment, Inc., et al., Chapter
11, Debtor(s), Lead Case No. 2:20-bk-14175-NB, Jointly Administered
With: Case Nos. 20-18039; 20-18041; 20-18042; 20-18043; 20-18044;
20-18046; 20-18047, Affects all Debtors (Bankr. C.D. Cal.), Judge
Neil W. Bason of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District
of California, Los Angeles Division, sustains objection to class
claims of Baodi Zhou.
Overview
The Debtors object to the proofs of claim filed by former employee
Ms. Zhou against each Debtor in these jointly administered cases.
Ms. Zhou asserts wage and hour claims of over $7 million on behalf
of herself and other employees of each Debtor.
The Debtors describe themselves as operators of stores "much like a
Starbucks, but for tea," each store primarily serving tea but also
having a small food menu, and with employees doing different jobs,
"such as cooks, cashiers or servers." Ms. Zhou was a cook at the
store operated by lead Debtor Tea Station Investment, Inc. ("Debtor
TSI").
In prior rulings, the Court has limited the parties' litigation,
for now, to Debtor TSI. But, if Ms. Zhou can establish class claims
against Debtor TSI, all rights are reserved for her to seek to
expand these proceedings to address claims against other Debtors,
and conversely for the Debtors to assert that no such expansion is
warranted.
Background
Ms. Zhou initiated her action against the Debtors in State Court in
September of 2017. But after the inception of the COVID-19
pandemic, the Debtors closed all their stores and, shortly before
the deadline for Ms. Zhou to file her motion for class
certification in State Court, lead Debtor TSI filed its bankruptcy
petition, followed by the remaining Debtors.
Ms. Zhou alleges that the Debtors: (1) failed to provide compliant
meal breaks and pay missed meal break premiums, (2) failed to
provide compliant rest breaks and pay missed rest break period
premiums, (3) failed to pay for all hours worked or for overtime,
due to time rounding and time shaving, and (4) failed to provide
complete and accurate itemized wage statements.
The Court previously ruled that Ms. Zhou could not represent any
former employees in asserting any claims entitled to priority under
the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. Section 507(a)(4) & (5)), because of
the inherent conflicts of interest between priority and nonpriority
claims. As noted, the Court also limited Ms. Zhou's claims (at
least for now) to those against Debtor TSI.
Based on these constraints, Ms. Zhou proposes a class consisting of
"all persons who are or were employed in hourly non-exempt
positions by debtor TSI in the State of California from Sept. 13,
2013 (four years prior to the filing of the initial complaint) to
Nov. 6, 2019 (immediately preceding the start of the priority
period) ['Proposed Class']."
Analysis
For Ms. Zhou to assert a claim on behalf of other employees, she
must establish either (i) that she is their representative (e.g.,
that she holds their power of attorney), which she has not
established, or (ii) that she can assert a class claim under Rule
23, which is the focus of the parties' arguments. The latter issue
requires a two-step inquiry.
First, under Rules 9014(c) and 7023, the Court has discretion
whether to apply Rule 23 to the claims administration process. If
so, it must determine whether the requirements of Rule 23 have been
satisfied. In applying the first step, courts have developed a
three factor framework, known as the "Musicland factors," to guide
the exercise of their discretion: (1) whether the class was
certified prepetition -- which it was not; (2) whether the members
of the putative class received notice of the bar date; and (3)
whether class certification will adversely affect the
administration of the estate.
If Rule 23 applies at all (step one of the Musicland test), the
burden will be on Ms. Zhou to meet the prerequisites of Rule 23(a)
-- typicality, commonality, numerosity, and adequacy -- and meet at
least one of the requirements of Rule 23(b) -- predomince and
superioriority
Class certification is, ultimately, within the discretion of the
Court after a "rigorous analysis" of Rule 23's elements. Frequently
that analysis will entail "some overlap with the merits" of the
underlying claims.
A. Under Musicland, Rule 23 Should Apply
Judge Bason concludes in the exercise of its discretion that Rule
23 should apply. He finds that Ms. Zhou's Proposed Class was not
certified prepetition, so the first Musicland factor weighs against
applying Rule 23 to the claims administration process. Next, he
finds that no single factor is dispositive, and courts sometimes
have exercised their discretion to apply Rule 23 in such
circumstances. In addition, although the Debtors provided actual
notice of the claims bar date to employees who were terminated just
prior to the Petition Date, they did not provide such notice to
former employees.
B. Under Rule 23(a)
As to Rule 23 Elements, Judge Bason holds under Rule 23(a), Ms.
Zhou has not carried her burden to satisfy the Typicality,
commonality, numerosity, and adequacy of representation
requirements. The Court must make a "rigorous analysis" of each
requirement, although in practice the separate requirements tend to
merge.
Ms. Zhou asserts that she has met her burden to meet the elements
of Rule 23 with respect to a putative class of "all persons
employed by Debtor TSI at any time from Sept. 13, 2013 to Nov. 6,
2019" and that the class claim as against Debtor TSI should be
estimated, at a minimum, at $1,825,327.88.
Judge Bason disagrees. First, if Ms. Zhou's circumstances were more
typical, it probably would not matter that individual employees'
particular circumstances vary; but Ms. Zhou has not shown
Typicality. The Debtor has presented unrebutted evidence that Ms.
Zhou's situation as a cook who generally worked alone on night
shifts lacks Typicality with other members of the Proposed Class
with respect to meal breaks, rest breaks, overtime, and alleged
time shaving. For these reasons, class certification must be denied
with respect to all those types of claims.
Second, Ms. Zhou has not shown common issues of fact or law that
can "productively be litigated at once" and "the capacity of a
classwide proceeding to generate common answers apt to drive the
resolution of the litigation." In any actual trial of the issues,
it appears that a series of separate trials would be necessary to
address the different circumstances of individual employees or
groups of employees, so certification of the Proposed Class would
be not be productive to the litigation.
Third, Judge Bason holds that certainly with respect to Debtor TSI,
Ms. Zhou cannot meet the numerosity requirement because of Debtors'
evidence of how few former employees have similar circumstances.
Fourth, Judge Bason concludes that Ms. Zhou has not met her burden
to establish the Adequacy requirement under Rule 23(a). He finds
that Ms. Zhou appears to have some conflicts of interest because,
for example, the 17 declarations of Debtor TSI's other employees
that they had all required meal and rest breaks, and were not
subject to overtime violations, create an incentive for Ms. Zhou to
point out that such evidence does not bear on her unique situation
as the sole cook, working the night shift. In other words, she has
an incentive with respect to all categories of employees who were
not the sole cook on the night shift to "throw them under the bus"
so as to distinguish and save her own claims.
Finally, as to other wage and hour violations asserted by Ms. Zhou,
Judge Bason finds that the Debtors have presented evidence that
their names and addresses appeared on a portion of the wage
statements that was not included in Ms. Zhou's copies. Ms. Zhou has
not presented any rebuttal evidence, so there is no genuine issue
of material fact on this issue. Accordingly, Judge Bason grants
partial summary judgment on this issue (without reaching the Rule
23 issues).
C. Under Rule 23(b)
Alternatively, the Debtors have presented evidence that any
omission of their names and addresses from wage statements was not
"knowing and intentional," as required by California law.
Alternatively, Ms. Zhou has not established any "resulting injury"
to any employees from Debtor TSI's alleged failure to list its name
and address on wage statements, let alone established that her own
experience with Debtor TSI with respect to any wage statements has
enough overlap with other employees' experiences to satisfy the
Typicality, Commonality, Numerosity, and Adequacy requirements of
Rule 23(a).
Another alternative under Rule 23(b) would be for Ms. Zhou to show
that prosecuting separate actions would result in adjudication that
would, "as a practical matter," be "dispositive of the interests of
the other members not parties to the individual adjudications or
would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their
interests." Rule 23(b)(1)(B). But, again, due to the time bar and
the fact that any person wishing to assert a claim must proceed in
this single forum, it does not appear that Ms. Zhou can satisfy
this portion of Rule 23(b).
The final alternative that appears to be applicable under Rule
23(b) would be for Ms. Zhou to show that common questions of law or
fact predominate and that a class action is a superior method of
addressing claims. Rule 23(b)(3). But Judge Bason's rulings with
respect to Typicality and Commonality also establish that Ms. Zhou
cannot meet these standards under Rule 23(b)(3). As observed by the
Ninth Circuit, the standards for Typicality and Commonality under
Rule 23(a)(2) and (3) are "less rigorous" and more "permissive"
than the "companion requirements of" Rule 23(b). In addition, the
fact that any claims would have to be brought in a single forum
(the bankruptcy case before the Court) undermines the usual grounds
for asserting that a class action is superior to the alternative.
Conclusion
Judge Bason concludes that Ms. Zhou lacks the mandatory
requirements to assert a class claim against Debtor TSI and,
therefore, against any other Debtors. She can assert only her own
claim. Hence, Ms. Zhou has not met her burden to show that her
Proposed Class should be certified and her class claims allowed.
Because she has not presented sufficient argument and evidence to
allow and estimate her own claim, Judge Bason makes no ruling
allowing or disallowing that claim at present. The Court
anticipates addressing with the parties any remaining issues before
entering any written order implementing the Memorandum Decision.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2021 Memorandum Decision
is available at https://tinyurl.com/mdvmmv3d from Leagle.com.
TEAM ENTERPRISES: N.D. California Lifts Stay in Wood Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALEXIS WOOD and FELICIA CIPOLLA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TEAM
ENTERPRISES, LLC, and NEW TEAM LLC, doing business as TEAM
ENTERPRISES, Defendants, Case No. C 18-06867 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge
William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California granted Plaintiff Wood's motion to vacate the stay,
to amend, and to join additional Plaintiffs.
Statement
Plaintiffs Alexis Wood and Felicia Cipolla commenced the putative
wage-and-hour class action in November 2018. Wood and Cipolla
individually moved in arbitration to strike the arbitration clause.
Cipolla's arbitrator found her arbitration provision enforceable,
and Cipolla has moved for reconsideration.
In September 2021, Judge Lynn Duryee (Ret.) ruled that Wood's
claims are not subject to mandatory arbitration. Wood now requests
that this order lift the stay and join Bernadette Blanchard and
Shirin Lessan as putative named Plaintiffs. Blanchard and Lessan
worked as Team Enterprises promotion specialists in California
(Blanchard for 2013-2017; Lessan for 2014-2016). Both have
arbitrated their motions to strike the arbitration clauses before
Judge Duryee, who found their arbitration provisions
unenforceable.
Discussion
I. Motion to Lift the Stay
The Defendants contend that where (as in the case), identical
claims by two plaintiffs were sent to arbitration, the district
court lacks discretion to lift the stay until both arbitrations
finish. The court of appeals has not addressed this question head
on.
Judge Alsup finds that Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act
(FAA) does not compel a stay as to Wood. He holds that the
Defendants rely on analogies in which various district courts
denied motions to vacate stays under Section 3 despite the presence
of non-arbitrable claims. These analogies fail. Each Plaintiff
sought to lift a Section-3 stay to amend the pleadings and delete
the arbitrable claims but lost because they were attempting to
skirt the FAA. Unquestionably, vacating those stays would have
violated Section 3, because it would have required lifting the stay
on still-arbitrable claims.
Hence, Cipolla's claims must go through arbitration (for now).
Wood's need not, Wood having prevailed on the threshold issue of
arbitrability. Section 3 does not require Wood to wait any longer
and defendants do not seek a discretionary stay. Wood's motion to
lift the stay is therefore granted.
II. Amendment & Joinder
The Defendants oppose amendment, arguing the lenient Rule 15
standard rather than Rule 16. The initial and amended scheduling
orders, however, set June 9, 2019, as the final date for amending
the pleadings. Rule 16 would normally govern.
With the Defendants' concession, Judge Alsup's order applies Rule
15. He finds that contrary to the Defendants' argument, leave to
amend may be granted prior to class certification. The Defendants
cite opposing, inapplicable district court decisions. In one,
putative-class-action plaintiffs who had already settled sought to
join new plaintiffs as substitutes. Having resolved their claims
before class certification, those plaintiffs stripped the district
courts of case or controversy. In the case, case and controversy
persevere.
Judge Alsup turns now to the Rule 15 factors. The Defendants
complain about (2), undue delay, and (3), prejudice. With respect
to (1), (4), and (5), he perceives no bad faith, futility, or prior
amendment.
As for undue delay, the Defendants moved early in the case to
compel arbitration; thereafter the delays have resulted from the
Defendants' interlocutory appeal and arbitration. Blanchard and
Lessan apparently worked with the Plaintiffs' counsel to arbitrate
and have received the decision that their arbitration agreements
are unenforceable. Given the delegation clause, moving to amend
sooner would have proven futile.
The Defendants claim prejudice because Wood is "benefiting" from
litigating in two fora, apparently by demanding discovery in the
Cipolla arbitration. They compelled arbitration and defendants
could consolidate proceedings at the district court if they wished
to streamline discovery. Wood, not knowing if the motion to vacate
the stay would succeed, cannot be blamed for pursuing discovery in
the forum that the Defendants chose. Nor is it a wasted effort. The
same discovery will proceed in our litigation. The Defendants are
correct, however, that the Plaintiffs should not have alleged
representative Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims for
Blanchard or Lessan as those claims are time-barred.
As for permissive joinder, Judge Alsup says, under Rule 20 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff may join any persons
as defendants if: (1) any right to relief asserted against the
defendants relates to or arises out of the same transaction,
occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (2) there
is at least one question of law or fact common to all the
defendants. In the case, he finds that the Defendants neither
mentioned Rule 20 nor opposed joinder (only amendment). Blanchard
and Lessan worked in the same position and for the same bosses as
Wood and Cipolla during the same basic period. They, too, allege
violations of various wage laws. Both have arbitrated. Their
joinder satisfies the Rule 20 standard.
Leave to amend and join Blanchard and Lessan is garnted so long as
Wood promptly deletes Lessan and Blanchard's PAGA claims, as she
says she will.
Conclusion
To the extent stated, Judge Alsup granted the motion to lift the
stay, amend, and join new plaintiffs.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/9nvsz6hs from Leagle.com.
TELEBRANDS CORP: Jan. 14, 2022 Hearing on Rash Class Cert. Bid Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER RASH, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. TELEBRANDS
CORPORATION, Case No. 5:21-cv-00998-JWH-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge John W. Holcomb entered an order having considered the
parties' joint stipulation to set briefing schedule and hearing on
Plaintiff's motion for class certification as follows:
-- Defendant's Opposition to the Motion for Class
Certification is due on or before December 6, 2021.
-- Plaintiff's Reply in support of the Motion for Class
Certification is due on or before December 20, 2021.
-- The hearing on the Motion for Class Certification is set
for January 14, 2022 at 9:00 a.m.
TeleBrands Corp. operates as a television marketing company. The
Company offers designing, manufacturing, marketing, and
distributing consumer products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GKhSsd at no extra charge.[CC]
TIVITY HEALTH: Sheet Metal Workers Seek to Certify Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT STROUGO,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
TIVITY HEALTH, INC., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00165 (M.D. Tenn.),
the Lead Plaintiff Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 33, Cleveland
District, Pension Fund, asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the case as a class action pursuant to Rule
23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
2. appointing Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative; and
3. approving its selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP as Class Counsel.
Tivity Health, formerly Healthways, is a provider of health
improvement, fitness and social engagement solutions. Tivity Health
is headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee with offices in Fort
Washington, Pennsylvania and Chandler, Arizona.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 26,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZNJw6x
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Lead Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher M. Wood, Esq.
Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
Sara B. Polychron, Esq.
Caroline M. Robert, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-2203
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
E-mail: cwood@rgrdlaw.com
shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
spolychron@rgrdlaw.com
crobert@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN
& GARRISON, LLC
Bank of America Plaza
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-2202
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
- and -
Michael E. Heffernan, Esq.
ALLOTTA FARLEY CO., L.P.A.
2222 Centennial Road
Toledo, OH 43617
Telephone: (419) 535-0075
Facsimile: (419) 535-1935
E-mail: mheffernan@allottafarley.com
TOOTSIE ROLL: Class Cert. Hearing Schedule Sought in Maisel
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH MAISEL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
TOOTSIE ROLL INDUSTRIES, LLC, Case No. (), the Parties stipulated
and agreed that the briefing and hearing schedule for Plaintiff's
motion for class certification, discovery cut-off dates,
dispositive motion deadlines, the pre-trial conference hearing and
the trial date will be set as follows:
A. Class Certification Deadlines
Event Proposed Date
-- Plaintiff's class certification April 8, 2022
motion
-- Defendant's class certification May 9, 2022
opposition
-- Plaintiff’s class certification June 9, 2022
reply
-- Hearing June 20, 2022
B. Discovery Deadlines
Event Current Date Proposed Date
-- Non-expert discovery April 29, 2022 June 27, 2022
cut-off
-- Initial expert May 13, 2022 July 11, 2022
disclosures
-- Rebuttal expert June 10, 2022 August 8, 2022
disclosures
-- Expert discovery July 01, 2022 August 23, 2022
cut-off
C. Motion Deadlines
Event Current Date Proposed Date
-- One party files an July 25, 2022 Sept. 16, 2022
opening summary
judgment motion by
-- Other party shall Aug. 8, 2022 Sept. 30, 2022
file its opposition
and cross-motion by
-- The reply and Aug. 22, 2022 October 14, 2022
opposition to
cross-motion
is due by
-- The reply in support Aug. 29, 2022 Oct. 21, 2022
of cross-motion is
due by
-- Last day for hearing Sept. 12, 2022 Nov. 28, 2022
dispositive motions
Tootsie Roll Industries is an American manufacturer of
confectionery.
A copy of Parties' motion dated Oct. 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3F7JN3Z at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Bahar Sodaify, Esq.
Zachary T. Chrzan, Esq.
Christina N. Mirzaie, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com
zchrzan@clarksonlawfirm.com
cmirzaie@clarksonlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
David M. Jolley, Esq.
Kathleen B. Friend, Esq.
DONAHUE FITZGERALD LLP
1999 Harrison Street, 26th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 451-3300
Facsimile: (510) 451-1527
E-mail: djolley@donahue.com
kfriend@donahue.com
TOWER HILL: MSP Seeks Extension of Class Cert. Briefing Schedule
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS,
SERIES LLC, AND MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS SERIES 44 LLC, v. TOWER HILL
PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00262-AW-GRJ
(N.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
granting a 60-day extension of the class certification briefing
schedule as follows:
a. Plaintiffs' Deadline to file Class Certification Motion
Jan. 7, 2022;
b. Defendants' Deadline to file Response to Class
Certification Motion March 7, 2022
c. Plaintiffs' Deadline to file Reply to Response to Class
Certification Motion March 28, 2022
d. Dispositive Motions, Daubert and Markman Motions,
including all motions that bear upon the Motion for Class
Certification March 28, 2022 All other deadlines set forth
in the parties' Rule 26(f) report and the Scheduling and
Mediation Order shall remain as is.
This is a class action lawsuit brought by Medicare Advantage
Organizations to recover unreimbursed secondary payments under the
Medicare Secondary Payer Act's private cause of action.
On May 21, 2021, this Court entered its Scheduling and Mediation
Order setting the jury trial of this matter to begin on July 13,
2022. Pursuant to that Order, the "parties' Rule 26(f) report will
control the matters it addresses, except to the extent of any
conflict with this order."
MSP Recovery is a Medicaid and Medicare Secondary Payer Act
Recovery Specialist.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 28, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/31s25y5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Janpaul Portal, Esq.
John H. Ruiz, Esq.
MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
2701 S. Le Jeune Road, 10th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: 305-614-2222
E-mail: jruiz@msprecoverylawfirm.com
jportal@msprecoverylawfirm.com
serve@msprecoverylawfirm.com
- and -
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
James L. Ferraro, Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM, P.A.
Brickell World Plaza
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone (305) 375-0111
Facsimile (305) 379-6222
E-mail: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
jjr@ferrarolaw.com
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Nov. 30 Class Discovery Deadline Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ESTHER HOFFMAN; SARAH
DOUGLASS; ANTHONY KIM; and IL KIM and DARIA KIM, husband and wife
and the marital community comprised thereof, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INCORPORATED; PATENAUDE AND FELIX, A.P.C.;
MATTHEW CHEUNG, and the marital community comprised of MATTHEW
CHEUNG and JANE DOE CHEUNG; National Collegiate Student Loan Trust
2004-2; National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-2; National
Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-3; National Collegiate Student
Loan Trust 2006-1; National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-3;
National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-4, Case No.
2:18-cv-01132-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the parties jointly move and
stipulate that the class discovery deadline should be continued to
November 30, 2021.
On September 2, 2021, the Court entered an order setting October
30, 2021 as the deadline for the parties to complete class
discovery.
The parties have diligently attempted to complete all class
certification discovery by October 30, 2021, but there remain
outstanding issues pertaining to such discovery that the parties
are attempting to cooperatively resolve. The parties have conferred
regarding these issues and continue to confer about them.
The parties anticipate and expect that remaining class
certification discovery issues can be resolved cooperatively by
November 30, 2021.
Without an extension of the deadline for the parties to complete
class discovery, the parties contemplate there may be a need for
additional motion practice before the Court. A thirty-day extension
of the class discovery deadline will allow the parties the
opportunity to resolve the remaining discovery issues without the
Court’s involvement.
Transworld provides receivables collection and management
services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bO7XUn at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for Plaintiffs are:
Sam Leonard, Esq.
LEONARD LAW
3614 California Ave. SW, #151
Seattle, WA 98116
Telephone: (206) 486-1176
E-mail: sam@seattledebtdefense.com
- and -
BERRY & BECKETT, PLLP
Seattle, WA 98122
Telephone: (206) 441-5444
E-mail: gbeckett@beckettlaw.com
- and -
Christina Henry, Esq.
HENRY & DeGRAAFF, P.S.
119 -- 1st Ave. S., Ste. 500
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 330-0595
E-mail: chenry@HDM-legal.com
- and -
Amanda N. Martin, Esq.
NORTHWEST CONSUMER LAW CENTER
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103
Telephone: (206) 805-0989
E-mail: Amanda@NWCLC.org
The Attorneys for Patenaude and Felix, A.P.C., and Matthew Cheung,
are:
Marc Rosenberg, Esq.
LEE SMART, P.S., INC.
1800 One Convention Place, 701 Pike St.
Seattle, WA 98101-3929
Telephone: (206) 624-7990
E-mail: mr@leesmart.com
The Attorneys for National Collegiate Student Loan Trust, are:
Gregory T. Casemento, Esq.
R. James DeRose, III, Esq.
Andrew Braunstein, Esq.
J. Matthew Goodin, Esq.
LOCKE LORD LLP LOCKE LORD LLP
Brookfield Place
200 Vesey St., 20th Floor
New York, NY 10281-2101
E-mail: gcasamento@lockelord.com
jmgoodin@lockelord.com
rderose@lockelord.com
andrewbraunstein@lockelord.com
- and -
Timothy J. Filer, Esq.
FOSTER GARVEY PC
1111 Third Ave., Ste. 3000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 447-4000
The Attorneys for Defendant Transworld Systems Inc., are:
Justin Homes, Esq.
Bryan C. Shartle, Esq.
James K. Schultz, Esq.
SESSIONS, ISRAEL & SHARTLE
3850 N. Causeway Blvd., Ste. 200
Metairie, LA 70002-7227
Telephone: (504) 828-3700
E-mail: jhomes@sessions.legal
bshartle@sessions.legal
jschultz@sessions.legal
- and -
Ryan W. Vollans, Esq.
WILLIAMS KASTNER & GIBBS, PLLC
601 Union St., Ste. 4100
Seattle, WA 98101-2380
Telephone: (206) 628-6600
E-mail: rvollans@willliamskastner.com
TULARE, CA: Criswell Suit Seeks Final Approval of Settlement Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Charles Criswell, Levi
Johnson, Samuel Camposeco, Adam Ibarra, and California Attorneys
for Criminal Justice, v. Michael Boudreaux, in his official
capacity as Sheriff of Tulare County, Case No.
1:20-cv-01048-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to
enter an order granting final approval of the terms of the proposed
class action settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate.
A. The Settlement Class
The Settlement Class is defined as: "All people who are
currently incarcerated in the Tulare County Jails or will
be incarcerated in the Tulare County Jails at any point
before the Termination Date of the Settlement Agreement."
This definition mirrors the class definition the Court
previously certified in its TRO, with the addition of the
Termination Date of the Settlement Agreement.
B. Injunctive Relief
The Settlement Agreement requires Defendant to implement
policies to meaningfully protect incarcerated persons in
the Jails against the risk of serious illness or injury
from COVID- 19.
C. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
The Defendant has agreed to pay $95,000 in attorneys' fees
and costs. Accounting for the fee caps of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, this sum represents a
significant reduction from Plaintiffs' overall fees and
expenses.
The Plaintiffs filed this class action lawsuit in late July 2020 on
behalf of incarcerated persons in the Tulare County Jails to
address the Defendant Sheriff Michael Boudreaux's deliberate
indifference to the risk of COVID-19 and his unconstitutional
attorney visitation policy.
The Plaintiffs filed a Supplemental Complaint in March 2021
alleging Defendant had failed to respond adequately to a
COVID-outbreak in the Jails and had imposed an unconstitutional
lock-down policy in response to COVID-19. Now Plaintiffs
respectfully move for this Court to grant final approval of a
Settlement Agreement negotiated between the Parties which provides
important protections for incarcerated people from COVID-19.
The Settlement Agreement requires Defendant to implement
COVID-mitigation policies, educate class members about COVID-19
vaccines, provide public information about COVID-19 in the jails;
grant access to an independent expert to make recommendations
regarding Defendant's compliance with the Settlement Agreement; and
ensure adequate out-of-cell time.
On July 29, 2020, Plaintiffs brought this action on behalf of a
prospective class of people incarcerated at the Tulare County Jails
at severe risk of harm due to COVID-19.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 1, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mSzuu9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jacob S. Kreilkamp, Esq.
William D. Temko, Esq.
Ariel T. Teshuva, Esq.
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, Fiftieth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3426
Telephone: (213) 683-9100
Facsimile: (213) 687-3702
E-mail: Jacob.Kreilkamp@mto.com
William.Temko@mto.com
Ariel.Teshuva@mto.com
- and -
Emilou Maclean, Esq.
Ryan McMurry, Esq.
ACLU FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
10 39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 621-2493
E-mail: EMacLean@aclunc.org
RMcMurry@aclunc.org
TWITTER INC: Trump Class Suit Moved From S.D. Fla. to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DONALD J. TRUMP, the Forty-Fifth President of the
United States, LINDA CUADROS and AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
TWITTER, INC., and JACK DORSEY, Case No. 1:21-cv-22441, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on October 28, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-08378-TSH to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and declaratory judgement
of unconstitutionality of Section 230 of the Communications Decency
Act.
American Conservative Union is an American political organization
that advocates for conservative policies, ranks politicians based
on their level of conservatism, headquartered in Alexandria,
Virginia.
Twitter, Inc. is a social network company headquartered in San
Francisco, California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew L. Baldwin, Esq.
VARGAS GONZALEZ BALDWIN DELOMBARD, LLP
815 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Third Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 631-2528
E-mail: Matthew@VargasGonzalez.com
- and –
John P. Coale, Esq.
THE DUDENHEFER LAW FIRM L.L.C.
2901 Fessenden St. NW
Washington, DC 20008
Telephone: (202) 255-2096
E-mail: johnpcoale@aol.com
- and –
Frank C. Dudenhefer, Jr., Esq.
THE DUDENHEFER LAW FIRM L.L.C.
2721 St. Charles Ave, Suite 2A
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 616-5226
E-mail: fcdlaw@aol.com
- and –
John Q. Kelly, Esq.
Michael J. Jones, Esq.
Roland A. Paul, Esq.
Ryan S. Tougias, Esq.
Sean M. Hamill, Esq.
IVEY, BARNUM & O'MARA
170 Mason Street
Greenwich, CT 06830
Telephone: (203) 661-6000
Facsimile: (203) 661-9462
E-mail: jqkelly@ibolaw.com
mjones@ibolaw.com
rpaul@ibolaw.com
rtougias@ibolaw.com
shamill@ibolaw.com
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Boston Retirement System Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOSTON RETIREMENT SYSTEM
v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,Case No. 3:19-cv-06361-RS (N.D.
Cal.), the Lead Plaintiff Boston Retirement System and Additional
Plaintiffs Messinger, Toronto, and the Brauns asks the Court to
enter an order, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 12 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
1. certifying a class of:
"all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired Uber common stock pursuant and/or traceable to
the Offering Documents for Uber's IPO, and who were
damaged thereby;
Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendants and the
Individual Defendants' immediate family members; (ii) the
officers, directors, affiliates, and subsidiaries of Uber
and the Underwriter Defendants, at all relevant times,
(iii) Uber's affiliates and employee retirement and/or
benefit plan(s) and their participants or beneficiaries to
the extent they purchased or acquired Uber common stock
pursuant or traceable to the Offering Documents through
any such plan(s); (iv) any entity in which Defendants have
or had a controlling interest; and (v) the legal
representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns of any such
excluded person or entity;
2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and
3. appointing Lead Counsel as Class Counsel.
This case arises from the Offering Documents filed in connection
with Uber's May 2019 13 initial public offering of over 180 million
shares of common stock. Unbeknownst to investors, Uber premised its
growth on an undisclosed and unsustainable "growth at any cost"
business model, putting growth first above profits, the law, and
even passenger safety.
The Offering Documents draw a line between "old" Uber and the
purportedly "new" Uber that was started in 2017. Uber purported to
have reformed the Company "fundamentally" and made "tremendous
progress in creating a program that is designed to prevent and
detect violations of corporate policy, law, and regulations."
The Boston Retirement System provides financial security.
Uber Technologies, commonly known as Uber, is an American mobility
service provider based in San Francisco, with operations in over
900 metropolitan areas worldwide.
A copy of Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 29, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mOEhwI at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Lead Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class, are:
Jonathan Gardner, Esq.
Alfred L. Fatale III, Esq
Joseph N. Cotilletta, Esq
Marco A. Duenas, Esq
Lisa Strejlau, Esq
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
E-mail: jgardner@labaton.com
afatale@labaton.com
jcotilletta@labaton.com
mduenas@labaton.com
lstrejlau@labaton.com
The Liaison Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Boston Retirement System,
are:
Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-1294
E-mail: gnespole@zlk.com
- and -
Adam M. Apton, Esq.
75 Broadway, Suite 202
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 373-1671
Facsimile: (415) 484-1294
E-mail: aapton@zlk.com
The Counsel for Proposed Class Representatives David Messinger,
Ellie Marie Toronto ESA, and Irving S. and Judith Braun, are:
John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
David R. Scott, Esq.
William C. Fredericks, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 82101
Telephone: (619) 233-4565
Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
david.scott@scott-scott.com
wfredericks@scott-scott.com
- and -
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, New York 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
James I. Jaconette, Esq.
Henry Rosen, Esq.
665 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
E-mail: jamesj@rgrdlaw.com
henryr@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Mark C. Molumphy, Esq.
Tyson Redenbarger, Esq.
Noorjahan Rahman, Esq.
Julia Peng, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
San Francisco Airport Office Center
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
E-mail: mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com
tredenbarger@cpmlegal.com
nrahman@cpmlegal.com
jpeng@cpmlegal.com
UNILEVER UNITED: Vizcarra Loses Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA VIZCARRA, v. UNILEVER
UNITED STATES, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-02777-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order:
1. denying Vizcarra's motion for class certification without
prejudice;
2. denying Unilever's motion to exclude or strike the opinions of
Dr. Dennis;
3. granting Unilever's motion to file a sur-reply; and
4. setting a compliance deadline for 9:01 a.m. on November 18,
2021.
The Court said, "Vizcarra argues that a class action is superior to
other available methods of litigating the claims of the proposed
class members because (1) the amounts that each proposed class
member can recover are not significant and are small relative to
the high costs of individual litigation; (2) judicial economy would
be promoted and the litigation of the claims would be made more
efficient and practical; and (3) the prosecution of individual
claims could establish inconsistent standards of conduct for
defendant. Unilever does not dispute that the superiority
requirement is satisfied. The Court finds that the superiority
requirement is met here because a class action would lead to a more
efficient and speedy resolution of the claims of the proposed class
members, and because individual class members do not have a
sufficient incentive to litigate their claims individually."
Unilever manufactures personal care products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3025JhI at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED AIRLINES: Sambrano Suit Seeks Provisional Class Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID SAMBRANO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et
al., v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-01074-P (N.D.
Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. provisionally certifying the following class:
"All United employees who have requested or will request
accommodations from United's COVID-19 vaccine mandate and
for whom United has refused to provide a reasonable
accommodation as required by federal civil rights laws;"
2. provisionally certifying the following two subclasses
of United employees:
a. Customer-facing United employees who requested or will
request accommodations from United's COVID-19 vaccine
mandate and for whom United offered only the
unreasonable accommodation of unpaid leave; and
b. Non-customer facing employees who requested or will
request accommodations from United's COVID-19 vaccine
mandate and for whom United has offered only temporary
accommodations that may be revoked at any time and
replaced with unpaid leave;
3. provisionally appointing them as class representatives and
appointing their counsel as class counsel in this case.
The Plaintiffs seek provisional class certification to eliminate
any doubt as to this Court's authority to issue preliminary
injunctive relief in favor of the entire class. Plaintiffs are
United Airlines employees who requested religious and medical
accommodations from United's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. United
responded by offering only the false accommodation of indefinite
unpaid leave. In doing so, United violated Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
the lawsuit says.
Indeed, United not only failed to provide the named Plaintiffs with
reasonable accommodations, it failed to provide reasonable
accommodations to several thousand United employees -- and,
instead, provided the same unreasonable "accommodation."
Accordingly, Plaintiffs and all similarly situated employees are
entitled to advance the same claims under Title VII and the ADA,
the suit adds.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Nov. 1,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mPY2E0
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John C. Sullivan, Esq.
S|L LAW PLLC
610 Uptown Boulevard, Suite 2000
Cedar Hill, TX 75104
Telephone: (469) 523-1351
Facsimile: (469) 613-0891
E-mail: john.sullivan@the-sl-lawfirm.com
- and -
Robert C. Wiegand, Esq.
Melissa J. Swindle, Esq.
STEWART WIEGAND & OWENS PC
325 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 3750
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (469) 899-9800
Facsimile: (469) 899-9810
E-mail: bob.wiegand@swolegal.com
Melissa.swindle@swolegal.com
- and -
Mark R. Paoletta, Esq.
Gene C. Schaerr, Esq.
Brian J. Field, Esq.
Kenneth A. Klukowski, Esq.
Joshua J. Prince, Esq.
Annika M. Boone, Esq.
SCHAERR | JAFFE LLP
1717 K Street NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 787-1060
Facsimile: (202) 776-0136
E-mail: mpaoletta@schaerr-jaffe.com
UNITED AMERICAN: Nov. 4 Scheduling Conference in Logan Suit Vacated
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAMELA LOGAN, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED AMERICAN
SECURITY, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00257-NYW (D. Colo.), the Court
entered an order that:
(1) The Parties' Joint Motion for Approval of Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) Opt-In Notice and Notice of
Settlement is denied without prejudice;
(2) On or before November 8, 2021, the Parties shall file a
renewed motion to approve the Notice of Collective Action
and Notice of Settlement;
(3) The Scheduling Conference set for November 4, 2021 at
10:00 a.m. is vacated, to be re-set if appropriate; and
(4) The Parties' October 28, 2021 deadline to submit a
Proposed Scheduling Order is vacated, to be re-set if
appropriate.
United American provides security services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BKfmP9 at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED AMERICAN: Proposed Notices in Logan FLSA Class Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAMELA LOGAN, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED AMERICAN SECURITY, LLC,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 21-cv-00257-NYW (D. Colo.), Magistrate
Judge Nina Y. Wang of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado denied without prejudice the Parties' Joint Motion for
Approval of FLSA Opt-In Notice and Notice of Settlement.
Background
Hollis Bailey initiated the action on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated persons that are or were hourly,
full-time, non-exempt security guards employed by Defendant United.
He alleged generally that he worked for the Defendant as a
full-time, non-exempt security guard and regularly worked more than
40 hours per week. He asserted that he and other similarly situated
employees were required to arrive at work approximately 10 to 15
minutes prior to the start of their shift for a "pass down," which
involves "several shift-change duties that are essential for a
security guard to perform his or her job," such as learning about
security issues that occurred on the previous shift and security
issues that could potentially occur on the next shift. Mr. Bailey
alleged that he and other similarly situated workers were not paid
for any of this "pass down" work.
Mr. Bailey initiated the action on Jan. 26, 2021. He asserted that
the Defendant violated the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq.,
for not paying its full-time, non-exempt security guards for
overtime hours worked. The Court held an initial Scheduling
Conference on April 5, 2021, at which time certain
class-certification deadlines were set, and set a second Scheduling
Conference for June 16, 2021. On May 3, 2021, the Parties filed a
Joint Stipulation for Conditional Certification and Request for
Additional Time.
In the Stipulation, the Parties indicated that they had stipulated
to the conditional certification of the following class: "All
hourly security guards of Defendant who did not have an arbitration
agreement with Defendant and who: (1) worked for Defendant in
Colorado at any time between January 26, 2018 through the present;
(2) worked forty hours or more in any workweek; (3) relieved a
preceding shift; and (4) were required to arrive at work before his
or her shift began to perform pass on or pass down duties, but were
not paid for that time."
The Parties further stipulated that, within 21 days of the Court
approving the Stipulation, the Defendant would provide the
Plaintiff's counsel with a list containing the names and last known
home addresses for all security guards who worked within the
relevant time frame and who did not have an arbitration agreement
with the Defendant.
The Court approved the Stipulation for conditional certification
and ordered Defendant to provide the Plaintiff's counsel with the
referenced list of names within 21 days. A status-report deadline
was set for July 6, 2021. On that date, the Parties filed a Joint
Status Update indicating that they had not yet reached a resolution
in the case but had agreed to attempt resolution before sending
notice to the putative collective action members and engaging in
discovery.
Then, on July 15, 2021, the Parties filed a Stipulated Motion to
Amend the Complaint to substitute the then-named plaintiff, Mr.
Bailey, with Pamela Logan. After the Court granted the Motion to
Amend, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, which remains
the operative pleading in the action. After two additional
extensions of time were granted at the Parties' request, the
Parties filed a Joint Notice of Settlement and Joint Motion to
Vacate Deadlines, indicating that they had reached a resolution in
the matter. The Court ordered the Parties to file appropriate
papers by Oct. 18, 2021. The Parties filed the instant Motion on
Oct. 15, 2021.
The matter comes before the court on the Parties' Joint Motion for
Approval of FLSA Opt-In Notice and Notice of Settlement, which
seeks Court approval of the Parties' proposed Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") Opt-In Notice and Notice of Settlement.
Discussion
Given the Parties' procedural steps in the case, it appears that
they agree that the two-step ad hoc procedure is appropriate, and
the only issue before the Court at this juncture is whether the
Parties' proposed Notice of Collective Action Lawsuit and Notice of
Settlement and Right to Object are adequate.
Judge Wang finds that the Notice of Collective Action fails to (1)
sufficiently apprise putative opt-ins of their ability to both
opt-in and proceed either with independent counsel or pro se, and
(2) inform putative opt-ins of their right not to be bound by a
settlement that the original plaintiff advocates, even if they do
"opt-in." Thus, the proposed Notices "fail to advise potential
plaintiffs that she or he may choose to opt-in to the collective
action and represent her or himself."
First, the Notice of Collective Action "provides only one option
for a potential plaintiff to select if she or he chooses to opt-in
to the collective action" -- to be represented by the Plaintiff's
counsel. Accordingly, to ensure that the proposed Notice of
Collective Action is 'fair and accurate,' it must be modified to
advise a potential plaintiff that she or he may opt-in the
collective action and choose either to be represented by the
Plaintiff's counsel, to obtain independent representation, or to
participate pro se."
The proposed Notices also fail to inform putative opt-ins of their
right not to be bound by a settlement that the original plaintiff
advocates, even if they do opt-in to the action. Indeed, the
proposed Consent Form attached to the Notice of Collective Action
gives recipients who wish to opt-in only one option, requiring them
to agree that "by filing this consent, they will be bound by any
settlement or judgment of the Court on all issues in the case." In
addition, although the proposed Notice of Settlement references "an
opportunity to object" and informs members that "if they have any
questions or objections about the settlement, they should be
directed to the Plaintiff's Counsel," Judge Wang finds that this
language does not adequately inform members of their right to not
be bound by any settlement.
Therefore, to ensure that the proposed Notices are "fair and
accurate," the Notices: Must be modified to advise a potential
plaintiff of her or his opt-in rights, including whether to decline
to be represented by the Named Plaintiff, whether to choose to make
decisions on her or his own behalf concerning what claims and
arguments should be presented and how, whether to accept any
settlement offer or proceed to trial, and whether to be bound by a
settlement that the Named Plaintiff advocates.
Accordingly, Judge Wang ordered the Parties to meet and confer to
discuss amending the proposed Notices in compliance with her
instructions and guidance stated therein. By Nov. 8, 2021, the
Parties will file a renewed motion to approve the Parties' amended
Notices, accompanied by a mutually acceptable revised Notice of
Collective Action and Notice of Settlement for the Court's
consideration. In the event the Parties cannot arrive at mutually
acceptable drafts, they will submit a single proposed Notice of
Collective Action and a single Notice of Settlement, indicating the
language on which they agree and the language on which they cannot
agree, as well as the content they propose, respectively.
Conclusion
Judge Wang denied without prejudice the Parties' Joint Motion for
Approval of FLSA Opt-In Notice and Notice of Settlement. By Nov. 8,
2021, the Parties will file a renewed motion to approve the Notice
of Collective Action and Notice of Settlement. The Scheduling
Conference set for Nov. 4, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. is vacated, to be
re-set if appropriate. The Parties' Oct. 28, 2021 deadline to
submit a Proposed Scheduling Order is vacated to be re-set if
appropriate.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4xxrfj3c from Leagle.com.
UNITED HEALTHCARE: OHL Must File Class Cert Bid by Nov. 30
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OMEGA HOSPITAL, LLC, v.
UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., and UNITED HEALTHCARE OF
LOUISIANA, INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-00560-JWD-EWD (M.D. La.), the
Hon. Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes entered an order granting in part
Plaintiff Omega Hospital, LLC's second motion for an extension of
time to file motion for class certification as per the Court's
October 28, 2021 Order, extending Plaintiff's deadline to file its
class certification motion by no later than November 30, 2021, and
therefore the remaining dates are re-set from November 30, 2021:
United Healthcare was founded in 1974. The company's line of
business includes providing hospital, medical, and other health
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GMNHAR at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED STAFFING: Magtoles Has Until Nov. 16 to File Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Magtoles, et al., v.
United Staffing Registry, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01850
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto entered an order
that:
-- The deadline for Plaintiffs to serve their motion for
class certification is extended to November 16, 2021.
-- The deadline for Defendants to serve their response is
extended to December 16, 2021.
-- The deadline for Plaintiffs to serve their reply papers
and file the fully briefed motion is extended to December
31, 2021.
The nature of suit states Other Statutes - Other Statutory
Actions.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Class of Navy Veterans in Torres Suit Certified
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OSCAR D. TORRES, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. CARLOS DEL TORO 1, in
his official capacity as Secretary of the Navy, Case No.
1:21-cv-00306-RCL (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Royce C. Lamberth
entered an order:
1. certifying the following class:
"All veterans of the United States Navy and Marine Corps
whose final Physical Evaluation Board occurred between
September 12, 2016 and June 11, 2018 who claimed
additional conditions in the applicable section of the
joint DOD/VA claim form (VA Form 21-0819) that were not
listed on the last-dated NAVMED Form 6100/1 signed by the
Convening Authority and who did not receive a medical
retirement through the IDES;"
2. appointing the Plaintiff Oscar Torres as Class
Representative; and
3. appointing Plaintiffs counsel of the National Veterans
Legal Services Program and the law firm Perkins Coie LLP
as Class Counsel.
The Court finds that the Class meets the criteria of numerosity,
commonality, typicality, and adequacy set forth in Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a).
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZP7QWl at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Seeks Extension to Respond to Johnson Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN JOHNSON, et al., v.
FRANK KENDALL, Secretary of the Air Force, Case No.
3:21-cv-01214-CSH (D. Conn.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter
an order for an extension of time with respect to the deadline to
respond to the complaint, and deadline to respond to the motion for
class certification.
The complaint was served on the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
District of Connecticut by mail on September 15, 2021. The deadline
for an answer or responsive pleading is November 18, 2021.
The Defendant requests an extension of sixty days, until January
17, 2022, to answer or otherwise respond. Defendant requests that
its response to plaintiffs' motion for class certification be due
on the same date.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nLySWs at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Leonard C. Boyle, Esq.
Natalie N. Elicker, Esq.
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
157 Church Street
New Haven, CT 06510
Telephone: (203) 821-3700
Facsimile: (203) 773-5373
E-mail: Natalie.Elicker@usdoj.gov
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Ct. Enters Scheduling Order in Smith
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHA SMITH and EMMA
NEDLEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Case No. 2:20-cv-02086-TJS (E.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge Timothy J. Savage entered a scheduling order
as follows:
1. All fact and expert discovery relating to class
certification shall be completed by January 10, 2022.
2. Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification
no later than January 28, 2022.
3. Defendants' responses to the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification shall be filed no later than January 7,
2021.
4. Plaintiffs shall file their reply to the defendant's
response no later than February 18, 2022.
5. Oral argument on the plaintiff's motion for class
certification shall be heard on Tuesday, March 29, 2022,
at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 9A.
6. No further extensions will be granted.
The University of Pennsylvania is a private Ivy League research
university in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The university,
established as the College of Philadelphia in 1740, is one of the
nine colonial colleges chartered prior to the U.S. Declaration of
Independence.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3k8Jhu6 at no extra charge.[CC]
URBAN HEALTH: Tueros Conditional Status Bid Nixed w/o Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tueros, et al., v. Urban
Health Plan, Inc. et al., Case No.: 21-cv-4525 (JMF), Case No.
1:21-cv-04525-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Court entered an order continuing
to extend the hold order on all dates and deadlines, including
briefing of Plaintiffs' 216(b) motion, through the end of December
2021.
The Court said, "In light of the parties' potential class
mediation, all dates and deadlines in this case are hereby
suspended until January 4, 2022. On that date, the parties shall
file a joint status report regarding the progress of class
negotiations. Additionally, in light of the foregoing, Plaintiff's
motion for conditional collective certification is denied without
prejudice to renewal in the event that the mediation is
unsuccessful."
The parties have selected Stephen Sonnenberg as a class mediator
and obtained his availability for a class mediation in December.
Defendants are in the process of (i) obtaining and reviewing class
documents necessary for the class mediation and (ii) finalizing a
date for class mediation in December.
Urban Health is a network of federally qualified community health
centers based in the South Bronx and Queens.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mDQPa9 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1180
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
E-mail: info@leelitigation.com
VERO BEACH, FL: Seeks Denial of Taig Class Status Bid
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEITH TAIG, individually,
and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. CITY OF VERO BEACH;
CHIEF DAVID CURREY, in his individual capacity; CAPTAIN KEVIN
MARTIN (RETIRED), in his individual capacity; LIEUTENANT JOHN
PEDERSEN, in his individual capacity; DETECTIVE PHIL HUDDY, in his
individual capacity; DETECTIVE SEAN CROWLEY, in his individual
capacity and DETECTIVE MIKE GASBARRINI, in his individual capacity,
Case No. 21-cv-80391-RLR (S.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court
to enter an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification, and for such other and further relief as the Court
deems just and proper.
This case is a civil action for damages arising out of a
multi-jurisdictional investigation into suspected prostitution,
racketeering and human trafficking activities at the East Spa in
Vero Beach, Florida.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants violated his rights under
the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution by conducting covert, non-audio video surveillance at
the East Spa.
On November 2, 2021, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Motion for
Class Certification and to Appoint Class Representative and Class
Counsel. That motion sought to appoint the Plaintiff, Keith Taig,
as class representative for a proposed class to be defined as
follows:
"Any and all customers who visited the Spa from November 29,
2018 to January 27, 2019, who were illegally video-recorded
without their knowledge or consent, criminally charged,
identified in the media for their wrongful charge during the
referenced time period, and publicly humiliated in the media
as being involved."
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 1, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Robert E. Bonner, Esq.
MEIER, BONNER, MUSZYNSKI,
O'DELL & HARVEY, PA.
260 Wekiva Springs Road, Suite 2000
Longwood, FL 32779
Telephone: (407) 872-7774
Facsimile: (407) 872-7997
E-Mail: reb@fltrialteam.com
VIP AUTO: Court Certifies Manfredo FLSA Collective Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN MANFREDO, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. VIP AUTO GROUP OF
LONG ISLAND, INC., LEVITTOWN FORD LLC, WESTBURY JEEP CHRYSLER
DODGE, INC., WESTBURY IMPORTS LLC f/k/a WESTBURY FIAT LLC d/b/a
ALFA ROMEO OF WESTBURY and FIAT OF WESTBURY, GRAND PRIX SUBARU,
LLC, LINDENHURST SUBARU LLC d/b/a SOUTH SHORE SUBARU, VIP OF
HUNTINGTON, LLC f/k/a and d/b/a VOLVO CARS OF HUNTINGTON, LLC,
GARDEN CITY JEEP CHRYSLER DODGE, LLC and JOEL SPORN, Case No.
2:20-cv-03728-MKB-AYS (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Anne Y. Shields
entered an order:
1. granting the Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification as an Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA;
-- The collective action shall consist of all Sales
Professionals who were employed by Defendants from
three years prior to the filing of the Complaint.
2. approving the Plaintiff's proposed Notice as the parties
have stipulated to the form and means of dissemination of
the Notice; and
3. directing the Defendants to provide Plaintiffs with the
names and contact information of all employees who may be
potential plaintiffs herein within 10 days of the date of
this Order.
The Court said, "Deposition testimony corroborating Plaintiff's
affidavit will be more availing at the next stage of this
litigation, which will take place at the close of factual
discovery. At that time, if requested, the Court will make renewed
factual findings to determine whether Plaintiff is actually
similarly situated to other employees. At this stage, however,
Defendants' opposition papers serve only to create a question of
fact; they do not, as a matter of law, defeat the motion for
conditional certification as "the merits of plaintiff's claims are
not at issue on a motion for conditional certification."
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a
collective action is granted."
VIP offers new and used cars for sale in the Long Island area.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BPslza at no extra charge.[CC]
WAKEFERN FOOD: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Grant Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
JEANNE GRANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WAKEFERN FOOD CORP., Defendant, Case No.
7:21-cv-08590 (S.D.N.Y., October 19, 2021) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations
of the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a clerk in
ShopRite's deli department and as a cashier from 2015 to 2020 at a
ShopRite store located in Croton, New York.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay her and
other similarly situated employees on a timely basis as required by
NYLL.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint to recover from the Defendant
the amount of their untimely paid wages as liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment
interest.
Wakefern Food Corp. owns and operates a subsidiary chain of grocery
stores. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Tel: (646) 837-7150
Fax: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
WC LOGISTICS: Lindsey Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DEKEISHA LINDSEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WC LOGISTICS, INC.; AIT WORLDWIDE
LOGISTICS, INC.; DOES 1 through 100, Case No. RG21109457, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, for the
County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on October 28, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-08400 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including misclassifying the Plaintiff and similarly situated
drivers as exempt employees, failing to provide meal and rest
periods, failing to pay overtime wages for all hours worked, and
failing to reimburse business expenses.
WC Logistics, Inc. is a provider of transportation services, with
its principal place of business in Illinois.
AIT Worldwide Logistics, Inc. is a logistics company based in
Illinois. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Kristin Walker-Probst, Esq.
David A. Berkley, Esq.
Nadia D. Adams, Esq.
Nikku D. Khalifian, Esq.
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
400 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1700
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (714) 557-3800
Facsimile: (714) 557-3347
E-mail: Kristin.Walker-Probst@wbd.us.com
David.Berkley@wbd-us.com
Nadia.Adams@wbd.us.com
Nikku.Khalifian@wbd-us.com
WESTERN RANGE: Castillo Seeks to Certify Class and Sub-class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABEL CANTARO CASTILLO on
behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. WESTERN RANGE
ASSOCIATION, Case No. 3:16-cv-00237-RCJ-CLB (D. Nev.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
1. certify a class for all issues under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)
(3), consisting of:
"All persons whom WRA employed as shepherds through the H-
2A program, who worked in Nevada at any time on or after
May 3, 2010, through the date of trial;" and
2. certifying the following sub-class:
"All persons whom WRA employed as shepherds through the H-
2A program, who worked in Nevada at any time after May 3,
2013, and whose employment with WRA ceased on or before
three days before the date of trial, and who are no longer
employed by WRA."
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 29,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3o7a0J3
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
Leah L. Jones, Esq.
THIERMAN BUCK LLP
7287 Lakeside Drive
Reno, NE 89511
Telephone: (775) 284-1500
Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
E-mail: mark@thiermanbuck.com
josh@thiermanbuck.com
leah@thiermanbuck.com
- and -
Christine E. Webber, Esq.
Brian Corman, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
12 1100 New York Ave., NW, Ste 500
Washington, DC 20005
E-mail: cwebber@cohenmilstein.com
bcorman@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Alexander Hood, Esq.
TOWARDS JUSTICE
1535 High Street, Ste. 300
Denver, CO 80218
E-mail: alex@towardsjustice.org
WESTWARD MGMT: Ill. App. Answers Certified Question in Channon Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HARRY CHANNON and DAWN CHANNON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees v.
WESTWARD MANAGEMENT, INC., an Illinois corporation,
Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 1-21-0176 (Ill. App.), the Appellate
Court of Illinois, First District, Second Division, to the
certified question: Whether section 22.1 of the Condominium
Property Act provides an implied cause of action in favor of a
condominium unit seller against a property manager, as agent of a
condominium association or board of directors, based on allegations
that the property manager charged excessive fees for the production
of information required to be disclosed to a prospective buyer
under that statute.
Introduction
Plaintiffs Harry Channon and Dawn Channon have filed a class action
complaint against the Defendant, which is the property management
agent retained by the board of managers of Kenmore Club Condominium
Association, the condominium unit owners' association of the
building in which the plaintiffs formerly owned a condominium unit.
The Plaintiffs allege that, when they sold their condominium unit
in 2016, the Defendant charged them excessive and unreasonable fees
to provide them with the documents and other information that the
Plaintiffs were required to provide to the prospective purchasers
of their unit in connection with the sale. Relevant to the appeal,
they allege that the Defendant's actions violated section 22.1 of
the Condominium Property Act. 765 ILCS 605/22.1 (West 2016).
Background
When the owner of a condominium unit (other than the developer)
sells that unit, section 22.1 of the Condominium Property Act
requires that owner to obtain from the board of managers of the
condominium unit owners' association and make available to the
prospective purchaser nine categories of documents and information
concerning the condominium and its unit owners' association.
Section 22.1(b) requires "the principal officer of the unit owners'
association or such other officer as is specifically designated" to
furnish this information within 30 days of a request. Section
22.1(c) provides in pertinent part that "a reasonable fee covering
the direct out-of-pocket cost of providing such information and
copying may be charged by the association or its Board of Managers
to the unit seller for providing such information."
The Plaintiffs' class action complaint alleges that the Defendant
violated section 22.1(c) by charging more than a "reasonable fee
covering the direct out-of-pocket cost" of providing them with the
information that they were required under section 22.1(a) to obtain
and provide to the prospective purchasers when selling their
condominium unit. They allege that, in February 2016, they decided
to sell the unit that they owned in a condominium property located
on North Kenmore Avenue in Chicago. They entered into a contract
with prospective purchasers, which was a standard form contract
requiring them to obtain and provide the prospective purchasers
with the various documents and information set forth in section
22.1(a). The Defendant was the management agent retained by the
board of managers of the Kenmore Club Condominium Association
(Kenmore Club Board or Kenmore Club Association, respectively),
which is the unit owners' association for the building in which
plaintiffs owned their condominium unit.
Among the duties designated to the Defendant as management agent
was the duty to provide a selling unit owner with the documents and
information required by section 22.1(a). Knowing that the Defendant
had been assigned this duty by the Kenmore Club Association, the
Plaintiffs notified the Defendant of their intent to sell their
unit. The Defendant provided them with a standard form with which
to request documents. The form listed various categories of
documents along with a price next to each category of document.
The Plaintiffs submitted the form to the Defendant, requesting to
be provided with (1) a paid-assessment letter at a cost of $150,
(2) a year-to-date income statement and budget at a cost of $20,
(3) a "Condo Questionnaire/Disclosure Statement/22.1 (each)" at a
cost of $75, and (4) insurance contact information at a cost of $0.
They also submitted a form authorizing the defendant to charge
their credit card in the amount of $245 for providing these
documents.
The Defendant then provided the requested documents, and the
Plaintiffs' credit card was charged $245. The Plaintiffs allege
that the $245 fee charged by the Defendant for providing the
documents required by section 22.1(a) is not a "reasonable fee
covering the direct out-of-pocket cost of providing such
information," as required by section 22.1(c).Instead, they allege,
it is an "excessive and unreasonable fee" that does not reflect the
Defendant's direct out-of-pocket costs for providing this
information. They allege that they cannot reasonably obtain the
documents and information necessary to sell their unit from any
source other than the Defendant, and thus they were "beholden" to
the Defendant and had no choice but to pay the excessive and
unreasonable fee it requested to receive the documents. They
alleged that the Defendant's actions violate section 22.1 of the
Condominium Property Act (id. Section 22.1) as well as the Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Consumer Fraud Act)
(815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West 2016)).
The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint.
It argued that no implied private right of action existed in favor
of a condominium seller under section 22.1, because the purpose of
that statute is to protect prospective purchasers of condominium
units, not unit sellers. It also argued that section 22.1(c) did
not govern the fees that property management companies providing
services to condominiums could charge, as its unambiguous language
mentions only what condominium associations or their boards of
managers may charge for providing information. Finally, it argued
that the Plaintiffs had failed to plead a cause of action in second
count under the Consumer Fraud Act.
In a written order, the trial court denied the Defendant's motion
to dismiss and determined that an implied cause of action existed
in favor of condominium sellers under section 22.1.
The Defendant then filed a motion under Illinois Supreme Court Rule
308 (eff. Oct. 1, 2019), seeking to have the trial court certify
the question of law to this court of whether section 22.1 provides
an implied cause of action in favor of a condominium seller against
a property manager based on allegations that the property manager
charged excessive fees for producing documents and information.
The Plaintiff objected to this, arguing that it would be premature
because issues of fact existed on the question of the agency
relationship between the defendant and the board of managers or
unit owners' association of their condominium building, and this
court had declined to answer a similar certified question on a
previous occasion due to the issues of fact surrounding the
question of agency.
In reply, the Defendant asserted that in the case "agency has been
established," at least for purposes of the certified question. The
trial court agreed but modified the Defendant's proposed certified
question "to explicitly identify the agency relationship."
The Appellate Court then allowed the Defendant's application for
leave to appeal.
Analysis
The certified question is whether section 22.1 of the Condominium
Property Act (765 ILCS 605/22.1 (West 2016)) provides an implied
cause of action in favor of a condominium unit seller against a
property manager, as agent of a condominium association or board of
directors, based on allegations that the property manager charged
excessive fees for the production of information required to be
disclosed to a prospective buyer under that statute. The Appellate
Court first addresses whether an implied right of action exists
under the statute at all before considering the question of
agency.
The Defendant's principal argument on appeal is that no cause of
action may be implied in favor of the Plaintiffs in the case
because, as sellers of a condominium unit, they are not members of
the class for whose benefit section 22.1 was enacted. It contends
that section 22.1 imposes only obligations on unit sellers and does
not provide sellers with any protections or benefits. Rather, all
protections and benefits provided by the statute are conferred on
prospective purchasers, by ensuring that they are provided in a
timely manner with the documents and information necessary to make
an informed decision about whether to purchase a unit within a
condominium property.
First, the Appellate Court finds that the Plaintiffs, as sellers of
a condominium unit, are members of the class for whose benefit
section 22.1 was enacted. Second, it finds that the Plaintiffs'
alleged injury of being charged an excessive fee to receive
documents and information required by section 22.1 is an injury
that the statute was designed to prevent. Third, as to whether a
private right of action is consistent with the underlying purpose
of section 22.1, the Appellate Court finds that implying a private
right of action in favor of unit sellers charged fees in excess of
this amount to receive the documents and information they need to
provide to buyers in connection of the sale of their condominium
units is consistent with these statutory purposes. Finally,
considering whether implying a private right of action is necessary
to provide an adequate remedy for violations of the statute, the
Appellate Division holds that section 22.1 provides for no penalty
or other enforcement mechanism for the charging of an excessive or
unreasonable fee for documents or information. Without an implied
private right of action in favor of a seller, the statutory
prohibition on the charging of an excessive fee would be
ineffective.
The Defendant argues that implying a private right of action under
section 22.1 is unnecessary because the Consumer Fraud Act (815
ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West 2016)) "provides a cause of action against
a property manager for unfairly charging for documents." It points
out that the Plaintiffs' count under the Consumer Fraud Act remains
pending in the trial court.
The Appellate Division holds that the necessary elements are
satisfied to imply a private right of action in favor of a
condominium unit seller charged an excessive or unreasonable fee to
receive the documents or information required by section 22.1 of
the Condominium Property Act. In doing so, it disagrees with the
analysis of Horist v. Sudler & Co., 941 F.3d 274, 279-80 (7th Cir.
2019), and other federal cases discussed above and conclude that
they interpreted the purpose of section 22.1 too narrowly.
The Appellate Division now turns to the question of agency and
consider whether a unit seller's implied right of action exists
only against a unit owners' association or board of managers, or
whether it also exists against a property manager that acts as
agent for that association or board. The plain language of section
22.1 contains no mention of agents acting on behalf of unit owners'
associations or their boards of managers. Instead, section 22.1(a)
provides that a unit owner will obtain the requisite documents and
information "from the Board of Managers." 765 ILCS 605/22.1(a)
(West 2016). Section 22.1(b) provides that "the principal officer
of the unit owner's association or such other officer as is
specifically designated will furnish the above information." And
section 22.1(c) provides that a reasonable fee "may be charged by
the association or its Board of Managers to the unit seller for
providing such information." However, the Condominium Property Act
separately grants the board of managers of a condominium
association the ability to "engage the services of a manager or
managing agent."
The Appellate Division agrees with the trial court's reasoning.
Although section 22.1 itself does not specifically mention that the
statutory duties of a condominium unit owners' association may be
performed by its managing agent, it sees no reason why this would
not be one of the "services" for which an association's board of
managers may engage a managing agent under section 18(a)(5). While
the Defendant correctly points out that only a few sections of the
Condominium Property Act mention managing agents or property
managers and that none involve the issue here, this shows a
legislative intent not to delineate the specific services that an
agent or property manager can and cannot provide to condominium
associations. The fact that the Kenmore Club Association delegated
the performance of its duty under section 22.1 to the Defendant and
that the defendant agreed to accept it supports the conclusion that
this is a service that a property manager may provide as agent to a
condominium association.
The Defendant then argues that the plain language of section 22.1
neither requires the retention of a property manager to disclose
documents and information nor imposes any affirmative duties on
property managers. It argues that the statute places duties,
including the duty of imposing reasonable charges, only upon unit
owners' associations.
Overall, the Appellate Division finds the language of section 19,
which appears to contemplate an express cause of action, unhelpful
to our interpretation of section 22.1, which it has held permits an
implied cause of action. Whether section 19 would permit a cause of
action against a managing agent that takes on an association's
duties under that section is not before us. Ultimately, the
Appellate Division cannot agree that section 19 demonstrates a
legislative intent that only a condominium association or its board
of managers may be held liable if a managing agent has accepted a
delegation of the association's duties to provide documents and
information required by section 22.1, and that agent takes an
active part in violating the statutory duty owed by the association
or board to a unit owner.
Finally, the Defendant argues that it is no different than other
vendors hired by a condominium association, such as painters,
electricians, roofers, or landscapers, and it points out that the
Condominium Property Act does not control what such vendors may
charge for services even though they are ultimately paid for by
unit owners. It asserts that the Condominium Property Act does not
authorize unit owners to sue vendors with whom they have no
contractual relationship.
While there may be a number of distinctions between a condominium
association's managing agent and the painters, electricians,
roofers, or landscapers it hires, the primary difference would be
that the latter are independent contractors. They are not agents
acting on behalf of the association who have undertaken the
performance of the association's statutory duties owed to unit
owners. Thus, the fact that the Condominium Property Act does not
control what such independent contractor vendors may charge for
services or authorize unit owners to sue such vendors has no
bearing on the certified question in the case.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Appellate Division's answer to the
certified question is that section 22.1 of the Condominium Property
Act (765 ILCS 605/22.1 (West 2016)) provides an implied cause of
action in favor of a condominium unit seller against a property
manager, as agent of a condominium association or board of
directors, based on allegations that the property manager charged
excessive fees for the production of information required to be
disclosed to a prospective buyer under that statute. The certified
question is answered.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/tafuunb8 from Leagle.com.
ZARA USA: Djabi Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MOHAMED DJABI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ZARA USA, INC., and DOES 1 THROUGH
100, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV31853, was removed from the Superior
Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on October
29, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-08577 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wages for all hours worked,
failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked, failure to
provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to
timely pay wages during employment, failure to furnish compliant
wage statements, failure to timely pay all wages due upon
termination of employment, and unfair competition.
Zara USA, Inc. is a manufacturer of apparel and fashion products,
headquartered in New York, New York. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Adam R. Rosenthal, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
12275 El Camino Real, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92130-2006
Telephone: (858) 720-8900
Facsimile: (858) 509-3691
E-mail: ARosenthal@sheppardmullin.com
- and –
Tyler J. Johnson, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422
Telephone: (213) 620-1780
Facsimile: (213) 620-1398
E-mail: TJJohnson@sheppardmullin.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 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 ***