/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/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 ***