/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220316.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, March 16, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 48
Headlines
1ST AIDE HOME: Asatryan Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
21ST CENTURY CENTENNIAL: Reeves Files Suit in E.D. Missouri
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Pendleton Suit Says
3M COMPANY: Bickford Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to PFAS, Kiest Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: Faces Meunier Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Elements
3M COMPANY: Faces Sanders Suit Over AFFF Products' PFAS Exposure
3M COMPANY: Keim Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: McMullen Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Monteil Sues Over Side Effects of Using AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Passino Sues Over AFFF Products' Harmful Effects
3M COMPANY: Pullen Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Bazemore Sues Over Contaminated Infant Formula
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Johnson Suit Over Product Liability
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Lyons Balks at Contaminated Infant Formulas
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Steele Files Suit in D. South Carolina
ACTAVIS INC: White & Case Attorneys Discuss Reverse Payments Issue
ADESA INC: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, St. John Suit Alleges
AGGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENTS: Faces Class Suit Over BIPA Violations
ALLSTATE FIRE: Court Narrows Claims in Belanger's 2nd Amended Suit
AMERICAN TIRE: Martinez Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
AQUA METALS: $7M Class Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Final Nod
ARAMARK SERVICES: Faces FLSA Class Action in California
ARB RISK: Faces Guevara Suit Over Illegal Lending Enterprise
AUTOMATED CONTROLS: Fernandez Sues Over Electricians' Unpaid OT
BANKSIA HILL: Child Facility Conditions Worsened Amid Class Suit
BILLINGS, MT: Police Officers' Pay Class Action Settled
BITCONNECT INT'L: 11th Cir. Overturns Dismissal of Class Action
BLOCKFI INC: Faces Securities Class Action in New Jersey
BNY MELLON: Court Partly Defers Summary Judgment in Bernard Suit
BONNIE BRAE CONVALESCENT: Plascencia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CANADA: Accused by Black Public Servants of Delaying Proceedings
CARENET INFOMEDIA: Dickerson Sues Over CSRs Unpaid Wages
CELTIC FOOTBALL: Sex Abuse Survivors' Class Action Can Proceed
CENTRAL NURSING: Benoit BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
CHINA XD PLASTICS: Feng Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
CORK CITY PRODUCTIONS: Cabanas Sues Over Cooks' Unpaid Wages
CRAIGHEAD COUNTY, AR: Appeals Court Flips Dismissal of Miles Suit
EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Banana Boat Sunscreen Class Actions Pending
EDISON'S RESTAURANT: Rodriguez Files Suit in S.D. New York
EMPIRE BAGELS: Duarte Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
FAMILY DOLLAR: Brown Files Suit in S.D. Alabama
FARMERS PROPERTY: Seybert Files Suit in D. New Jersey
FCB BANKS: Faces Class Action Over Improper Fee Collection
FOOD 4 LESS: Fails to Pay Overtime, Delgado Suit Alleges
GEICO: 5th Circuit Affirms Denial of Class Certification
GEMINI HOMES: Homebuyers Launch Legal Action Over Unfair Contracts
GMRI INC: Fyke Files Suit Over Illegal Tip Credit
GOYA FOODS: New Jersey Court Allows Class Action to Proceed
HEALTHMARKETS INC: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HOGARTH CALIFORNIA: Osborn Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
HOTEL CHOCOLAT: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
IC SYSTEMS: Turner Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia
ICE CHIPS CANDY: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
INDIANA MEMBERS: Miceli Files FCRA Suit in S.D. Indiana
INTERMOUNTAIN EMPLOYMENT: Gallegos Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
INTUIT INC: Judge Rejects TurboTax Class Action Settlement
JMS COMPANY: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages to Servers, Mallett Says
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Concord Community Claims
JUUL LABS: Gilchrist County Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
K.P. HOSPITALITY: Faces Gotay Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
KELLER WILLIAMS: Colliau Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
KERSTIN FLORIAN: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Website Not Blind-accessible, Abreu Alleges
LAND O'LAKES: Wants Court to Approve $1.8MM ERISA Settlement
LASHES IN A BOX: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LIFE ELECTRIC: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LITIGATION PRACTICE: Eaton Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
LITTLE CAESARS: Hall Sues Over Unpaid Overtime and Retaliation
LOUISIANA HEALTH CARE: Carlos Suit Removed to E.D. Louisiana
LUCKY HAPPY LOVE: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MAEV INC: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MAINE: ACLU Sues Over Inequities in Public Defender System
MALIBU WELLNESS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MANDARICH LAW GROUP: Drago FCRA Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
MANIDAE BEAUTY: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MCCAREY LANDSCAPING: Budrow Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation
MIDDELBURG, ZA: Faces Class Action if Services Not Resumed
MILLER'S ALE: McCrosky Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
NAUTILUS INC: June 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Court Grants in Part Bid to Toss Ford Suit
SAKS INC: Harvey Sues Over Sales Tax Imposed on Retail Merchandise
SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Enomoto Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages, Commissions
SWISSPORT USA: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Adduci Suit Claims
T&T EXPRESS: Davis Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Non-Exempt Workers
THRAS.IO INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Ortega Claims
U.S. SOCCER: Fisher Phillips Attorneys Discuss $24MM Settlement
UNITED STATES: Ill. Court Approves Settlement in Nava v. ICE Case
VESTA PROPERTY: Esmailzadegan Balks at Debt Collection Practices
VYERA PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Daraprim Class Action for $28MM
WELLS FARGO: May Face Refinance Discrimination Class Action
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Dishwasher Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
[*] Software Bugs Becoming Target of Tech-Based Litigation
*********
1ST AIDE HOME: Asatryan Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 1st Aide Home Care.
The case is styled as Mayranush Asatryan, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by
1st Aide Home Care Inc. and/or 1st Choice Home Care Services, Inc.
v. 1st Aide Home Care Inc., Case No. 651084/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
New York Cty., March 8, 2022).
1st Aide Home Care -- https://1staidehci.com/ -- provides a skilled
Registered Nurse to assess and recommend appropriate care when
needed at home.[BN]
21ST CENTURY CENTENNIAL: Reeves Files Suit in E.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 21st Century
Centennial Insurance Company. The case is styled as Jamila Reeves,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. 21st
Century Centennial Insurance Company, Case No. 4:22-cv-00270-JAR
(E.D. Mo., March 7, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract.
21st Century Centennial Insurance Company -- https://www.21st.com/
-- provides insurance services. The Company underwrites fire,
marine, auto, and casualty insurance solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Pendleton Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY JOHN PENDLETON, 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. 2:22-cv-00729-RMG
(D.S.C., March 7, 2022) 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.
As a result of the alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular cancer.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
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: Bickford Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM A. BICKFORD, as Personal
Representative/Administrator/Executor of the Estate of COLLIN IVORY
BICKFORD, deceased, 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. 2:22-cv-00730-RMG
(D.S.C., March 7, 2022) 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
Decedent 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 Decedent, 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 Decedent 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:
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 PFAS, Kiest Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
DARRIL KIEST and MIRNA KIEST, 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. 2:22-cv-00722-RMG
(D.S.C., March 7, 2022) 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 severe personal injuries sustained by
Plaintiff Darril Kiest 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 Mr. Kiest, 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, Mr. Kiest was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with 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.
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 Meunier Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Elements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES MEUNIER and TRACEY MEUNIER, 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.
2:22-cv-00753-RMG (D.S.C., March 7, 2022) 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 Charles
Meunier 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.
As a result of the alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products, Mr. Meunier 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 Sanders Suit Over AFFF Products' PFAS Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
BILLIE SANDERS and JOAN SANDERS, 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.
2:22-cv-00723-RMG (D.S.C., March 7, 2022) 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 severe personal injuries sustained by
Plaintiff Billie Sanders 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 Mr. Sanders, 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, Mr. Sanders was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with 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.
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: Keim Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT KEIM, 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. 2:22-cv-00726-RMG
(D.S.C., March 7, 2022) 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 Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, 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:
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: McMullen Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
RETHA MCMULLEN, as Personal Representative/Administrator/Executor
of the Estate of KEITH CULLEN MCMULLEN, deceased, 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.
2:22-cv-00758-RMG (D.S.C., March 7, 2022) 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
Decedent 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 Decedent, 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 Decedent was exposed to toxic chemicals
and was diagnosed with kidney 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:
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: Monteil Sues Over Side Effects of Using AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY MARTIN MONTEIL, 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. 2:22-cv-00728-RMG
(D.S.C., March 7, 2022) 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, 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:
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: Passino Sues Over AFFF Products' Harmful Effects
------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD PASSINO, 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. 2:22-cv-00757-RMG
(D.S.C., March 7, 2022) 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, 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:
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: Pullen Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
HUNTER PULLEN, 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 &
SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-00767-RMG (D.S.C., March 8, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence/gross negligence,
strict liability, defective design, failure to warn, fraud by
concealment, medical monitoring trust, and violation of the Uniform
Voidable Transactions Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and military members, including the Plaintiff, who they
knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products.
The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular cancer and commenced
on-going medical treatment inclusive of surgical intervention via
left radical orchiectomy followed by chemotherapy.
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
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Bazemore Sues Over Contaminated Infant Formula
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CINDY LOPEZ BAZEMORE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES D/B/A ABBOTT
NUTRITION, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-01126 (N.D. Ill., March 3,
2022) is brought against the Defendant for breach of the implied
warranty of usability, breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability, negligent failure to warn, negligent recall,
unjust enrichment, and for violation of the New York Consumer
Protection From Deceptive Acts and Practices.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's infant formula products
may contain Cronobacter sakazakii and Salmonella Newport bacteria,
which when consumed, can result in serious adverse health effects,
including sepsis, meningitis, poor feeding, irritability, fever,
jaundice, grunting breaths, abnormal movements, and bowel damage.
As a result of Abbott's unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent
business practices, consumers of these products, including
Plaintiff, have suffered an ascertainable loss, injury-in-fact, and
otherwise have been harmed by Abbott's alleged conduct, says the
complaint.
Abbot Laboratories is an American multinational medical devices and
health care company with headquarters in Abbott Park,
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq.
JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
Saint Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (612) 436-1800
Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
E-mail: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com
jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com
- and -
Peter J. Flowers, Esq.
Michael W. Lenert, Esq.
MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
3 North Second Street, Suite 300
St. Charles, IL 60174
Telephone: (630) 232-6333
E-mail: pjf@meyers-flowers.com
mwl@meyers-flowers.com
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Johnson Suit Over Product Liability
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTANY JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES D/B/A ABBOTT NUTRITION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-01239 (N.D. Ill., March 8, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendant for breach of the implied
warranty of usability, breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability, negligent failure to warn, negligent recall,
unjust enrichment, and violation of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law.
The case arises from the Defendant's recall of its powdered infant
formula products, including the brands Similac, Alimentum, and
EleCare, because they may contain Cronobacter sakazakii and
Salmonella Newport bacteria, which when consumed, can result in
serious adverse health effects. The Defendant failed to replace the
affected recalled products, which many parents and caretakers rely
on daily to feed and care for their children. The Defendant leaves
many consumers, including the Plaintiff, with no safe option but to
pay full price for a newer version, says the suit.
Abbott Laboratories, doing business as Abbott Nutrition, is a
manufacturer of medical devices and products, with its headquarters
located at 100 Abbott Park Road, Abbott Park, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq.
JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
Saint Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (612) 436-1800
Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
E-mail: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com
jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com
- and –
Peter J. Flowers, Esq.
Michael W. Lenert, Esq.
MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
3 North Second Street, Suite 300
St. Charles, IL 60174
Telephone: (630) 232-6333
E-mail: pjf@meyers-flowers.com
mwl@meyers-flowers.com
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Lyons Balks at Contaminated Infant Formulas
----------------------------------------------------------------
CLARESA LYONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES D/B/A ABBOTT NUTRITION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-01125 (N.D. Ill., March 3, 2022) is
brought against the Defendant for breach of the implied warranty of
usability, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability,
negligent failure to warn, negligent recall, unjust enrichment, and
for violation of the New York Consumer Protection From Deceptive
Acts and Practices.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's infant formula products
may contain Cronobacter sakazakii and Salmonella Newport bacteria,
which when consumed, can result in serious adverse health effects,
including sepsis, meningitis, poor feeding, irritability, fever,
jaundice, grunting breaths, abnormal movements, and bowel damage.
As a result of Abbott's unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent
business practices, consumers of these products, including
Plaintiff, have suffered an ascertainable loss, injury-in-fact, and
otherwise have been harmed by Abbott's alleged conduct, asserts the
complaint.
Abbot Laboratories is an American multinational medical devices and
health care company with headquarters in Abbott Park,
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq.
JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
Saint Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (612) 436-1800
Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
E-mail: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com
jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com
- and -
Peter J. Flowers, Esq.
Michael W. Lenert, Esq.
MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
3 North Second Street, Suite 300
St. Charles, IL 60174
Telephone: (630) 232-6333
E-mail: pjf@meyers-flowers.com
mwl@meyers-flowers.com
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Steele Files Suit in D. South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Abbott Laboratories
Inc. The case is styled as Katie Steele, individually and as the
legal guardian of a minor child and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Abbott Laboratories Inc., Case No.
2:22-cv-00571-DCN (D.S.C., Feb. 23, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability for the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
Abbott -- https://www.abbott.com/ -- is a global healthcare leader
that helps people live more fully at all stages.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake Garrett Abbott, Esq.
Eric Poulin, Esq.
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM (CHA)
32 Ann Street, Unit B
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (843) 614-8888
Fax: (843) 494-5536
Email: blake@akimlawfirm.com
eric@akimlawfirm.com
paul@j-dlaw.com
ACTAVIS INC: White & Case Attorneys Discuss Reverse Payments Issue
------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam M. Acosta, Esq., Eric Grannon, Esq., Kathryn Jordan Mims,
Esq., and Alison Perry, Esq., of White & Case disclosed that in
February 2022, the US District Court for the Eastern District of
California held that California Assembly Bill 824 -- which
established a first-of-its kind presumption that certain
pharmaceutical patent settlements are anticompetitive and which the
California Attorney General had previously been enjoined from
enforcing on constitutional grounds -- is enforceable, but only
"with respect to settlement agreements negotiated, completed, or
entered into within California's borders." This recent development
has significant implications for pharmaceutical companies with a
presence in California or who may litigate patent disputes in
California.
The legality of patent settlements has historically been governed
by the US Supreme Court's 2013 Actavis decision. Settlements of
pharmaceutical patent litigation that involve so-called "reverse
payments" or "pay for delay" have long been scrutinized by the
Federal Trade Commission, State Attorneys General, and class-action
plaintiffs. Reverse payment claims generally allege that an
innovator pharmaceutical company provided financial inducement to a
potential generic competitor to settle patent litigation concerning
the innovator's drug product, or to obtain a later settlement entry
date than the generic company otherwise would have accepted, absent
the innovator's financial inducement.1
In 2013, the US Supreme Court resolved a circuit court split about
whether reverse payments are presumptively unlawful. The majority
opinion in Actavis rejected the deferential "scope of the patent"
test, but the majority opinion likewise rejected the FTC's proposed
"quick look" rule of presumptive unlawfulness. Instead, the Supreme
Court charted a middle course, holding that "the FTC must prove its
case as in other rule-of-reason cases."2 In doing so, the Supreme
Court expressly reserved an option for innovators to provide
financial settlement consideration to generic companies beyond the
value of early entry alone: "Where a reverse payment reflects
traditional settlement considerations, such as avoided litigation
costs or fair value for services, there is not the same concern
that a patentee is using its monopoly profits to avoid the risk of
patent invalidation or a finding of noninfringement."3
CA Bill 824 sidestepped Actavis in 2019 and created a presumption
of anticompetitiveness for certain patent settlements. Six years
after Actavis, on October 7, 2019, California enacted a
first-of-its-kind reverse payment law -- California Assembly Bill
824 -- that deviates from Actavis by providing that certain alleged
reverse payments are presumptively unlawful if (i) the generic
manufacturer obtains "anything of value" out of the deal, and (ii)
the generic manufacturer does not immediately attempt to sell its
infringing product.4 AB 824 shifts the burden to pharmaceutical
manufacturers to rebut the presumption of anticompetitiveness by
showing that any value received by the generic manufacturer was
fair compensation for goods or services, or that the settlement
agreement generated procompetitive benefits.5 For a full analysis
of AB 824, please see our client alert here.
A federal court enjoined the enforcement of CA Bill 824 as
unconstitutional. In December 2021, Judge Troy L. Nunley of the
Eastern District of California issued a preliminary injunction that
blocked the enforcement of AB 824 on constitutional grounds. The
court concluded that AB 824 could run afoul of the dormant Commerce
Clause of the US Constitution -- which precludes states from
regulating commercial activity that occurs wholly outside of their
borders -- because the law could apply to settlements that have no
connection to California.6
Now, CA Bill 824 is enforceable again, but only with respect to
patent settlements negotiated, completed or entered into within
California's borders. In January 2022, the California Attorney
General asked the court to modify the injunction "to permit AB
824's in-state application and only prohibit the Attorney General
from enforcing AB 824 against settlements with no connection to
California."7
In February 2022, Judge Nunley held that California may only
"enforce the provisions of AB 824 with respect to settlement
agreements negotiated, completed, or entered into within
California's borders."8 According to the court, "such agreements
are compliant with the dormant Commerce Clause because they
regulate conduct occurring wholly within California's borders."9
The district court, however, denied the Attorney General's request
to "allow California to continue to enforce AB 824 whenever a
settlement agreement is made in connection with in-state
pharmaceutical sales if that agreement artificially distorts the
pharmaceutical market in California."10 The court rejected the
Attorney General's expansive interpretation that would have created
risks for a much broader set of settlements because the "dormant
Commerce Clause precludes the application of a state statute to
commerce that takes place wholly outside of the State's boarders,
whether or not the commerce has effects within the State, and the
critical inquiry is whether the practical effect of the regulation
is to control conduct beyond the boundaries of the State."11
This recent development has significant implications for
pharmaceutical companies doing business in California. While many
questions about AB 824's validity and application remain, the
Eastern District of California's February 2022 decision provides
important guidance. Pharmaceutical companies should avoid
negotiating, completing or entering into settlements within
California's borders. For pharmaceutical companies with a presence
in California, this may mean internally reassigning
responsibilities related to settling patent litigation to employees
in other states. Similarly, pharmaceutical companies should be
cognizant of where their outside counsel who are litigating patent
disputes are located. The application of AB 824 will remain an
evolving area of law with significant implications for
pharmaceutical companies and should be closely monitored. [GN]
ADESA INC: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, St. John Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANDERSON ST. JOHN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADESA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-01257 (E.D.N.Y., March 8, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for its failure to timely pay wages in violation of
the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a tow truck driver
in Yaphank, New York from 2016 through late 2020.
Adesa Inc. is wholly owned by KAR Auction Services, Inc., with its
principal executive office located in Indiana. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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
AGGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENTS: Faces Class Suit Over BIPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Heath, writing for Madison-St. Clair, Record, reports
that a class action lawsuit was filed against McAlister's Deli,
alleging employees did not provide consent for the collection of
biometric information by technology used to track their time at
work.
Dylan Rushing, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals, filed a lawsuit in the Madison County Circuit Court
against Aggressive Developments of Missouri, LLC, McAlister's
Franchisor SPV, LLC, and Focus Brands LLC, alleging violation of
the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).
According to the lawsuit, BIPA defines a "biometric identifier" as
any personal feature unique to an individual, including handprint,
fingerprint and palm scans. Rushing claims that the defendants own
and run a restaurant that uses biometric-enabled technology to
capture, collect and disseminate biometric identifiers, which are
used to track time at work. However, Rushing claims the defendants
failed to obtain formal written consent of the employees.
Rushing claims the defendants failed to provide a disclosure or
policy regarding the use of biometric-enabled technology for time
tracking.
Rushing seeks injunctive and equitable relief, statutory damages of
$5,000 for each willful and/or reckless violation of BIPA, $1,000
for each willful and/or reckless violation of BIPA, attorney's fees
and court costs. Rushing is represented by Timothy P. Kingsbury of
McGuire Law PC in Chicago.
Madison County Circuit Court case number 22-LA-000081 [GN]
ALLSTATE FIRE: Court Narrows Claims in Belanger's 2nd Amended Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, YVONNE BELANGER, Plaintiff v. ALLSTATE FIRE AND
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE INDEMNITY INSURANCY COMPANY,
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE ASSURANCE COMPANY ALLSTATE
PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND
PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY, and ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK INDEMNITY
COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00317-WJ-SCY (D.N.M.), Judge
William P. Johnson of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Mexico granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint filed
on Jan. 18, 2022.
I. Background
The case is a putative class action arising out of a dispute over
"underinsured motorist coverage" in an automobile policy. The
Plaintiff alleges that she was solicited and sold illusory
underinsured motorist coverage and seeks to collect damages for the
Defendants' alleged deceptive business practices under various
causes of actions including but not limited to negligence,
violations of the New Mexico Unfair Trade Practices Act and Breach
of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. The Plaintiff also
seeks reformation of coverage, declaratory relief and injunctive
relief.
On April 4, 2019, the Defendants removed the case from the Second
Judicial District, County of Bernalillo under the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), codified in pertinent part at 28
U.S.C. Sections 1332(d) and 1453, on the grounds that (1) it is a
putative class action with more than 100 putative class members;
(2) there is minimal diversity among the parties; and (3) the
Complaint places into controversy an amount that exceeds $5 million
in the aggregate.
The allegations in the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") revolve
around the Plaintiff's "Uninsured Motorists Insurance - Coverage
ST" ("Coverage ST") at the minimum limits of $25,000 per
person/$50,000 per accident. Ms. Belanger alleges that on Sept. 4,
2015 she sustained bodily injuries and other damages arising from a
motor vehicle accident, when an underinsured motorist rear-ended
her vehicle. At the time of the accident, Belanger's policy
provided Coverage ST with minimum limits under Allstate automobile
policy number 829 720 835, which she originally purchased on July
1, 2014, and for which she paid a premium of $65 for the UM/UIM
Coverage that Allstate offered for the six months from July 1, 2014
to Jan. 1, 2015. The tortfeasor had the same minimum financial
responsibility liability coverage of $25,000 per person/$50,000 per
accident.
After the accident, the tortfeasor's insurer paid Ms. Belanger the
full $25,000 under her liability policy, but denied her claim for
damages above the $25,000 paid by the tortfeasor's insurer because
(1) Allstate deducted from the ST Coverage the sums paid by the
tortfeasor's insurer; and (2) the tortfeasor's liability coverage
limits, which were the minimum financial liability limits of
$25,000 per person/$50,000 per accident, equaled her minimum limits
Coverage ST.
On Dec. 17, 2021, the Plaintiff filed the SAC asserting the
following claims: Count 1: Negligence; Count 2: Violations of the
New Mexico Unfair Trade Practices Act, N.M.S.A.1978, Section
57-12-2 to 58-12-10 (UPA); Count 3: Violations of the New Mexico
Unfair Insurance Practice Act, NMSA 1978, Sections 59A-16-1 to
59A-16-30 (UIPA); Count 4: Reformation of Insurance Policy; Count
5: Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Count 6:
Negligent Misrepresentation; Count 7: Unjust Enrichment; Count 8:
Declaratory Judgment; and Count 9: Injunctive Relief.
Belanger contends that Allstate failed to properly inform her: (1)
how the Coverage ST is illusory in the event of a covered
occurrence involving an underinsured driver; and (2) that she would
not benefit from the purchase of Coverage ST because pursuant to
the Schmick offset, Ms. Belanger's recovery of Coverage ST benefits
would be offset by the amount of the tortfeasor's liability
coverage.
The Plaintiff's putative class action seeks to maintain a class of
the following: All persons (and their heirs, executors,
administrators, successors, and assigns) from whom Defendants
collected a premium for an underinsured motorist coverage on a
policy that was issued or renewed in New Mexico by Defendants and
that purported to provide underinsured motorist coverage on the
face of its application and declaration pages, but which
effectively provides no underinsured motorists coverage and/or
misleading underinsured coverage, because of the statutory offset
recognized in Schmick v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company, 704 P.2d 1092 (1985).
The Plaintiff also asserts the following subclass: All Class
Members (and their heirs, executors, administrators, successors,
and assigns from whom Defendants collected a premium for an
underinsured motorist coverage on a policy that was issued or
renewed in New Mexico by Defendants and that purported to provide
the underinsured motorist coverage on the face of its application
and declaration pages, but which in fact provides no underinsured
motorists coverage and/or misleading underinsured coverage, because
of the statutory offset recognized in Schmick v. State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company, 704 P.2d 1092 (1985), and who
sustained damages in excess of an insured tortfeasor's policy
limits, received the extent of all bodily injury liability limits
available and would be or were denied those benefits by Defendants
due to the Schmick offset.
In Crutcher v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., et al., United States
District Judge Judith C. Herrera certified the following questions
to the New Mexico Supreme Court: Under N.M. Stat. Ann. Section
66-5-301, is underinsured motorist coverage on a policy that offers
only minimum UM/UIM limits of $25,000 per person/$50,000 per
accident illusory for an insured who sustains more than $25,000 in
damages caused by a minimally insured tortfeasor because of the
offset recognized in Schmick v. State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company, and, if so, may insurers charge a premium for
that non-accessible underinsured motorist coverage?
The instant case was stayed pending the New Mexico Supreme Court's
ruling regarding the questions certified to it by Judge Herrera, in
the expectation that it "may resolve substantial issues in this
case." On Dec. 10, 2021, the Supreme Court answered those
questions, concluding that (1) underinsured motorist coverage at
the minimum limits was illusory in the sense that it was misleading
to the average insured, but (2) the future sale of such insurance
was lawfully permitted as long as the limitations of minimum limits
underinsured motorist coverage were disclosed to insureds in the
form of an "exclusion."
The stay was lifted in the case and before the Court now is the
Defendants' motion to dismiss. Allstate contends that none of the
Plaintiff's claims survive after Crutcher while Plaintiff maintains
that Crutcher did not moot any of the asserted claims in the second
amended complaint.
II. Discussion
Uninsured motorist ("UM") insurance coverage protects drivers who
are damaged by a tortfeasor who does not have automobile insurance.
Underinsured ("UIM") insurance coverage protects drivers who are
hit by a tortfeasor who does not have enough auto insurance to
cover the cost of the driver's injuries and damages. Under the
Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act, New Mexico requires every
driver to carry an "absolute minimum amount" of auto liability
insurance of at least $25,000 per person and $50,000 per occurrence
and UM/UIM insurance coverage of at least the same amount. ursuant
to statute, a policyholder is underinsured when there is a
difference between the injured driver's uninsured/underinsured
motorist insurance and the tortfeasor's liability insurance.
In Crutcher, the New Mexico Supreme Court found that UIM coverage
on a policy that provides minimum UM/UIM limits of $25,000 per
person/$50,000 per accident was illusory because "it may mislead
minimum UM/UIM policyholders to believe that they will receive
underinsured motorist benefits, when in reality they may never
receive such a benefit." The Schmick offset rule also made it
"practically impossible" for minimally insured motorists to collect
UIM insurance under a statutory minimum policy because the
deduction of the $25,000 received from the tortfeasor's insurance
company from the $25,000 due from the policyholder's insurer
balances out to zero. Similarly, an injured motorist may receive no
benefit from a policy where the tortfeasor does not meet the
statutory definition of an uninsured motorist, as when the total
limits of liability insurance are equal to the injured motorist's
UM/UIM coverage limits.
As a result of the Crutcher decision, an insurer must adequately
disclose the limitations of minimum UM/UIM coverage -- namely, that
under the policies described in the case, a policyholder may never
receive underinsurance motorist coverage. Without this disclosure,
an insurer may not charge a premium for minimum underinsurance
coverage.
A. Whether Crutcher v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. Applies Prospectively
The Defendants believe that Crutcher applies prospectively and as a
result, grants them immunity from prior misrepresentation claims as
to minimum limit underinsured motorist coverage. New Mexico applies
"a presumption that a new rule adopted by a judicial decision in a
civil case will operate retroactively."
The Defendants rely on the following language from Crutcher:
"Therefore, hereafter, the insurer will bear the burden of
disclosure to the policyholder that a purchase of the statutory
minimum of UM/UIM insurance may come with the counterintuitive
exclusion of UIM insurance if the insured is in an accident with a
tortfeasor who carries minimum liability insurance. Consistent with
the purpose and intent of the UIM statute, this disclosure will
allow purchasers to make a fully informed decision when selecting
UM/UIM insurance coverage."
Judge Johnson rejects the Defendants' arguments and concludes that
Crutcher generally supports the Plaintiffs' claims for several
reasons. First, he says, the Defendants assert that the word
"hereafter" is an express statement by the New Mexico Supreme Court
that it intended Crutcher to apply prospectively. Judge Johnson
disagrees finding that the use of the word "hereafter" must be
interpreted in the context of the certified question that was
presented, which was whether insurance companies could lawfully
charge a premium for underinsured motorist coverage at the minimum
limit. Second, the New Mexico Supreme Court made clear that its
ruling did not give immunity to insurers for pre-Crutcher clams.
Third, the New Mexico Supreme Court's use of the word "hereafter"
does not constitute an express statement that Crutcher applies
prospectively as to misrepresentation claims.
Judge Johnson concludes that the presumption of retroactive
application has not been overcome and therefore, Crutcher does not
provide Defendants with immunity for misrepresentation claims which
arose pre-Crutcher and does not mandate dismissal of the
Plaintiff's claims.
B. Proper Defendants in the Lawsuit
In the lawsuit, the Plaintiff is suing not only Allstate Fire and
Casualty Insurance Company, but also other, separate corporate
entities, namely: Allstate Indemnity Insurance Company; Allstate
Insurance Company; Allstate Assurance Company; Allstate Property
and Casualty Insurance Company; Allstate Vehicle and Property
Insurance Company; and Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company (the
"Improper Defendants").
The Defendants point out that Ms. Belanger's Policy was issued by
Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company ("Allstate Fire"), and
because these other entities were not parties to the contract, the
Plaintiff's allegations as to these other entities should be
dismissed. The Plaintiff contends that the other entities "worked
as a joint venture to sell automobile policies to New Mexico
residents" including them because "Defendants publicly display the
companies affiliated with the Defendants (which self-identifies as
"Allstate") on its website, Allstate.com."
Judge Johnson declines to decide this issue on a motion to dismiss.
He says the Defendants are correct that a subsidiary and its parent
corporation "are viewed as independent corporations." However, the
Plaintiff provides a sound reason to defer ruling on this issue
until after some discovery has been done which may flesh out
whether the Plaintiff has properly pled a joint venture
relationship with defendants in this case and if so, which claims
may continue on that theory. Hence, the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss certain co-defendants is denied at this time.
C. Count I: Negligence
The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiff's negligence claim on
two grounds. First, relying on Ambassador Ins. Co. v. St. Paul Fire
& Marine Ins. Co., they argue that New Mexico law does not support
an independent negligence claim against an insurance company and
that negligence becomes only an element in misrepresentation or bad
faith claims. The Ambassador case dealt with a failure to settle a
third-party claim, but its reasoning is still relevant in the
instant case.
The Plaintiff contends that Crutcher supports the availability of a
negligence claim because the New Mexico Supreme Court found that
the written insurance policy at issue led an insured into the
reasonable belief that they would receive underinsured motorist
benefits "when in reality they may never receive such a benefit."
However, Judge Johnson opines that Crutcher offers no support for
this contention as it did not discuss whether an insured may sue an
insurer on a garden-variety negligence claim. The Plaintiff offers
no case law to counter either the reasoning of Ambassador or the
Court's conclusion in Fava that a plaintiff cannot maintain a
separate negligence claim against the insurer. Instead, the
Plaintiff cites to several cases where courts have purportedly
allowed negligence claims to proceed, but on closer look, those
claims are bad faith claims or claims asserting negligent
misrepresentation.
Judge Johnson concludes that the Plaintiff presents no legal basis
to support a separate and independent negligence claim and
therefore he finds that the Defendants are entitled to dismissal of
the negligence claim in Count 1.
D. Count 2: New Mexico Unfair Trade Practices Act
In Count 2 of the SAC, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
violated the New Mexico Unfair Trade Practices Act ("UPA"),
N.M.S.A.1978, Section 57-12-2 to 58-12-10 ("UPA"), including but
not limited to Sections 57-12-2(D)(7), (D)(14), (D)(15), (D)(17)
and Section 57-12-2(E), which prohibits a person selling insurance
from engaging in unfair or deceptive trade practices.
The Defendants contend that Count 2 should be dismissed because the
allegations in the SAC do not point to any misrepresentations
Allstate made in connection with the sale of UM/UIM coverage to Ms.
Belanger. They contend that Allstate cannot be liable for any
violations under the UPA because, as Crutcher acknowledged, the
sale of UIM coverage to the Plaintiff conforms with New Mexico law.
They also point out that Allstate did not violate any disclosure
requirements because the policy issued to tghe Plaintiff explains
that it would only apply if the Coverage ST limits exceed the
minimum financial responsibility limits and would be offset by any
payments to them, including by a tortfeasor's liability coverage.
Judge Johnson opines that the Defendants' argument misses the mark.
The New Mexico Supreme Court recognized that the statutory scheme
allowing the offset did not permit insurers to mislead insureds or
misrepresent the nature of underinsured motorist coverage. The
"disclosure" provided in the Coverage ST issued to Ms. Belanger
does not appear to be any less confusing to an insured than the one
addressed in Crutcher. The allegations sufficiently allege that
Defendants violated their duty to disclose reasonably necessary
material facts as required under the UPA and therefore the Court
declines to dismiss Count 2.
E. Count 3: Violations of the UIPA
The Defendants seek dismissal of the Plaintiff's claim brought
under the UIPA on the ground that she fails to specify what part of
the statute Allstate violated and how, and that such generalized
accusations are insufficient to satisfy the Iqbal-Twombly
standard.
Judge Johnson disagrees with the Defendants' characterization of
these assertions as "vague." The UIPA specifically includes
misrepresentations of policy provisions as prohibited conduct. The
Plaintiff has alleged a viable claim under the UIPA and therefore
he denies the Defendants' request to dismiss Count 3.
F. Count 4: Reformation
The Defendants contend that Count 4 should be dismissed because the
Plaintiff's mistake was not reasonable. They also contend that
dismissal of Count 4 is appropriate because such relief was neither
prescribed in Crutcher, nor does it appear to be permissible under
New Mexico law.
Judge Johnson opines that there is nothing in the complaint
suggesting that Ms. Belanger has more than a limited knowledge of
insurance law. He therefore finds that the Plaintiff has pled
sufficient facts that she and other putative class members were
misled into the reasonable expectation that they had UM/UIM
coverage. The fact that New Mexico's statutory scheme follows a
"gap" theory of underinsurance does not thereby permit insurers to
mislead consumers about its application to minimum limit
underinsurance policies. For these reasons, the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiff's claim for reformation in Count 4 is denied.
G. Count 5: Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
Count 5 alleges in part: (i) a special relationship exists between
Defendants, on the one hand, and Belanger and Class Members,
respectively, on the other hand, sufficient to impose a duty of
good faith and fair dealing on Defendants owed to Belanger and
Class Members; (ii) implicit in the contract of insurance between
Belanger and Class Members, on the one hand, and Defendants on the
other was the covenant that Defendants would, at all times, act in
good faith and deal honestly and fairly with Belanger and Class
Members; and (iii) the Defendants breached the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, in one or more of the following ways,
including but not limited to: failing to adequately disclose to
Belanger and Class Members the illusory and/or misleading coverage
it solicited and sold; and charging a premium for coverage that was
not provided.
Judge Johnson holds that these allegations go to the heart of
whether Allstate acted in "good faith." He therefore finds that the
Plaintiff has plausibly alleged a claim for breach of the covenant
of good faith and fair dealing and denied the Defendants' request
to dismiss the claim.
H. Count 6: Negligent Misrepresentation
The Defendants contend that this claim should be dismissed because
Allstate "did not hide anything" from Ms. Belanger. Allstate
disclosed to the Plaintiff that her Coverage ST would only apply if
the limits exceeded the minimum financial responsibility limits,
would be subject to offset, and had no further duty to disclose
beyond that information. One need not look further than the holding
in Crutcher to find that the Plaintiff's negligent
misrepresentation claim survives Allstate's argument: Disclosure
that does not put the minimally insured consumer on notice that she
may never receive underinsurance motorist coverage is insufficient
and illusory, and misrepresents what the consumer believed she was
paying for.
Judge Johnson finds that the Plaintiff has alleged a viable claim
that the Defendants misled her into believing she would receive
underinsured motorist coverage when they would not, and so he
declines to dismiss Count 6.
I. Count 7: Unjust Enrichment
The Defendants seek dismissal of Count 7 because New Mexico law
"strongly disfavors unjust enrichment claims when remedies exist
under contract law." As a general rule, "equity will not act if
there is a complete and adequate remedy at law." The insurance
policy in this case constitutes such a contract which precludes an
unjust enrichment claim.
Judge Johnson opines that the Plaintiff offers no relevant law to
counter Defendant's position. He therefore grants the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim in Count
7.
J. Counts 8 and 9: Claims for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
The Defendant argues that the declaratory judgment claim should be
dismissed because (1) it is duplicative of their reformation claim
and (2) it is moot following Crutcher.
First, Judge Johnson opines that Counts 8 and 9 are not duplicative
of the Plaintiff's reformation claim. They seek relief that
declares the rights and obligations of the parties in the case and
enjoins the Defendants from collecting premiums for the sale of
illusory underinsured motorist coverage without adequate
disclosure. Such relief is not duplicative of the relief requested
in the Plaintiff's reformation claim.
Second, Judge Johnson holds that these claims are not moot after
Crutcher. While Crutcher addresses the same issues presented in the
Plaintiff's SAC, the Plaintiff and policies in the case are
separate and distinct and the relief provided to the plaintiffs in
Crutcher does not automatically extend to the Plaintiff in the case
without pursuing litigation. Moreover, these claims cannot be
characterized as moot when the Defendants still continue to
vigorously contest the matters in the case, claiming that Crutcher
applies prospectively and that the policy at issue is different
from the policy addressed in Crutcher in that the Coverage ST
adequately discloses the consequences of the offset for minimum
limit policyholders.
III. Conclusion
Judge Johnson granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint as
follows: (1) He dismissed Count 1 (Negligence) and Count 7 (Unjust
Enrichment) are dismissed and (2) declined to dismiss the remaining
counts (Counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9).
A full-text copy of the Court's March 2, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/387bkm9d from
Leagle.com.
AMERICAN TIRE: Martinez Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RAFAEL MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 2133396, was removed from
the Superior Court in the State of California for the County of San
Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on March 7, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:22-cv-00422-JGB-KK 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, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest breaks, failure to timely pay final wages, failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, and unfair and unlawful
competition.
American Tire Distributors, Inc. is a supplier of automotive parts
and supplies, headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Matthew E. Farmer, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 705-3000
Facsimile: (949) 724-1201
E-mail: mfarmer@littler.com
AQUA METALS: $7M Class Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE AQUA METALS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case
No. 17-cv-07142-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted the Plaintiffs' motions for final approval of class action
settlement and for attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive award.
I. Background
The Plaintiffs brought the securities class action lawsuit against
Defendants Aqua Metals and some of its officers and directors in
December 2017. They allege that the Defendants artificially
inflated Aqua Metals' stock price by misleading investors about the
viability and profitability of its lead-acid battery recycling
technology. The Plaintiffs further allege that, when the truth
about the technology was revealed, Aqua Metals' stock price
plummeted in a series of one-day drops, which caused them to suffer
significant damages.
Based on these allegations, the Plaintiffs seek to represent
themselves and investors who purchased or otherwise acquired common
stock of Aqua Metals sold between May 19, 2016 and Nov. 9, 2017.
They assert causes of action for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections
78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.
In March 2018, the Court consolidated three related class actions
then pending in the Northern District of California into one class
action lawsuit entitled In re Aqua Metals, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 4:17-cv-07142. The Court appointed the Plymouth
County Group as the Lead Plaintiff for the Class and approved the
Lead Plaintiff's choice of the law firms of Berman Tabacco and Levi
& Korsinsky, LLP as the Class Counsel. The Lead Plaintiff then
filed a Consolidated Complaint for Violations of Securities Laws
alleging claims under the Exchange Act and the Securities Act of
1933.
In September 2018, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint. The Court granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss, denying the Defendants' motion to
dismiss as to the Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) Scheme
Liability Claim and Section 20(a) Control Person Liability Claim,
while granting the motion as to the Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5(b)
Misrepresentation Claim, Section 11 Claim, and Section 15 Claim
with leave to amend.
In September 2019, the Lead Plaintiff filed the Amended
Consolidated Complaint (ACC), which is the operative complaint in
the case. The ACC asserts only Exchange Act claims against Aqua
Metals and the Individual Defendants. The Defendants moved to
dismiss the ACC's Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5(b) Misrepresentation
Claim and the Section 20(a) Control Person Liability Claim as it
relates to Count One of the ACC. In November 2020, the Court
granted the motion and dismissed the Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5(a)
and (c) scheme liability claim and Section 20(a) control person
liability claim as it relates to Count One of the ACC.
In July 2021, following formal discovery and with the assistance of
a mediator, the parties entered into a settlement agreement.
Shortly afterwards, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of a proposed settlement agreement. The Court granted
preliminary approval on Oct. 5, 2021.
The key terms of the Settlement Agreement are as follows:
a. Class Definition: The Settlement Class is defined as: "All
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired common
stock or options to purchase common stock of Aqua Metals between
May 19, 2016 and Nov. 9, 2017, inclusive, and were damaged as a
result."
b. Settlement Benefits: Aqua Metals will make a $7 million
non-reversionary payment into a Settlement Fund. The $7 million
payment will consist of $6.5 million in cash to be funded by Aqua
Metals's D&O insurance carriers and $500,000 in either Aqua Metals
common stock or cash, at Aqua Metals' sole option. After deduction
of taxes, administration costs, litigation expenses, attorneys'
fees, and any incentive award to the Lead Plaintiff for its costs
and expenses, the rest will be distributed to the Settlement Class
Members under the Plan of Allocation.
According to the Plan of Allocation, a third-party settlement
administrator will determine each authorized claimant's share of
the Net Settlement Fund based upon the recognized loss formula.
Depending on the number of eligible shares purchased by investors
who elect to participate in the settlement and when those shares
were purchased and sold, the average distribution is estimated to
be $0.49 per damaged share purchased in the Settlement Class
Period, before deduction of Court-approved fees and expenses.
c. Cy Pres Distribution: If any portion of the Net Settlement
Fund remains following distribution under the Plan of Allocation
and is of an amount that, in the discretion of Class Counsel, is
not cost effective or efficient to redistribute to the Settlement
Class, then those remaining funds, after payment of any further
notice and administration costs and taxes, will be donated to
Loyola University School of Law's Institute for Investor
Protection.
d. Release: Under the Settlement Agreement, all class members
will release their "Released Claims" against the "Defendant
Releasees."
e. Class Notice: The parties agreed that A.B. Data, a
third-party settlement administrator (or "Claims Administrator")
would mail notice of the class action settlement and a claim form
to all class members who could be identified with reasonable
effort. The Settlement Class Members had until Jan. 3, 2022, to opt
out of the Settlement Class by submitting a valid and timely
request to the Claims Administrator in the manner described in the
Notice.
f. Incentive Award: The Settlement Agreement allows the Class
Counsel to seek an award to pay the costs and expenses of the Lead
Plaintiff in connection with the prosecution of the case. The Class
Counsel's declaration states that the Lead Plaintiff intends to
seek an award not to exceed $5,000 in total for its costs and
expenses related to the litigation.
g. Attorneys' Fees and Costs: The Settlement Agreement allows
the Class Counsel to seek an attorneys' fees award and for
reimbursement of litigation expenses. The Class Counsel is moving
for attorneys' fees in the amount of $1.75 million. They are also
requesting reimbursement of litigation expenses in the amount of
$95,634.04.
h. The Settlement Agreement also references a confidential
"Supplemental Agreement" that was not filed with the Court. The
Supplemental Agreement details the conditions under which the
Defendants may terminate the settlement if the requests for
exclusion from the settlement class exceed a certain level. At the
Court's request, the parties submitted the confidential
Supplemental Agreement for in camera review. The Court reviewed the
Supplemental Agreement and found that it does not impact the
fundamental fairness of the Settlement Agreement.
Pending before the Court are the Plaintiffs' motions for final
approval of class action settlement and for attorneys' fees, costs,
and incentive award. The Class Counsel also asks the Court to
approve: (1) an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $1.75
million to the Class Counsel; (2) reimbursement of $95,634.04 in
litigation expenses advanced by the Class Counsel; (3) payment of
the Class Representative Incentive Awards in the amount of $5,000
to the Lead Plaintiff.
Judge Gilliam held a final fairness hearing on Feb. 24, 2022.
II. Analysis
First, Judge Gilliam finds that the notice procedures are adequate
under Rule 23(e) and the settlement agreement is fair, adequate,
and reasonable, and that the settlement Class Members received
adequate notice. Accordingly, he granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
final approval of the class action settlement. Second, in
recognition of the favorable settlement, the substantial risks of
litigation, and the financial burden assumed, Judge Gilliam grants
the attorneys' fees of $1.75 million. Third, he holds that the
costs were reasonably incurred and grants the motion for costs in
the amount of $95,634.04. Finally, ater reviewing the Lead
Plaintiff's declaration, and considering the circumstances of the
lengthy case, Judge Gilliam finds that the requested service award
is reasonable to compensate the Lead Plaintiff for its efforts.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, Judge Gilliam granted the motion for final approval of
class action settlement and granted the motion for attorneys' fees,
costs, and incentive awards. He approved the settlement amount of
$7 million. He also approved (1) the Class Counsel's request for an
award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $1.75 million; (2) the
Class Counsel's request for payment of current actual costs
incurred in the amount of $ $95,634.04; (3) the Class
Representative Incentive Awards in the amount of $5,000 for the
Lead Plaintiff.
The parties and settlement administrator are directed to implement
the Final Order and the settlement agreement in accordance with the
terms of the settlement agreement. The parties are further directed
to file a short stipulated final judgment of two pages or less
within 14 days from the date of the order. The judgment need not,
and should not, repeat the analysis in the Order.
Within 21 days after the distribution of the settlement funds, the
parties must file a Post-Distribution Accounting, which provides
the following information: The total settlement fund, the total
number of class members, the total number of class members to whom
notice was sent and not returned as undeliverable, the number and
percentage of claim forms submitted, the number and percentage of
opt-outs, the number and percentage of objections, the average and
median recovery per claimant, the largest and smallest amounts paid
to class members, the method(s) of notice and the method(s) of
payment to class members, the number and value of checks not
cashed, the amounts distributed to each cy pres recipient, the
administrative costs, the attorneys' fees and costs, the attorneys'
fees in terms of percentage of the settlement fund, and the
multiplier, if any.
The counsel is directed to summarize this information in an
easy-to-read chart that allows for quick comparisons with other
cases. The parties will post the Post-Distribution Accounting,
including the easy-to-read chart, on the settlement website. The
Court may hold a hearing following submission of the parties'
Post-Distribution Accounting.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 2, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mw4j6w6r from Leagle.com.
ARAMARK SERVICES: Faces FLSA Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Dailey, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Aramark
Services Inc. is facing accusations that it violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and California labor law by forcing employees to work
through their breaks without pay, in a new lawsuit filed on March 1
in a federal court in San Francisco.
The lawsuit was brought by Lawrence Kelly Jr., who worked for
Aramark in the San Francisco Bay Area, individually and on behalf
of hourly nonexempt employees in California.
Aramark subjected these employees to policies and practices that
deprived them of full and uninterrupted meal and rest breaks,
premium wages for missed breaks, and regular and overtime wages for
all. [GN]
ARB RISK: Faces Guevara Suit Over Illegal Lending Enterprise
------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN GUEVARA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STANLEY CHAO and ARB RISK MANAGEMENT
HOLDINGS LLC, d/b/a APEX PROCESSING, VALLEY PROCESSING, and COMET
LOANS, Defendants, Case No. 8:22-cv-00540-SDM-CPT (M.D. Fla., March
8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Florida Consumer Collection
Practices Act, and the Florida's Civil Remedies for Criminal
Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in an
illegal lending enterprise through a Rent-A-Tribe model wherein
they charged interest exceeding 700 percent annually for loans
issued through their lending websites. Mr. Chao, through ARB,
generally collects these loans; however, they assign certain
delinquent debts for collection to Apex Processing and Valley
Processing, supposedly third-party debt collectors. Apex Processing
and Valley Processing then send official-appearing, but fake,
letters to the consumer's employer, falsely claiming that the
employer is required to garnish the consumer's wages and remit
payment to Apex Processing or Valley Processing for repayment of
the consumer's loan. As a result of the Defendants' alleged
misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered actual damages
in the form of payments withheld from their paycheck, damage to
their reputation, and severe emotional distress.
ARB Risk Management Holdings LLC, doing business as Apex
Processing, Valley Processing, and Comet Loans, is a debt
collection company with its principal address located at 4700
Millenia Blvd., Suite 270, Orlando, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon D. Morgan, Esq.
Bryan J. Geiger, Esq.
Thomas M. Bonan, Esq.
Bridget L. Scarangella, Esq.
SERAPH LEGAL, P.A.
1614 N. 19th St.
Tampa, FL 33605
Telephone: (813) 567-1230
Facsimile: (855) 500-0705
E-mail: BGeiger@SeraphLegal.com
BMorgan@SeraphLegal.com
TBonan@SeraphLegal.com
BScarangella@SeraphLegal.com
AUTOMATED CONTROLS: Fernandez Sues Over Electricians' Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
EDUARDO RIVAS FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AUTOMATED CONTROLS AND POWER
LLC/ACP LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-01259-KM-JBC (D.N.J.,
March 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for its
failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Puerto Rico Wage Payment Statute.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a master electrician from
August 2018 to October 2018.
Automated Controls and Power LLC/ACP LLC is a contractor
headquartered in Louisiana. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
- and –
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
- and –
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
BANKSIA HILL: Child Facility Conditions Worsened Amid Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Gregoire of Sydney Criminal Lawyers disclosed that as a
15-year-old boy came before the WA Children's Court, it was heard
that during his time in the state's only child prison, Banksia
Hill, he'd been kept in a tiny isolation cell with an observational
wall for 79 of 98 days -- 33 without a required 30-minute break --
over the summer, during a heatwave.
"When you treat a damaged child like an animal, they will behave
like one and if you want a monster this is how you do it," said
District Court Judge Hylton Quail on 10 February, as he sentenced
the boy with compulsive brain damage to a 12 month community order,
as it was safer than being inside.
Quail, the president of the WA Children's Court, handed down the
burglary-related sentence just a month after he permitted a
17-year-old youth to serve his 14-month term in Hakea adult prison,
after he'd been subjected to multiple lockdowns during his time on
remand at Banksia.
The WA District Court judge outlined that conditions in the child
facility had worsened of late due to staff shortages during the
pandemic, but a class action against Banksia Hill launched mid-last
year suggests the prison has long been a centre of human rights
abuses.
Indeed, Banksia Hill Detention Centre is Western Australia's Don
Dale, where kids as young as 10 - 74 percent of whom are First
Nations - are separated from community supports to be "treated like
animals" by the government-maintained system.
A rare admission
"Judge Quail has effectively called out Banksia Hill as an abysmal
failure, that's not fit for purpose, that degenerates children to
their worst selves, that's not rehabilitative or restorative,
that's a den of cruelties leaving children worse off," said Social
Justice Independent Gerry Georgatos.
"They leave Banksia Hill worse than when they go in and, therefore,
pose a greater risk to themselves and society," he told Sydney
Criminal Lawyers.
And he ought to know, as coordinator of the National Suicide
Prevention and Trauma Recovery Project (NSPTRP) he was called into
the centre last September to help deescalate a riot, and he noted
the number of kids being subjected to the Intensive Support Unit
(ISU) isolation cells.
Georgatos further stressed that a figure like the Children's Court
president publicly calling out the state government on how it's
overseeing the running of the facility is a rare occurrence,
especially as Banksia Hill has such close links to the institution
he presides over.
"These are our most vulnerable children, many without parents, half
of them, in fact, in the care of the state, and failed big time by
both Child Protection and Corrective Services," he added. "There's
negligible nurture in Banksia Hill but there's heaps of the
punitive."
"Fishbowl" cells
Established in 1997, Banksia Hill Juvenile Detention Centre is
situated in the southern Perth suburb of Canning Vale. And while
Australian authorities prefer to use euphemisms when it comes to
locking up kids, Banksia is basically a child prison used to detain
10 to 17 year old inmates.
Following a May 2017 riot involving seven child prisoners, the ISU
was established as a means to provide problematic kids with a full
support regime, but in reality they received less programs. And not
all the children in ISU are stuck in the "fishbowl" cells, where
they can be constantly observed.
"ISU is referred to by some of the guards and by the child
prisoners as ‘the cage'", Georgatos said. "Small cells, which
some children can touch both walls if they spread their arms - this
is how small these cells are. Dark on the inside, little light, and
food with no utensils, eating with their hands."
The SJI candidate explained that placing a child in the ISU is
supposed to be court ordered, yet this requirement is not always
being followed, and neither are conditions that require children
must be allowed out of the small cells for allocated periods to
exercise daily.
Suing over mistreatment
The Social Justice Independents and NSPTRP are launching a class
action against the Banksia Hill facility and the WA state
government. The case is being led by Levitt Robinson Solicitors,
and it already entails 530 testimonies from past detainees
outlining human rights abuses at the prison.
Georgatos recalls that close to a decade ago the current WA Labor
government, when in opposition, slammed the child prison, warning
it was "a powder-keg waiting to explode", but since he took office
five years ago, WA premier Mark McGowan actually oversaw the ISU
establishment.
"We launched the class action because on top of the redress to the
affected, we want to compel social reforms, a suite of humane
alternatives, ensure nurture and a better shot at life for our most
vulnerable children."
The long-term suicide prevention advocate further set out that
rather than sending young offenders to prison with the deprivation
of liberty being the punishment, the authorities are sending these
children to face degradation and harm in a facility with a dearth
of any rehabilitation or restoration.
The greater reforms
Since the other two rulings, Georgatos advised, Judge Quail has
sentenced a 16-year-old who was convicted on a serious arson
offence to a 12-month community order, as he determined the youth
would have more chance at rehabilitation on the outside than inside
the "Banksia dungeons".
Although, according to the SJI candidate, who's running for the
Senate in the coming election, Banksia reflects a broader problem
with Australian youth detention, and he's calling for all seventeen
child prisons nationwide to be closed down.
Georgatos recommends a system where the focus is on supporting
vulnerable youths in the community with substantial outreach
supports and mentoring, and this system should be extended to
ensure their parents and carers receive any assistance or
counselling they may need.
"I've worked with thousands of vulnerable people and what I
describe is what works best. Society needs to heed," the social
justice advocate said in conclusion.
"In 2019, the Australian Senate voted against raising the age of
criminal responsibility from 10 to 14. The Senate is supposed to be
the heart and soul of the nation." [GN]
BILLINGS, MT: Police Officers' Pay Class Action Settled
-------------------------------------------------------
MTN News reports that a lawsuit filed more than a decade ago by a
group of Billings police officers against the city has been
settled.
According to a press release from the city of Billings, the city
and 142 then-current and former officers involved in the class
action case Watters v. City of Billings have reached a settlement.
On Feb. 3, 2022, Yellowstone County District Court Judge Rod Souza
approved a joint motion requesting approval of a dismissal
settlement, according to the press release. Because the case was a
class action, court approval was required.
In return for dismissal of the case, the city will make a
contribution of $28,500 to the Billings Police Protective
Association, a non-profit public service organization devoted to
supporting Billings police officers.
"The City of Billings strongly supports its police force and is
happy to support the BPPA with this settlement and looks forward to
finally ending this litigation," Chris Kukulski, Billings city
administrator, said in the press release.
The officers originally sought millions of dollars from the city in
a dispute over longevity and other pay issues. The primary claim
was filed in January 2009 and raised the issue of the
interpretation of union contract language. Each officer was to
receive a small increase in pay based on years of service called
"longevity."
The officers claimed the longevity formula went into effect on
their hire date and they were immediately entitled to credit for
one year of service.
The city asserted that years of service meant completed years, so
at the end of their first year they would earn credit for one year
of completed service, which would be applied to pay in their second
year. Once an officer completed two years, the increase in pay
would be paid out in their third year, and so on.
In addition, there were several other claims based on details of
pay, including how overtime was calculated and how banked time off
hours were paid out.
The case was appealed twice to the Montana Supreme Court, which
ruled in the city's favor on most of the claims, finding the city
correctly followed the contract in calculating "longevity" and in
other aspects.
Three relatively small claims were sent back to district court for
further consideration.
The court ruled in favor of the city on one claim, ruled
"conditionally" in its favor on another claim pending receipt of
further evidence, and the court asked for more information on the
third claim.
After the court's ruling, both sides agreed it made the most sense
to end the litigation by having the city pay an amount similar to
what it would have to pay its own lawyers to finish the litigation,
the press release states. [GN]
BITCONNECT INT'L: 11th Cir. Overturns Dismissal of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that on
February 18, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit unanimously reversed a district court's dismissal
of a putative securities class action against online promoters of a
new cryptocurrency coin (the "Promoters") for violations of Section
12 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"). Wildes v.
BitConnect Int'l PLC, No. 20-11675 (11th Cir. Feb. 18, 2022).
Plaintiffs alleged that the cryptocurrency investment platform (the
"Company") that issued the new cryptocurrency was in fact a Ponzi
scheme masquerading as an investment program, and that, as a result
of the Company's scheme, investors suffered more than $2 billion in
losses. In moving to dismiss, the Promoters argued that using
online media and videos to make their sales pitches to the public
at large -- rather than to specific individuals -- could not amount
to solicitation under the Securities Act. The district court agreed
with the Promoters, dismissing the action with prejudice in
November 2019. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding
that "[a] seller cannot dodge liability through his choice of
communications—especially when the [Securities] Act covers 'any
means' of 'communication.'"
According to plaintiffs, the Company's scheme utilized online
promotional videos and websites, in which the Promoters sought to
convince investors to purchase a new type of cryptocurrency on the
promise of outsized returns with very little effort. The Promoters
created thousands of videos promising "huge profits" and those
videos generated millions of online views. Specifically, Promoters
touted the Company's promise that investors would earn up to ten
percent interest per month through the Company's "staking" program
when they left their cryptocurrency in their digital wallet and up
to forty percent interest each month for investors who loaned their
coins through the Company's "lending" program. In reality, in what
the Court referred to as a "classic pyramid scheme," the "original
investors simply received their so-called returns from the money
paid by new investors hoping for the same." When state regulators
in Texas and North Carolina announced cease and desist orders to
prevent the Company from issuing yet another new cryptocurrency in
early 2018, the scheme unraveled, and the Company closed its
trading platform. In a matter of months, the cryptocurrency's value
plummeted by 99.9%.
The district court granted the Promoters' motion to dismiss in
November 2019. According to the district court, the Promoters could
not be considered statutory "sellers" under Section 12 because the
Promoters' sales pitches were made through YouTube and websites.
Specifically, the district court held that plaintiffs failed to
allege that "they purchased securities as a result of [the
Promoters'] personal solicitations."
The Eleventh Circuit disagreed. According to the Court, the "only
question" on appeal was "whether a person can solicit a purchase,
within the meaning of the Securities Act, by promoting a security
in a mass communication." In reversing the dismissal, the Court
explained that contrary to the district court's holding, "nothing
in the Securities Act makes a distinction between individually
targeted sales efforts and broadly disseminated pitches." The Court
also noted that it would make "little sense" that "a seller who
would be liable for recommending a security in a personal letter
could not be held accountable for making the exact same pitch in an
internet video." [GN]
BLOCKFI INC: Faces Securities Class Action in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action styled John Mangano v. BlockFi et al alleges the
sale of unregistered securities by the company.
BlockFi is described as "a financial services company that
generates revenue through cryptocurrency trading, lending, and
borrowing, as well as engaging in proprietary trading".
The complaint was filed against BlockFi, BlockFi Trading LLC, and
BlockFi Lending LLC at the U. S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey. [GN]
BNY MELLON: Court Partly Defers Summary Judgment in Bernard Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN BERNARD, WILLIAM BERNARD, PAMELA MARTIN,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED;
Plaintiffs v. BNY MELLON, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
2:18-CV-00783-RJC (W.D. Pa.), Judge Robert K. Colville of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania,
Pittsburgh, denied in part and deferred in part, pending
supplemental briefing, BNY Mellon's motion for summary judgment.
I. Introduction
The action was initiated in the Court on June 15, 2018, by
Plaintiffs John Bernard and William Bernard, who are the
beneficiaries of the Van Valzah trust, against BNY Mellon, NA,
trustee of the Van Valzah trust. In their second amended complaint
("SAC"), the Plaintiffs assert a cause of action against BNY Mellon
for breach of fiduciary and statutory duties as trustee.
II. Background
The Van Valzah trust was established by agreement dated Nov. 17,
1954, between Aglae Van Valzah, an ancestor of the Bernards, as
Grantor, and The Bank of New York as Trustee. BNY Mellon has been
Trustee since at least 2007. The trust is governed by the law of
New York. The Bernards are beneficiaries of the Van Valzah trust.
The Finkenauer trust was established by agreement on Oct. 5, 1962,
by Pamela Martin's grandfather, Elmer Robert Finkenauer, as
Grantor, and the Girard Trust Corn Exchange Bank as Trustee. The
Finkenauer trust's assets have been in trust continuously with the
Girard Trust Corn Exchange Bank and its corporate successors, now
BNY Mellon, since that time. The Finkenauer trust is governed by
the law of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff Pamela Martin is a beneficiary
of the Elmer Finkenauer trust.
During the relevant periods of time, up until 2019, at least some
assets of both trusts were invested in Dreyfus active mutual funds.
The Plaintiffs contend that BNY Mellon breached its fiduciary duty
by 'channeling' trust assets into 115 specific actively-managed
Dreyfus funds.
The Bernards filed their initial complaint on June 15, 2018. By
agreement, on Sept. 11, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the SAC. On Oct.
15, 2019, BNY Mellon filed its third motion to dismiss and brief in
support thereof. On April 29, 2020, Chief Magistrate Judge Cynthia
Reed Eddy issued a report and recommendation recommending that the
motion to dismiss be denied. The Court adopted that report and
recommendation on June 4, 2020. BNY Mellon filed an answer to the
SAC on July 9, 2020.
On Sept. 29, 2020, BNY Mellon filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings and brief in support thereof. Their motion raised one
issue; namely, that the Plaintiffs' claims are barred pursuant to
the statute of limitations. On Nov. 30, 2020, Chief Magistrate
Judge Eddy recommended that BNY Mellon's motion for judgment on the
pleadings be denied as there are issues of fact related to when
beneficiaries knew or should have known about their breach of
fiduciary duty claim. The Court entered an order adopting that
Report and Recommendation on March 31, 2021.
Meanwhile, class certification discovery proceeded, and on April 5,
2021, BNY Mellon elected to file an early dispositive motion.
Specifically, BNY Mellon moved for summary judgment, and filed a
brief in support thereof and concise statement of material facts
("CSF"), against the Plaintiff on four bases: (1) the Plaintiffs
have suffered no damages; (2) the Plaintiffs' claims are barred by
the statute of limitations; (3) the Plaintiffs lack standing to
pursue certain claims; and (4) Plaintiff Martin signed a release
for one of the trusts. The Plaintiffs filed a responsive brief,
CSF, and Appendix on May 14, 2021. BNY Mellon filed a reply on June
11, 2021. The matter is now ripe for disposition.
III. Discussion
A. Damages
BNY Mellon first contends that it is entitled to summary judgment
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 because the
"Plaintiffs have suffered no damages from the alleged conduct about
which they complain." According to BNY Mellon, "the undisputed
evidence is that the Plaintiffs did not suffer losses." Thus, BNY
Mellon contends that the remedy of a surcharge, which is the remedy
available for a breach of fiduciary duty claim, is not available to
the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs respond that contrary to BNY
Mellon's position, a measure of damages for breach of trust does
include lost profits from imprudent investment decisions.
Judge Colville opines that if a court finds that a trustee breached
his or her fiduciary duty, then the remedy may include unrealized
gain that could have been had if no breach had occurred.
Accordingly, BNY Mellon's argument that Plaintiffs cannot recover
where trusts appreciated in value over time does not entitle it to
relief. If it is found that BNY Mellon breached its fiduciary duty
as trustee, then there must be a remedy available to the
Plaintiffs. Thus, Judge Colville denies BNY Mellon's motion for
summary judgment on this basis.
BNY Mellon next contends that even if the Plaintiffs were asserting
a viable theory for damages, they have not demonstrated that their
expert's methodology is sound. To counter this point, the
Plaintiffs rely on the testimony of both Dr. Pomerantz and another
expert, David Kamons.
On Feb. 7, 2022, the Court entered a Memorandum order granting in
part and denying in part BNY Mellon's motion to exclude the
testimony of Dr. Pomerantz. In response, the Plaintiffs have filed
for leave to file additional memoranda, which the Court has
granted, that potentially impacts this issue. Accordingly, out of
an abundance of caution, Judge Colville will defer ruling on the
motion for summary judgment as it relates to Dr. Pomerantz or
damages until it considers that briefing.
B. Statute of Limitations
BNY Mellon next contends that the Plaintiffs' claims are
time-barred pursuant to the two-year statute of limitations
applicable to torts codified at 42 Pa.C.S. Section 5524(7). The
Plaintiffs respond that BNY Mellon is utilizing the incorrect
statute of limitations, and contend that the applicable statute of
limitations is 20 Pa.C.S. Section 7785, which governs trusts. They
further assert that even if the Court were to use the two-year
statute of limitations as suggested by BNY Mellon, the Plaintiffs
claims are not time-barred. BNY Mellon replies that section 7785
"acts as a statute of repose rather than of limitations."
Alternatively, it contends that this case is barred by the doctrine
of laches.
Viewing the facts available in the light most favorable to the
Plaintiffs, Judge Colville opines that BNY Mellon has not
established at this juncture either that the Plaintiffs failed to
exercise due diligence or that BNY Mellon was prejudiced by any
delay. Based on the foregoing, he denies BNY Mellon's motion for
summary judgment because the evidence does not establish that the
Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of laches.
C. Standing
BNY Mellon next asserts that this Court should dismiss at this
juncture any claims the Plaintiffs are asserting with regard to
funds "that their trusts never held." It is BNY Mellon's position
that the "Plaintiffs lack constitutional standing to pursue claims
related to those funds." It is the Plaintiffs' position that where,
as in their case, the Plaintiffs have established constitutional
standing, any decisions about which funds should be included in the
lawsuit are better left for class certification.
BNY Mellon does not identify any plaintiff or cause of action the
Court should dismiss, but rather seeks to limit the class of claims
that the Plaintiffs may raise, advice, or prevail upon; however,
the exact parameters of the class itself is more appropriately left
to the class-certification stage. Accordingly, Judge Colville
denies BNY Mellon's motion for summary judgment with respect to 81
funds.
D. Bertha Finkenauer Trust
Finally, BNY Mellon contends that it is entitled to summary
judgment with respect to Plaintiff Martin's claim regarding the
Bertha Finkenauer trust. By way of background, Plaintiff Martin is
a current beneficiary of the Elmer Finkenauer trust. Plaintiff
Martin was a beneficiary of the Bertha Finkenauer trust. The SAC
asserts a claim against BNY Mellon on behalf of Plaintiff Martin
only in her capacity as a trustee of the Elmer Finkenauer trust.
However, it is BNY Mellon's position that the Bertha Finkenauer
trust fits the class definition proposed by the Plaintiffs, and
summary judgment at this time is appropriate because Martin signed
a release with respect to this trust.
At this point, the Court has not ruled on the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification. If, as BNY Mellon asserts, the Plaintiffs
attempt to include the Bertha Finkenauer trust as part of the
class, BNY Mellon may raise this issue at that time. Thus, because
adjudication of that issue at this time is premature, summary
judgment is denied.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, upon review of the briefs, CSFs, and Appendices, Judge
Colville deferred BNY Mellon's motion for summary judgment with
respect to damages and denied with respect to its arguments
regarding surcharge, the statute of limitations, the 81 funds, and
the Bertha Finkenauer trust.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 2, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bdhvbmh9 from Leagle.com.
BONNIE BRAE CONVALESCENT: Plascencia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bonnie Brae
Convalescent Hospital, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Julio L.
Plascencia, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Bonnie Brae Convalescent Hospital Inc., Bonnie Brae
Convalescent Inc., Cayton Michelle, Case No. 22STCV08189 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 7, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Bonnie Brae Convalescent Hospital is a skilled nursing facility
offering the best therapy and care in Los Angeles, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
Sara Keane, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
8484 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243
Phone: (310) 438-5555
Fax: (310) 300-1705
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
skeane@tomorrowlaw.com
jeff@tomorrowlaw.com
CANADA: Accused by Black Public Servants of Delaying Proceedings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Lapointe, writing for The Hill Times, reports that the leading
lawyer in a multi-billion-dollar class-action lawsuit representing
current and former Black federal public servants, filed against the
federal government and now involving nearly 1,300 individuals, says
the government's lawyers are attempting to delay proceedings by
claiming the Black class action overlaps with other ongoing cases
-- an argument which he calls "insulting."
This is 'the only legal action, the only class action in the
history of Canada' that addresses discrimination against Black
employees within the ranks of the public service, says legal
adviser Kofi Achampong. [GN]
CARENET INFOMEDIA: Dickerson Sues Over CSRs Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
BERNADETTE DICKERSON, ROBERTA ARMIJO, and MARLENE GUTIERREZ,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CARENET INFOMEDIA GROUP, INC., d/b/a CARENET
HEALTHCARE SERVICES Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-00197 (W.D. Tex.,
March 2, 2022) seeks to obtain declaratory relief and recover
unpaid wages and overtime, liquidated damages, penalties, fees and
costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and any other remedies to
which Plaintiffs may be entitled to arising from the Defendant's
willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
Mexico Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees worked as customer
service representatives (CSRs) for Defendant in a brick and mortar
call center or in an at-home call center setting from their home
offices.
Carenet Infomedia Group, Inc. provides human resource managemet
services. The Company offers employment facilities in health care
organization.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq.
THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC
3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (281) 572-0727
E-mail: travis@hedgpethlaw.com
- and -
Jack Siegel, Esq.
SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
4925 Greenville, Suite 600
Dallas, TX 75206
Telephone: (214) 790-4454
E-mail: jack@siegellawgroup.biz
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
crash@sommerspc.com
CELTIC FOOTBALL: Sex Abuse Survivors' Class Action Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Mulholland, writing for GlasgowLive, reports that a judge has
given the go ahead for sex abuse survivors to launch a multi
million pound US style 'class action' lawsuit against Celtic FC.
Lord Arthurson gave permission on March 1 for 22 former Celtic Boys
Club players to launch a compensation claim against the Parkhead
club.
The judge gave the ruling after being addressed on Feb. 28 by
advocate Ian Mackay QC, who represents men who believe they are
entitled to compensation after being abused while playing for the
youth side as boys.
Mr Mackay told Lord Arthurson that the two entities were
"intimately connected" to each other -- a claim denied by Celtic FC
who say the two organisations were separate from each other.
On March 1, Lord Arthurson said that the legal criteria for
allowing the action to proceed had been met.
He said: "Having considered parties' position on the supposed
permission application, I am satisfied that the relevant criteria
in granting this application has been established and I can
exercise my discretion to grant the application.
"The averments which the pursuers offer to prove set out a
background in respect that each was a player with Celtic BC when
they were subject to sexual assaults and when they were under the
supervision and control of these individuals."
Lord Arthurson spoke during a virtual hearing of the Court of
Session in an action in which 22 former players have came forward
seeking compensation for being sexually assaulted whilst playing
for Celtic Boys Club.
They have brought "group proceedings" against Celtic FC PLC -- the
procedure is similar to US class action style litigations.
Mr Mackay told Lord Arthurson that lawyers for the men have
uncovered evidence that shows apparent close links between Celtic
Boys Club and Celtic FC.
He said the evidence showed that the two entities were "intimately
connected" and that his clients should be allowed to sue Celtic.
Mr Mackay said: "Celtic Boys Club was intimately connected to
Celtic Football Club -- it was branded as being closely connected
to Celtic Football Club.
"Players played in Celtic strips and wore blazers which were
virtually identical to those worn by Celtic FC players.
"Football kit, holdalls and training gear were provided by Celtic
Football Club.
"The pursuers' understanding was that they were playing for the
boys club of Celtic Football Club.
"Celtic Boys Club trained at Barrowfield, the training ground of
Celtic Football Club and Celtic Park as well as elsewhere.
"Celtic Football Club exercised control over who played for Celtic
Boys Club because scouts recruited players who they considered were
good enough to play for Celtic Football Club and diverted them to
Celtic Football Club.
"The Boys Club was a nursery for senior team players. Celtic Boys
Club was in effect what could be now known as the academy of Celtic
Football Club.
"Articles about Celtic Boys Club appeared regularly in the Celtic
View, the club's newspaper - and the club was referred to as being
part of the Celtic family.
"Celtic is vicariously liable for assaults."
Roddy Dunlop QC, for Celtic FC, told Lord Arthurson that the action
shouldn't be allowed to proceed.
He said his clients believed they wouldn't get a "fair trial"
because documents which would be key to their case that they boys'
club and Celtic FC were different entities were missing. [GN]
CENTRAL NURSING: Benoit BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LUZETTE BENOIT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CENTRAL NURSING HOME, LLC, Case No.
2022-CH-00466, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on March 7, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-01211 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act due to unlawful
collection, use, storage and disclosure of the Plaintiff's and the
proposed Class's sensitive biometric identifiers and biometric
information.
Central Nursing Home, LLC is a provider of assisted living and
rehabilitation services in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jamie L. Filipovic, Esq.
Matthew E. Szwajkowski, Esq.
O'HAGAN MEYER LLC
One E. Wacker Drive, Suite 3400
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 422-6100
Facsimile: (312) 422-6110
E-mail: jfilipovic@ohaganmeyer.com
mszwajkowski@ohaganmeyer.com
CHINA XD PLASTICS: Feng Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
------------------------------------------------------------
Zhong Hao Feng, Brian Burwell, Nellai Chockalingam, and Bonmerc UG
& Co. KG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CHINA XD PLASTICS COMPANY LIMITED, Case No.
A-22-848805-B (Nev. 18th Judicial Dist. Ct., Clark Cty., Feb. 24,
2022), is brought arising out of the proposed--but now
abandoned--buyout (the "Buyout") of Defendant China XD Plastics
Company Limited for $1.20 per share by the Company's founder,
Chairman, CEO, and controlling stockholder, Jie Han, who controls
half of the Company's stock and nearly 70% its voting power. As
alleged, China XD, Han, and the rest of China XD's Board of
Directors (the "Board") breached their contractual and/or fiduciary
duties to the Company's shareholders in connection with the Buyout
and must redress their extensive misconduct through specific
performance, monetary damages, and/or other relief.
On June 15, 2020, Han and his affiliates (collectively, the "Buyer
Group") secured an agreement (the "Merger Agreement") to buy the
remaining outstanding shares of China XD for $1.20 per share. The
parties to the Merger Agreement included China XD, Parent, and
Merger Sub. The Buyout was subject to shareholder approval and
other customary closing conditions, but it was not subject to a
financing condition. During negotiations, the parties had discussed
and resolved how the Buyer Group would pay for the Buyout and, with
the extensive assistance of well-reputed counsel, confirmed that
the Buyer Group would, in fact, be able to use Company cash and at
least $5 million of Han's own money to pay for the Buyout. As the
intended recipients of the Buyout consideration, Plaintiffs and the
Class were the intended third-party beneficiaries of the Merger
Agreement.
On November 5, 2020, a majority of China XD's outstanding shares
were cast in favor of the Buyout, thus paving the way for the Buyer
Group to complete the Buyout. In mid-December, China XD, Parent,
and Merger Sub agreed to extend the deadline to complete the Buyout
from December 14, 2020, to February 7, 2021, to allow the parties
to "work on the logistics to complete the Merger." In mid-February
2021, China XD, Parent, and Merger Sub again extended the deadline
to complete the Buyout, from February 7, 2021, to May 10, 2021, to
continue allowing the parties to "work on the logistics to complete
the Merger."
Unfortunately, Han and the Buyer Group suffered buyers' remorse
and, to the further detriment of shareholders, decided to abandon
the Buyout and the Settlement. In bad faith, Han and the Buyer
Group purposefully failed to take the steps required to consummate
the Merger Agreement and the Settlement. During this period, Han
has also damaged shareholders by failing to file an annual report
or disclosing anything else about the Company's recent financial
results, causing the Company to risk being delisted, and failing to
hold an annual meeting where shareholders can voice their views on
the Company's leadership and direction.
On May 13, 2021, China XD filed a Form 8-K with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") announcing that the Company had
terminated the Merger Agreement, thus cancelling the Buyout.
Leading up to the announcement, on May 8, 2021, the Company
notified Parent that it was terminating the Merger Agreement based
on Parent and Merger Sub's alleged breaches of the Merger
Agreement, which purportedly triggered the failure of certain
conditions to the Buyout (the "Notice of Termination"). On May 11,
2021, writing on behalf of Parent, Han replied to the Notice of
Termination, "disagreeing with the allegations made in the Notice
of Termination" yet conceding the Company's right to terminate the
Merger Agreement. In other words, before the Merger Agreement's
expiration date had passed, the Board prematurely caused China XD
to terminate the Buyout even though Han asserts the Buyer Group was
not in breach and even though the Company could have again extended
the expiration date. But by accommodating Han's cold feet, the
Board contributed to the serious harm suffered by Plaintiffs and
other China XD shareholders.
After news of the Buyout termination broke, China XD's shares
tumbled in value. After trading at close to $1.20 per share since
the Buyout was announced, the Company's stock lost roughly half its
value after the Buyout was terminated. The negative trend is even
more alarming when considering that China XD's self-identified peer
companies soared in value over the last 12 months while the
Company's stock stagnated around the $1.20 per share Buyout price.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek declaratory, injunctive, equitable,
and monetary relief (i) compelling China XD to complete the Buyout,
(ii) enforcing the Settlement, and/or (iii) compensating Plaintiffs
and the Class for any other harm suffered as a result of China XD's
misconduct related to the Buyout, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are the owner of shares of common stock of China
XD.
China XD develops, manufactures, and sells polymer composite
materials, primarily for automotive applications.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David C. O'Mara, Esq.
THE O'MARA LAW FIRM, P.C.
311 E. Liberty Street
Reno, NV 89501
Phone: 775.323.1321
Fax: 775.323.4082
Email: david@omaralaw.net
CORK CITY PRODUCTIONS: Cabanas Sues Over Cooks' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
ERASTO CABANAS, Plaintiff v. CORK CITY PRODUCTIONS, LLC d/b/a THE
GREEN DOOR TAVERN/THE DRIFTER, JANE RODAK, LOUIS C. WADDLE II a/k/a
LOUIS C. WADDEN II, and R. JEFFREY LYNCH, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 1:22-cv-01141 (N.D. Ill., March 3, 2022) is brought by the
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
arising from the Defendants' failure to pay one and one-half times
the regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.
Mr. Cabanas was employed by the Defendants as a cook at The Green
Door Tavern from 2010 through March 2020.
Cork City Productions, LLC, d/b/a The Green Door Tavern/The
Drifter, is a bar and restaurant company in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
Nicole Young, Esq.
CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60604
E-mail: acaffarelli@caffarelli.com
nyoung@caffarelli.com
CRAIGHEAD COUNTY, AR: Appeals Court Flips Dismissal of Miles Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER MILES AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED
PERSONS, Appellants v. CRAIGHEAD COUNTY, ARKANSAS; AND JACK McCANN,
CRAIGHEAD COUNTY SHERIFF, Appellees, Case No. CV-20-750 (Ark.
App.), the Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division IV, reversed the
circuit court's order dismissing the case with prejudice.
I. Introduction
Appellant Miles filed an illegal-exaction case on his behalf and on
the behalf of other similarly situated persons on Dec. 8, 2012,
against Craighead County and the Craighead County Sheriff for
payment of certain costs and fees that were assessed and collected
in criminal cases but not authorized by law. The Craighead County
Circuit Court refused to hold the assessment of the subject fees
constituted an illegal exaction, that the fees and costs paid were
made voluntarily, and that refunds were not available, and it
dismissed the case with prejudice. From that order comes the
instant appeal.
II. Background
On Oct. 1, 2010, Mr. Miles was stopped by the Craighead County
Sheriff's Department on a traffic offense and charged with
possession of a controlled substance -- methamphetamine, possession
of drug paraphernalia with intent to use, driving while license
canceled-suspended or revoked, and running a stop sign. He entered
a plea agreement for a thirty-six-month probated sentence and was
ordered to pay costs and fines in the total amount of $731.
On Dec. 8, 2012, Mr. Miles filed a complaint on his behalf and on
the behalf of similarly situated persons, alleging that the payment
of certain costs and fees above the $150 allowed by statute was an
illegal exaction. On July 21, 2016, the circuit court issued an
initial order enjoining the prospective imposition of two fees: an
$86 sheriff's fee and a $100 fee for lower-court costs. It also
declared that the fees were illegal exactions. The circuit court
stated that it would have another hearing to determine class-action
status or whether class-action certification was needed in an
illegal-exaction case.
On Feb. 8, 2017, the circuit court entered an order reiterating
that this was an illegal-exaction case and holding that fees paid
before the filing of the complaint were "voluntary," and a refund
of the fees was not available. Fees paid following the filing of
the complaint in the case were presumed to be "involuntary," and
persons who paid them might potentially be due a refund. Whether
individuals' refunds were available depended on the circumstances
surrounding the payment as well as whether the individual wished to
seek a refund. Notice was ordered to be issued informing potential
claimants of the nature of the proceeding and that they might be
entitled to a refund of the fee paid.
On May 15, 2018, the circuit court issued an "Order on Proposed
Plan to Distribute Monies," which included a provision ordering
Craighead County to provide addresses and amounts paid and ordering
Mr. Miles's counsel to send the notices by certified mail, return
receipt requested. Mr. Miles filed a motion requesting that
Craighead County pay the cost of mailing the notices. In response,
on Aug. 1, 2018, the circuit court entered an order abating the May
15 order. On Sept. 11, 2019, Mr. Miles filed a motion for a final
order claiming that the cost of mailing the notices would be
between $35,000 and $60,000, and Mr. Miles did not want to incur
the expense because Craighead County had claimed its intention to
file an appeal. Miles asked the court to delay any notice
requirements until a final, appealable order had been entered and
all appeals exhausted.
On May 4, 2020, the circuit court issued its final order, holding
(1) that the circuit court had jurisdiction and venue was proper;
(1) that the only other case, Parker v. Laws, infra, never imposed
illegal-exaction liability against a party that played no part in
imposing the challenged levy; (3) that Parker is readily
distinguishable from the facts of this case; (4) that, per
long-established supreme court precedent and Arkansas statute, the
only appropriate mechanism to challenge illegal costs was through a
motion to retax costs in the individual criminal case; (5) that,
per long-established supreme court precedent, the only appropriate
method for challenging any component of a criminal conviction is
through a direct criminal appeal; (6) that, per long-established
Arkansas and U.S. Supreme Court precedent, collateral attacks on
criminal convictions by way of a civil lawsuit are prohibited; (7)
that because no proof of any lack of voluntariness in payment of
the subject fees had been proffered, refunds of any fees were not
warranted in any event; and (8) that since imposition of the fees
had already been enjoined, no further injunctions were necessary.
The court dismissed the case with prejudice.
III. Analysis
First, Mr. Miles argues that the circuit court erred in its refusal
to find an illegal-exaction case.
The Court of Appeals agrees. It explains that an illegal exaction
is any exaction that is either not authorized by law or is contrary
to law. Two types of illegal-exaction cases can arise: "public
funds" cases, where the Plaintiff contends that public funds
generated from tax dollars are being misapplied or illegally spent;
and "illegal-tax" cases, where the Plaintiff asserts that the tax
itself is illegal.
In the case, the public funds were generated from criminal fees and
costs of court that were in excess of those authorized by statute,
which constitutes an illegal tax. In refusing to hold that the
matter was an illegal-exaction case, the circuit court stated in
its May 4, 2020 order that "the finding that the fees challenged in
the case were beyond the statutory authority is not the end of the
analysis." However, the circuit court found in its July 21, 2016
order that the fees were not authorized by statute, that the
sheriff did not receive the fee that was titled "sheriff fee," and
the funds generated by the "sheriff fee" were placed in the
Craighead County general fund.
The Court of Appeals opines that it is clear that Craighead County
was a recipient of the fees generated, was the party expending the
funds, and therefore was a properly named party. It finds this to
be an illegal-exaction case, the proper party has been named, and
the circuit court's dismissal of the illegal-exaction case was in
error.
Mr. Miles next argues that the fees and costs paid were not
voluntary.
Again, the Court of Appeals agrees. It states that voluntary fees
are not subject to an illegal-exaction suit. An individual who is
under arrest and pays an illegal fine or costs under the compulsion
of that arrest is entitled to recover it in an action instituted
for that purpose. The Court of Appeals does not agree with
Craighead County's argument that Mr. Miles negotiated the fees and
costs of court when he negotiated the terms of his plea agreement.
In Craighead County, those criminal defendants who accepted a plea
agreement and were ordered to pay illegal fees paid said fees under
coercion because the alternative they faced was the possible loss
of liberty. Likewise, those convicted without a plea agreement did
not pay fees voluntarily nor did they negotiate for the voluntary
payment of fees. The Court of Appeals does not find the fees taxed
and collected by the circuit court and turned over to Craighead
County voluntarily paid.
Finally, the circuit court held that Mr. Miles' illegal-exaction
suit was an unallowable collateral attack on his underlying
criminal sentence. It stated that Mr. Miles should have directly
appealed his criminal conviction in order to obtain relief or filed
a motion to retax the illegal costs.
The Court of Appeals disagrees. It holds that the general rule is
that a defendant who does not appeal a criminal conviction must be
barred from collaterally attacking a judgment. Although Mr. Miles
and similarly situated persons had other remedies available to
them, such as filing a Rule 37 motion or a motion to retax the
illegal costs and fees, they also have a remedy in equity. These
remedies are not mutually exclusive. Unlawful payments of public
funds to public officers constitute illegal exactions that may be
recovered in a taxpayer's suit. An illegal-exaction suit is a
remedy conferred by the Arkansas Constitution and cannot be taken
away.
Hence, the illegal fees, including the $86 sheriff's fee and the
$100 fee for lower-court costs, were illegal exactions that any
citizen of the county, on behalf of himself or all others
interested, may institute to protect the citizens of Craighead
County from illegal exactions. The Court of Appeals reversed the
circuit court's holding that the suit was an unallowable collateral
attack on a criminal conviction.
IV. Disposition
In light of the foregoing, the Court of Appeals reversed the the
circuit court's dismissal of the case with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 2, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yckkt55e from Leagle.com.
Mark Rees; and Brian G. Brooks, Attorney at Law, PLLC, by: Brian G.
Brooks -- bgblawfirm@sbcglobal.net -- for the Appellants.
Jason Owens Law Firm, P.A., by: Jason E. Owens --
info@jowenslawfirm.com -- for the Appellees.
EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Banana Boat Sunscreen Class Actions Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class actions styled Condreay et al v. Edgewell Personal Care
Brands, LLC 21-cv-7100, C.D. Cal. (Sept. 2021), and Moran et al v.
Edgewell Personal Care, LLC 21-cv-7669, N.D. Cal. (Sept. 2021) are
pending.
The class actions relate to certain Banana Boat sunscreens.
The complaints accuse Edgewell Personal Care, LLC of falsely
marketing sunscreens as "Reef Friendly" when they contain
ingredients that are harmful to coral reefs and marine life. [GN]
EDISON'S RESTAURANT: Rodriguez Files Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Edison's Restaurant,
et al. The case is styled as Leocadia Rodriguez, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Edison's Restaurant,
Luis Roberto Medina, Defendants; Malalo Medina also known as:
Zunilda Nuez, ADR Provider; Case No. 1:22-cv-01909 (S.D.N.Y., March
7, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract.
The Edison -- https://www.edisontally.com/ -- is a restaurant that
offers regional cuisine and showcases the best of the great state
and brings a world of flavor to Tallahassee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eliseo Cabrera, Esq.
KATZ MELINGER PLLC
370 Lexington Ave., Ste. 1512
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (510) 734-9579
Email: edcabrera@katzmelinger.com
EMPIRE BAGELS: Duarte Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
MELVIN ALEXANDER LORENZO DUARTE, Plaintiff v. EMPIRE BAGELS, INC.,
EMPIRE BAGELS BREWSTER INC., EMPIRE BAGELS CARMEL INC., EMPIRE
BAGELS CROSS RIVER INC., EMPIRE BAGELS FISHKILL INC., EMPIRE BAGELS
HARRISON INC., and JAY D'ANGELO, Defendants, Case No. 7:22-cv-01775
(S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022) is a class action brought by the
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
employees of Empire Bagels, to recover from Defendants unpaid
overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay, liquidated damages, statutory
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor
Law, and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act.
Mr. Duarte asserts that although he regularly worked approximately
58 hours per workweek, Defendants paid him at a "straight time"
rate, meaning at the same hourly wage rate for all hours worked per
workweek, including hours over 40. Despite performing manual labor
for more than 25% of his work time, Defendants paid his wages due
more than seven days after the end of the corresponding workweek at
least twice per year. Mr. Duarte added that Defendants failed to
pay him spread-of-hours pay and to provide him with wage notices at
the time of hire and accurate wage statements at the end of each
pay period.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately
June 2016 to January 2022 as a counter person and cashier at Empire
Bagels Cross River.
Empire Bagels, Inc. is a New York corporation that owns, operates,
and does business as Empire Bagels.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Louis Pechman, Esq.
Gianfranco J. Cuadra, Esq.
PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 583-9500
E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
cuadra@pechmanlaw.com
FAMILY DOLLAR: Brown Files Suit in S.D. Alabama
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Family Dollar, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Muriel Vanessa Brown, Donrea Brown,
Rosalind Dunning, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Family Dollar, Inc., Dollar Tree Stores,
Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00105 (S.D. Ala., March 7, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
Family Dollar -- https://www.familydollar.com/ -- is an American
variety store chain.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven A. Martino, Esq.
TAYLOR MARTINO, P.C.
Post Office Box 894
Mobile, AL 36601-0894
Phone: (251) 433-3131
Email: stevemartino@taylormartino.com
- and -
Joseph Stewart Dennis, Esq.
56 South Conception Street
Mobile, AL 36602-2704
Phone: (251) 433-1866
Fax: (251) 433-2043
Email: joseph@taylormartino.com
- and -
Tiffany Ray, Esq.
TAYLOR MARTINO, P.C.
455 Saint Louis St., Suite 2100
Mobile, AL 36602
Phone: (251) 378-0127
Email: tiffany@taylormartino.com
FARMERS PROPERTY: Seybert Files Suit in D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Farmers Property And
Casualty Insurance Company, et al. The case is styled as Mark
Seybert, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Farmers Property And Casualty Insurance Company
formerly known as: Metropolitan Property And Casualty Company;
Farmers Group Property And Casualty Insurance Company formerly
known as: Metropolitan Group Property And Casualty Insurance
Company; Case No. 1:22-cv-01223-RBK-AMD (D.N.J., March 7, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for the Breach of
Contract.
Farmers Property And Casualty Insurance Company --
https://www.farmers.com/ -- formerly known as Metropolitan Property
and Casualty Insurance Company operates as an insurance firm. The
Company offers property, auto, and casualty insurance
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
GOLOMB SPIRT GRUNFELD, P.C.
1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 985-9177
Fax: (215) 985-4169
Email: kgrunfeld@golomblegal.com
FCB BANKS: Faces Class Action Over Improper Fee Collection
----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for Madison - St. Clair Record, reports that
attorney David Cates of Swansea and lawyers of other states propose
a class action on a claim that FCB Banks collects improper fees.
Cates filed suit for Illinois resident Anthony McGowan on Dec. 28
in St. Clair County Circuit Court, as local counsel with attorneys
Lynn Toops of Indianapolis, Gerard Stranch of Nashville, and
Christopher Jennings of Little Rock.
The suit claims the banks charge multiple fees on an item, or a fee
on an item followed by an overdraft.
Each time a bank reprocessed an item after initial rejection, the
bank allegedly treated it as a new and unique item subject to
another fee, according to the lawsuit.
The suit claims that McGowan's contract didn't state that this
"counter intuitive and deceptive result" could be possible and
promised the opposite.
On Aug. 15, 2019, the suit claims, McGowan attempted to pay $16.90
for an item.
His bank allegedly rejected payment of the item and charged a $30
fee.
"Unbeknownst to plaintiff and without plaintiff's request to
defendant to reprocess the item, on or around Aug. 22, 2019,
defendant rejected the same item yet again and charged plaintiff a
second $30 fee for doing so," the suit claims.
"This also occurred on Aug. 15, 2019, and Aug. 22, 2019, with
respect to a $38.70 item assessed $60 in fees.
"Plaintiff understood the payment to be a single item as is laid
out in the contract, capable of receiving at most a single fee if
defendant returned it or a single fee if defendant paid it.
"Defendant understood this too as it labels the re-presentment of a
previously rejected item as a 'retry pymt,' meaning the
re-presentment is merely a retry of the same previously rejected
payment.
"The improper fees charged by defendant were not errors but rather
intentional charges made by defendant as part of its standard
processing of items.
"Plaintiff therefore had no duty to report the fees as errors."
The proposed class action consists of thousands, the complaint
states.
"Subterfuge and evasion violate the obligation of good faith in
performance even when an actor believes their conduct to be
justified," it states.
"A lack of good faith may be overt or may consist of inaction, and
fair dealing may require more than honesty."
The suit claims the bank group has about $2 billion in assets and
provides services through 19 locations in Illinois and Missouri.
It claims that U.S. banks generated $30 billion from overdraft fees
in 2018.
FCB Banks has its principal place of business in Collinsville, with
19 locations in Illinois and Missouri.
In January, Chief Judge Andrew Gleeson assigned Circuit Judge
William Stiehl.
The summons on the banks returned in February, and Kurt Reitz of
St. Louis entered an appearance for them on Feb. 22.
Stiehl set a conference March 28. [GN]
FOOD 4 LESS: Fails to Pay Overtime, Delgado Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
ANNA DELGADO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FOOD 4 LESS OF CALIFORNIA, INC. and RALPHS
GROCERY COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01465 (N.D. Cal.,
March 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for its
failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt
employee.
Food 4 Less of California, Inc. is an operator of grocery store
shopping centers throughout California and the U.S.
Ralphs Grocery Company is an operator of grocery store shopping
centers throughout California and the U.S. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
Annaliz Loera, Esq.
Nicolas W. Tomas, Esq.
LEBE LAW, APLC
777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90021
Telephone: (213) 444-1973
E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com
Annaliz@lebelaw.com
Nicolas@lebelaw.com
GEICO: 5th Circuit Affirms Denial of Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
Insurance Journal reports that the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court's denial of class
certification to a group of Louisiana GEICO customers who allege
the insurer's proprietary valuation system violated state law.
Plaintiffs Eric Prudhomme and Elvin Jack failed to show want of
commonality, adequacy, and predominance among the proposed class,
the district court said.
In rejecting the appellants' proposed class, the district court
questioned whether the appellants' theory of liability would
benefit all members of the class. The Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure require that the representative parties in a class-action
will "fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class."
"Indeed, a portion of the proposed class members received payments
above (that is, benefitted from) the allegedly unlawful valuation,"
summarized Circuit Judges Carolyn Dineen King, Gregg J. Costa and
Don R. Willett. "This undermined Appellants' class-wide theory of
liability and thereby doomed adequacy." [GN]
GEMINI HOMES: Homebuyers Launch Legal Action Over Unfair Contracts
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joanne Shuttleworth, writing for The Wellington Advertiser, reports
that legal action against Gemini Homes has commenced after the
builder announced in January that homebuyer contracts for the South
River subdivision in Elora were void.
Fourteen of the 32 purchasers, who signed contracts and paid their
deposits over a year ago, have retained John Brennan, a lawyer with
Lerners LLP in London, Ontario, to work with the builder and an
arbitrator to find a way for these purchasers to keep their homes.
Gemini sent an email to the purchasers on Jan. 18 stating that
because hard services - water, sewage, gas and hydro - had not been
installed by Jan. 13, the contracts were automatically terminated.
"The completion date and scope for hard services as referenced in
the Agreement of Purchase and Sale were established by Gemini Homes
and not the township or the developer," reads a statement from
Gemini general manager Brad Crnkovic to the Advertiser back in
January.
"When the completion date for hard services was not met, the
Agreements of Purchase and Sale were automatically terminated.
"It's important to note, Gemini did not terminate the agreements
unilaterally, but rather the agreements automatically terminated in
accordance with their terms."
Neither Crnkovic nor anyone else at Gemini Homes immediately
returned a request for comment on the litigation.
In a phone interview, Brennan said that sadly, this situation is
not unique in Ontario.
With a booming housing market, many builders have terminated
contracts and are reselling the homes at higher prices. The homes
in Elora were originally priced around $800,000 and now are selling
at $1.2 million.
"It's happening all over the province," Brennan said.
"Each case has a different early termination condition - it could
be financing or site plan approval for example. But what doesn't
vary is that (these early termination clauses) were rarely used
before the pandemic."
Brennan noted material costs have increased and housing prices have
gone through the roof during the pandemic.
"The bargain they struck (with homebuyers) is not as attractive as
it used to be. So they are resorting to this," he said. "We say
this is not valid."
Brennan litigated on behalf of condo buyers in Tillsonburg last
summer, who were told by their builder that their contracts were
terminated because of a site plan approval issue but they could buy
their condos back for an additional 25 per cent.
That case is still pending, but in the meantime the Superior Court
has issued a certificate that means the builder in that situation
cannot sell the condos to someone else until there is a final
resolution.
A similar case with a builder in Barrie prompted Premier Doug Ford
to state there needs to be legislation concerning this issue.
"It does beg a legislative response," Brennan agreed, "but we won't
see it before the election."
Brennan said he's also handling a similar case with buyers in
Guelph.
"They are relying on a different condition, but the outcome is the
same for the purchasers," he said.
They sign a contract, pay their deposit and believe they have
bought a home.
"It comes as a complete shock that's not the case," Brennan said.
"The clauses where a purchaser can back out are very prescribed.
"A contract is a contract. You can't back out because you think you
can get more."
Brennan said he's hopeful the arbitrator will see it that way too.
"There has to be some protection for the buyer," he said.
"We hope there will be some resolution. We are not seeing that yet,
but we are hopeful." [GN]
GMRI INC: Fyke Files Suit Over Illegal Tip Credit
-------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE FYKE on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. GMRI, Inc., a Florida Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00083-SPB (W.D. Pa., March 3, 2022)
arises from the Defendant's policy of paying Plaintiff a
sub-minimum hourly wage under the tip-credit provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania's Minimum Wage Act and the
Wage Payment and Collection Law, despite not complying with all the
necessary requirements in order to properly claim a tip-credit and
pay less than the full minimum wage.
The Plaintiff worked for Longhorn Steakhouse as a server from July
1, 2021 through November 20, 2021.
GMRI Inc. is an American chain of family style restaurants.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Simon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
5000 Rockside Road
Liberty Plaza Building, Suite 520
Independence, OH 4413
Telephone: (216) 525-8890
E-mail: james@bswages.com
GOYA FOODS: New Jersey Court Allows Class Action to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Berger Montague on March 1 on March 1 disclosed that
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey has
issued an order allowing a class action lawsuit to proceed against
Goya Foods, Inc. The action, brought by Plaintiffs Anibal Mejias,
Jerry Fuller, Dennis Minter, and Jose Pena, alleges that Goya Foods
has continuously misclassified its delivery truck drivers, also
known as Owner Operators or Drivers, as independent contractors
instead of employees, and as a result, made illegal deductions from
the Drivers' wages for expenses and withheld overtime compensation
due when the Drivers worked over 40 hours in a week. The Plaintiffs
seek the reimbursement of all work expenses, unlawful deductions,
and unpaid overtime compensation for themselves and the potential
class members.
In the case, captioned Mejias et al. v. Goya Foods Inc., No.
2:20-cv-12365 (D.N.J.), Goya had moved to dismiss the expense
deduction claims in the action, but the federal court in New Jersey
rejected Goya's arguments that the federal Truth in Leasing Act
insulated Goya from complying with the wage and hour laws and
allowed the Plaintiffs' claims to proceed. Specifically, the Court
held that Goya failed to meet its heavy burden to establish that
the TIL regulations preempted state laws requiring that Goya pay
for the work expenses and not deduct them from the Drivers' wages.
"We are pleased with the Court's decision and look forward to
having the opportunity to prove that Goya misclassified its Drivers
as independent contractors, and to recovering the hard-earned
compensation that the Drivers are owed," said Alexandra K. Piazza
of Berger Montague PC, one of the lead attorneys prosecuting the
case. "There are Drivers located throughout New Jersey,
Massachusetts, and other states, and we encourage any Driver with
information or evidence that can assist us with the case to contact
us.
The case will proceed through the discovery process, and
Plaintiffs' Counsel, Shanon J. Carson and Alexandra K. Piazza of
Berger Montague PC and David E. Cassidy and Yelena Kofman-Delgado
of Vlasac & Shmaruk, LLC, are continuing their investigation of
Goya's failure to properly compensate its Drivers. Anyone with
information about the claims in the action, including current or
former Goya Drivers, is invited to contact the attorneys on the
case at (215) 875-3033 or via email at apiazza@bm.net. They can
also visit the website www.bergermontague.com/GoyaLawsuit for
further information.
Berger Montague is a national plaintiffs' law firm headquartered in
Philadelphia with additional offices in Minneapolis, San Diego, and
Washington, D.C. Berger Montague litigates complex civil litigation
and class actions in federal and state courts throughout the United
States. In its 52 years of operation, the Firm has pioneered class
actions in America and recovered well over $36 billion for its
clients and the class members it has represented.
Contact:
Alexandra K. Piazza, Senior Counsel
Berger Montague PC
Telephone: (215) 875-3033
Email: apiazza@bm.net [GN]
HEALTHMARKETS INC: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HealthMarkets, Inc.
The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. HealthMarkets, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-01905 (S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
HealthMarkets, Inc. -- https://www.healthmarkets.com/ -- provides
insurance services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
HOGARTH CALIFORNIA: Osborn Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hogarth California
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Michael Osborn, individually, and
on behalf of all, others similarly situated v. Hogarth California
LLC, Hogarth Worldwide Inc., Does One through Fifty, Inclusive,
Case No. CGC22598537 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., March 4,
2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Hogarth -- https://www.hogarth.com/ -- is a WPP-owned global
company that provides marketing Implementation services, including
all-channel production and language services to blue-chip
international companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel C. Keller, Esq.
MALLISON & MARTINEZ
1939 Harrison St., Ste. 730
Oakland, CA 94612-3547
Phone: 510-394-0455
Fax: 510-832-1101
Email: dkeller@themmlawfirm.com
HOTEL CHOCOLAT: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hotel Chocolat, Inc.
The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Hotel Chocolat, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-01194 (E.D.N.Y., March 4, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Hotel Chocolat -- https://www.hotelchocolat.com/ -- offers
award-winning chocolates and luxury chocolate gifts for any
occasion.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
IC SYSTEMS: Turner Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against IC Systems, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Free Turner, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. IC Systems, Inc., Case No.
2:22-cv-00079-RAJ-LRL (E.D. Va., Feb. 22, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
IC System, Inc. was founded in 1941. The company's line of business
includes collection and adjustment services on claims and other
insurance related issues.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aryeh Eliezer Stein, Esq.
MERIDIAN LAW, LLC
1212 Reisterstown Road
Baltimore, MD 21208
Phone: (443) 326-6011
Fax: (410) 782-3199
Email: astein@meridianlawfirm.com
ICE CHIPS CANDY: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ice Chips Candy LLC.
The case is styled as Juan Ortega, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Ice Chips Candy LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01799 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ice Chips -- https://www.icechips.com/ -- are an all-natural,
xylitol-based sugar free diabetic friendly candy that comes in 20
delicious flavors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
INDIANA MEMBERS: Miceli Files FCRA Suit in S.D. Indiana
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Indiana Members
Credit Union. The case is styled as Michael Miceli, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Indiana Members Credit
Union, Case No. 1:22-cv-00449-JPH-MPB (S.D. Ind., March 7, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Indiana Members Credit Union (IMCU) -- https://www.imcu.com/ -- is
a non-profit, member based financial institution offering a variety
of financial services to meet the needs of our members and is
federally insured by the National Credit Union Administration
(NCUA), Equal Housing Opportunity.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
INTERMOUNTAIN EMPLOYMENT: Gallegos Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Intermountain
Employment Service, Inc. The case is styled as Jose Gallegos,
individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v.
Intermountain Employment Service, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01173
(N.D. Ill., March 4, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Intermountain Employment Service, Inc. --
http://www.ascendstaffing.com/-- is located in North Salt Lake,
Utah and is part of the Employment Services Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
INTUIT INC: Judge Rejects TurboTax Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Abdulla Abuwasel, of Wasel & Wasel Arbitrator Services Inc., in an
article for Lexology, disclosed that Intuit, a company specializing
in financial software and the maker of TurboTax, has found itself
in a legal battleground against a substantial amount of their
customers after a 2019 ProPublica investigation found the company
had allegedly misled customers into paying for supposedly free
services.
Within TurboTax's terms of use, provisions stipulate that customers
are restricted from using the class-action mechanism and instead,
must purse a claim on a one-off basis via the private process of
arbitration. In the face of a class-action suit filed on behalf of
their customers, Intuit was able to tackle the matter with a
defense based on those grounds. What they didn't know however, was
that the very arbitration system they were shielded by was being
weaponized against them.
Out in Chicago, a law firm is using a novel legal strategy whereby
tens and thousands of individual arbitration claims are being
simultaneously filed against TurboTax on behalf of the customers.
This firm has utilized the same strategy in the past, on behalf of
delivery drivers against companies like DoorDash and Postmates.
These arbitration claims against TurboTax are currently making
their way through the arbitration process. Win or lose, this
strategy could end up costing Intuit millions in legal fees alone -
a threat that could sway the company towards a historic
settlement.
The mass arbitration tactic was pioneered in recent years as the
legal terrain became less friendly to class-action lawsuits which
was the traditional tool used to recover money for consumers. The
tactic is akin to using guerilla warfare rather than having
soldiers' mass on the battlefield and face each other in lines.
A notable dynamic of this tactic is that Intuit will be obligated
to pay the administrative fees for each single arbitration filed
against them. For this scenario, let's say 100,000 people filed a
claim against the company, and the administrative fee was $3,000
for each claim; suddenly, Intuit is facing thousands in
administrative fees alone, or perhaps even millions. The
plaintiff-side counsel has basically used these costs as leverage
to pressure a giant settlement.
Amazon faced similar threats last year when they removed the
mandatory arbitration provision and class action waiver from their
terms of service after facing more than 75,000 individual
arbitration claims over the span of two years.
Following ProPublica's initial stories, Intuit was first sued in
May 2019 in federal court. The case was based on customers having
to pay after commencing the tax filing process via the TurboTax
Free Edition. This was a traditional class-action case and was not
successful with Intuit relying on TurboTax's arbitration provision.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that TurboTax
users had agreed to arbitration by clicking a "Sign In" button on
the software that stated users agreed to the terms of use. These
terms of use, running over 15,000 words, contained the arbitration
provision.
In a related court filing in 2020, the plaintiff-side counsel
disclosed that more than 100,000 consumers had filed individual
arbitration claims against Intuit. Following the fear of a
catastrophic mass arbitration, Intuit offered to pay a settlement
of $40 million in total. If the court had approved the class-action
settlement, consumers who failed to opt out of the settlement would
not have been able to pursue their individual arbitration claim,
knocking out many of the ongoing arbitrations for a relatively
insubstantial price. The plaintiff-side counsel objected to the
settlement.
At a hearing before U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer,
Intuit's counsel argued that the plaintiff-side counsel was able to
threaten Intuit, and other companies, into paying $3,000 in
arbitration fees for a $100 claim. Intuit further argued that many
of the arbitration claims are meritless, and a lawyer for the
company dubbed the mass arbitration tactic "a scheme to exploit the
consumer-arbitration fee structure to extort a settlement payment
from Intuit." [1]
Judge Breyer, ultimately, rejected the settlement in March 2021,
stating:
I did think when I looked at this, and saw that, really, that this
was a way to avoid or otherwise circumscribe arbitration, that it
seemed to be that Intuit was, in Hamlet's words, hoisted by their
own petard… I think arbitration is the petard that Intuit now
faces."
Since the rejection of the settlement, the arbitrations have been
proceeding slowly. Data was disclosed by one of the main
arbitration organizations which, albeit limited, highlights the
cases resolved throughout the end of 2021. Offering a glimpse at
the dynamics and the outcomes, it was revealed that Intuit has won
at least nine of the arbitrations, whilst consumers won five, with
the arbitrator awarding consumers as little as $35 and as much as
$3,348[2].
Having said that and looking at the data, Intuit had to pay the
consumer's attorney fees of $9,500, in one case. In another, the
plaintiff-side counsel had to pay Intuit's attorney fees of $5,025.
The data also shows several dozen cases that were either dismissed
or settled, without exact settlement figures being disclosed.
However, legal fillings suggest Intuit my have already paid tens of
million dollars in arbitration fees as this stage, but public
records will not be disclosed until more arbitrations are
completed.
In addition to the unusual mass arbitration Intuit is fighting,
federal regulators and state prosecutors are advancing their
investigation against the company, which reportedly made $2 billion
dollars last year.
With more consumers seeking to file mass arbitrations, companies
will begin to become weary of the costs associated with such a
tactic and reassess the dispute resolution mechanisms found within
their respective terms of use contracts. But as more claims are
filed and more data surfaces, we will determine the ultimate
success of the strategy. [GN]
JMS COMPANY: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages to Servers, Mallett Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICKYTA A. MALLETT, individually, and on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v.
JMS COMPANY, INC, d/b/a KUBLAI KHAN RESTAURANTS, a Tennessee
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-02127-MSN-atc (W.D. Tenn.,
March 3, 2022) is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act
seeking to recover unpaid minimum wages and other damages owed to
Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and former tipped
employees.
The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly-paid tipped server at one
of Defendant's Kublai Khan restaurants within the past three years
preceding the filing of this collective action lawsuit.
JMS Company, Inc. owns and operates Kublai Khan Restaurants in the
Memphis-metro area in Tennessee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT,
OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
rmorelli@jsyc.com
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Concord Community Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CONCORD COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, 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. 3:22-cv-01432 (N.D. Cal., March 7, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Indiana 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.
Concord Community Schools is a public school district with its
offices located on Minuteman Way in Elkhart, Indiana.
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:
Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 701-1100
Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
jpkieffer@wcllp.com
thudson@wcllp.com
- and –
Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
Brad Honnold, Esq.
GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400
Overland Park, KS 66207
Telephone: (913) 451-3433
E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
bhonnold@gohonlaw.com
- and –
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
- and –
Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 477-1700
Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com
- and –
John P. Fiske, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265
San Diego, CA 92127
Telephone: (858) 251-7424
Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com
- and –
Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C.
650 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 617-1269
E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com
JUUL LABS: Gilchrist County Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF GILCHRIST COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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. 3:22-cv-01471 (N.D. Cal., March 8,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Florida Public Nuisance Law,
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices 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.
The School Board of Gilchrist County is a public school district
with its offices located on Northwest 11th Avenue in Trenton,
Florida.
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:
Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 701-1100
Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
jpkieffer@wcllp.com
thudson@wcllp.com
- and –
Steven R. Maher, Esq.
THE MAHER LAW FIRM
631 West Morse Boulevard, Suite 200
Winter Park, FL 32789
Telephone: (407) 839-0866
Facsimile: (407) 425-7958
E-mail: smaher@maherlawfirm.com
K.P. HOSPITALITY: Faces Gotay Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
DARLENE GOTAY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. K.P. HOSPITALITY LLC d/b/a COMFORT INN &
SUITES – MASPETH and KRISTY COLON, in her individual capacity,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01273 (E.D.N.Y., March 8, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to
pay appropriate minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, and
retaliation.
The Plaintiff worked for Comfort Inn as a front desk agent from
August 6, 2021, until January 10, 2022.
K.P. Hospitality LLC, doing business as Comfort Inn & Suites -
Maspeth, is a hospitality company with its principal place of
business located at 6030 Maurice Avenue, Maspeth, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kara Miller, Esq.
VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 943-9080
Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
E-mail: kmiller@vandallp.com
KELLER WILLIAMS: Colliau Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
RUSSELL COLLIAU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC. Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-00197 (W.D. Tex., March 2, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by
refusing to pay Plaintiffs the required overtime wages when he
worked over 40 hours per workweek.
According to the complaint, the Defendant operates a division
called MAPS Coaching, which offers coaching programs on a variety
of real estate, business, and self-improvement topics in formats
including one-on-one sessions, group calls, digital and in-person
classes, and webinars. MAPS stands for Mega Achievement
Productivity Systems, and the Defendant considers MAPS its road map
to success for its real estate agents.
Mr. Colliau worked for Keller Williams as a MAPS Coach from
approximately October 2016 to approximately August 31, 2021. He and
potential Opt-In Plaintiffs were allegedly denied an overtime pay
and reimbursement of their work expenses under Defendant's policy
to classify them as independent contractors.
Keller Williams Realty, Inc. is an American technology and
international real estate franchise with headquarters in Austin,
Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron Johnson, Esq.
FAIR LABOR LAW
314 E. Highland Mall Blvd, Ste. 401
Austin, TX 78752
Telephone: (512) 277-3505
Facsimile: (512) 277-3254
E-mail: ajohnson@fairlaborlaw.com
KERSTIN FLORIAN: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kerstin Florian, Inc.
The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Kerstin Florian, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-01845 (S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Kerstin Florian International -- https://www.kerstinflorian.com/ --
is the world's leader in thoughtfully inspired luxury skin
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Website Not Blind-accessible, Abreu Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIGI ABREU, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-01784 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022) arises from the
Defendants' failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website -- https://www.nonothing.us/ -- to be fully accessible to
and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired people in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination due to the inaccessibility of its
website, and seeks a permanent injunction to cause Defendant to
change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually
impaired consumers.
Kimberly-Clark Corporation is an online retail company that owns
and operates a website offering products that it delivers to New
York and across the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
Jarrett S. Charo, Esq.
William J. Downes, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Telephone: (212) 595-6200
Facsimile: (212) 595-9700
E-mail: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
wdownes@mizrahikroub.com
LAND O'LAKES: Wants Court to Approve $1.8MM ERISA Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Abby Wargo, writing for Law360, reports that Land O'Lakes and two
ex-employees asked a Minnesota federal judge to approve a $1.8
million settlement to end a proposed class action accusing the
dairy company of packing its retirement plan with poorly
performing, costly investment options. [GN]
LASHES IN A BOX: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lashes In A Box, LLC.
The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Lashes In A Box, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01839 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Lashes In A Box -- https://www.lashesinabox.com/ -- is a luxury
line of 100% handmade cruelty-free false lashes, containing 20
piece set of lashes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
LIFE ELECTRIC: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Life Electric
Vehicles, Inc. The case is styled as Robert Weekes, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Life Electric
Vehicles, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01847 (S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Life Electric Vehicles -- https://www.lifeelectricvehicles.com/ --
was founded in 2018 as a USA-based developer, manufacturer, and
distributor in the light electric vehicle industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
LITIGATION PRACTICE: Eaton Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Gloria Eaton, individually and on Behalf of all
others similarly situated v. The Litigation Practice Group, PC,
Case No. 22A00366, was removed from the State County of Dekalb
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia on March 4, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-00917-JPB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit for Credit Repair
Organizations.
The Litigation Practice Group, PC -- https://lpglaw.com/ -- offers
a variety of legal services, most oriented to debtors in need of
assistance in addressing their debts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chelsea Feagle, Esq.
Clifton R. Dorsen, Esq.
James Marvin Feagle, Esq.
SKAAR AND FEAGLE
2374 Main Street, Suite B
Tucker, GA 30084
Phone: (404) 373-1970
Email: cfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com
cdorsen@skaarandfeagle.com
jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com
- and -
James W. Hurt, Jr., Esq.
HURT STOLZ, P.C.
1551 Jennings Mill Road, Suite 3100-B
Watkinsville, GA 30677
Phone: (706) 395-2750
Fax: (706) 996-2576
Email: jhurt@hurtstolz.com
- and -
Justin Tharpe Holcombe, Esq.
Kris Kelly Skaar, Esq.
SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP-Woodstock
133 Mirramont Lake Drive
Woodstock, GA 30189
Phone: (770) 427-5600
Fax: (404) 601-1855
Email: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
kskaar@skaarandfeagle.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Daniel J. Huff, Esq.
David Donald Mackenzie, Esq.
Devon G. Zawko, Esq.
HUFF POWELL & BAILEY, LLC
999 Peachtree St., N.E., Suite 950
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (404) 892-4022
Email: dhuff@huffpowellbailey.com
dmackenzie@huffpowellbailey.com
dzawko@huffpowellbailey.com
LITTLE CAESARS: Hall Sues Over Unpaid Overtime and Retaliation
--------------------------------------------------------------
LAMONT HALL, and ALVIN LETT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LITTLE CAESARS ENTERPRISES,
INC., NANDISH PATEL, SUO FANG, PHOENIX NEXUS, DELRAN NJ LC LLC,
HAMILTON LC LLC, YAEDON LC LLC, FOULK RD DE LC LLC GOVERNORS PL DE
LC LLC, LATIMER LC LLC, ABC CORPORATIONS 1-100, and JOHN DOES
1-100, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00777 (E.D. Pa., March 3, 2022)
is a collective action for Defendants' alleged violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, civil conspiracy, and negligence by
failing to pay proper overtime wages and terminating Plaintiffs in
retaliation for their complaints.
Plaintiffs Hall and Lett were employed by the Defendant in
September 2021 and on January 28, 2022, respectively, until they
were terminated in retaliation for requesting payment of their
earned overtime wages, says the complaint.
Little Caesars Enterprises, Inc. owns, operates, and manages pizza
stores and franchisees in numerous states in the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark R. Natale, Esq.
Christopher J. Keating, Esq.
MALAMUT & ASSOCIATES, LLC
457 Haddonfield Rd, Suite 500
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
Telephone: (856) 424-1808
Facsimile: (856) 424-2032
E-mail: mnatale@malamutlaw.com
LOUISIANA HEALTH CARE: Carlos Suit Removed to E.D. Louisiana
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ray Carlos, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Louisiana Health Care Consultants,
LLC, Maison De'Ville Nursing Home, Inc., Bob G. Dean, Jr, Case No.
0192643 E was removed from the 32nd JDC, Terrebonne Parish, to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on Feb.
21, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00447-CJB-JVM to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Louisiana Health Care Consultants, LLC is a Louisiana
Limited-Liability Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew M. Coman, Esq.
Jordan Jeansonne, Esq.
GARCIA & ARTIGLIERE
400 Poydras Street, Suite 2045
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (504) 354-9750
Fax: (504) 354-9751
Email: mcoman@lawgarcia.com
jjeansonne@lawgarcia.com
- and -
Brian P. Marcelle, Esq.
Jacques Charles Mestayer, Esq.
Stephen Michael Huber, Esq.
HUBER, THOMAS AND MARCELLE, LLP
1100 Poydras Street, Suite 2200
New Orleans, LA 70163
Phone: (504) 274-2500
Email: brian@huberthomaslaw.com
jacques@huberthomaslaw.com
stephen@huberthomaslaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Andrew D. Weinstock, Esq.
Joseph C. McAloon, Esq.
Meredith N. Will, Esq.
Philip G. Watson, Esq.
DUPLASS, ZWAIN, BOURGEOIS, PFISTER, WEINSTOCK & BOGART
Three Lakeway Center
3838 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 2900
Metairie, LA 70002
Phone: (504) 832-3700
Email: andreww@duplass.com
jmcaloon@duplass.com
mwill@duplass.com
pwatson@duplass.com
- and -
H. Minor Pipes, III, Esq.
Kelsey L. Meeks, Esq.
PIPES MILES BECKMAN, LLC
1100 Poydras St., Suite 1800
New Orleans, LA 70163
Phone: (504) 322-7070
Email: mpipes@pipesmiles.com
kmeeks@pipesmiles.com
LUCKY HAPPY LOVE: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lucky Happy Love,
Inc. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Lucky Happy Love, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-01835-JPO (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Lucky Happy Love, Inc. is a business company registered in
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
MAEV INC: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maev, Inc. The case
is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Maev, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01792 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 3, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Maev -- https://www.meetmaev.com/ -- is the first true wellness
company for dogs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
MAINE: ACLU Sues Over Inequities in Public Defender System
----------------------------------------------------------
David Sharp, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
American Civil Liberties Union of Maine sued the system that
provides attorneys to those who can't afford them on March 1,
saying it fails to provide adequate representation.
The class action lawsuit contends there's a failure to train,
supervise and adequately fund a system to ensure the constitutional
right to effective counsel for defendants. It seeks changes to
ensure acceptable representation for low-income Maine residents.
"This failure has created two systems of justice: one for the
wealthy, and one for the poor," said Zachary Heiden, chief counsel
at the ACLU of Maine.
The director of the Maine Commission on Indigent Legal Services
declined to address the specifics of the lawsuit but agreed that
there's a need for improvements in training and funding.
All states are required to provide an attorney to criminal
defendants who are unable to afford their own lawyer. But Maine is
the only one that assigns private attorneys for all "indigent"
cases. Other states have some version of a public defender's
office.
A scathing report in 2019 outlined significant shortcomings in
Maine's system, including lax oversight of the billing practices by
the private attorneys commissioned to defend low-income clients.
The ACLU has sued in other states for changes. But the ACLU of
Maine previously resisted doing so here in hopes that changes would
be made.
The ACLU of Maine contends in the lawsuit, filed in Kennebec
County, that the Maine Commission on Indigent Legal Services failed
to set and enforce standards for attorneys and failed to monitor
and evaluate them. Further, there was inadequate funding and
training for participating attorneys, the lawsuit said.
The suit was filed on behalf of several criminal defendants, and
names the commission and its leaders.
Justin Andrus, the commission's executive director since January
2021, said he's been pressing for authority and funding to hire
additional staff for training and to hire public defenders.
"I have been asking for more tools from the time I took this
position. I agree in principle with anyone who suggests that the
defense function in Maine needs to be better resourced and that its
structure needs to be updated to provide superlative performance,
training and oversight," he said.
He met on March 1 with the Maine Legislature's Judiciary Committee
as part of a long-running discussion about the system.
The ACLU of Maine has supported creation of a public defender's
office in the past. But the lawsuit doesn't contain specific
demands about how the state should reach its goal of instituting
improvements, or an entirely new system, for meeting its
constitutional obligations.
"There is no one change that anybody can make that's going to bring
the system into constitutional compliance. It's going to require
multiple changes on multiple levels," Heiden, the ACLU chief
council, said. [GN]
MALIBU WELLNESS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Malibu Wellness, Inc.
The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Malibu Wellness, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-01840 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Malibu C -- https://malibuc.com/ -- is a professional haircare
brand based in science.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
MANDARICH LAW GROUP: Drago FCRA Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Zubic Drago, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Mandarich Law Group LLP, LVNV Funding LLC,
Case No. 2:21-cv-02606, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 7, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:22-cv-60493-RAR to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Mandarich Law Group -- https://mandarichlaw.com/ -- is a law firm
located in Chatsworth, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew David Bavaro, Esq.
LOAN LAWYERS
3201 Griffin road, Suite 100
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312
Phone: (954) 523-4357
Email: matthew@fight13.com
MANIDAE BEAUTY: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Manidae Beauty, LLC.
The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Manidae Beauty, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01787-KPF (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Manidae Beauty -- https://manidaebeauty.com/ -- are revolutionizers
and continually push the boundaries of what it means to deliver
superior hair care.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
MCCAREY LANDSCAPING: Budrow Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN T. BUDROW, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. McCAREY LANDSCAPING, INC., DONNA McCAREY, TIMOTHY
McCAREY, and JOHN DOES as the top 10 Shareholders of McCAREY
LANDSCAPING, INC., Defendants, Case No. 7:22-cv-01773 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 3, 2022) arises from the Defendants' alleged conduct of
intentionally depriving Plaintiff and other employees similarly
situated of their wages and ultimately terminating Plaintiff in
retaliation for his complaints, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York State Labor Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants knowingly, willfully and
maliciously failed to pay Plaintiff Budrow and similarly situated
employees for their travel time, working lunch breaks, proper
prevailing wage rate for public work, and proper wage rate for
weekend work per the applicable collective bargaining agreement.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an operating
engineer handling a dump truck and heavy machinery as needed, on
both private and public, prevailing wage jobs from March 2020 until
his termination on December 3, 2021.
McCarey Landscaping, Inc. provides landscaping and garden
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Echevarria, Esq.
ECHEVARRIA LAW, PLLC
P.O. Box 1053
Warwick, NY 10990
Telephone: (845) 544-7644
E-mail: echevarrialaw@optimum.net
MIDDELBURG, ZA: Faces Class Action if Services Not Resumed
----------------------------------------------------------
Middleburg Observer reports that the general meeting hosted by the
Middelburg Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the local business
industry concluded in a final ultimatum being handed to municipal
administration that either services are to resume or class action
will be taken.
The meeting took place at 11:00 on March 1, where a local attorney,
opened the floor with possible steps available to the sector to
address the ongoing municipal strike and its effects on the local
industry as well as the municipality's failure to render services.
After the meeting concluded, MCCI issued the following press
release:
Concerns of the business industry regarding Steve Tshwete Local
Municipality:
At a meeting facilitated by the Middelburg Chamber of Commerce and
Industry, which was attended by a substantial number of
representatives of businesses in the Middelburg area, the following
was resolved:
-- The failure of the Steve Tshwete Local Municipality to
address the current strike action and the resultant lack of service
delivery is unacceptable.
-- The business community demands that the following services be
restored in full by no later than Friday, 4 March:
-- Refuse removal.
-- Emergency maintenance services with regard to electricity,
sewerage and water reticulation.
-- The business community be provided with a clear time frame
and plan before 11 March as to how and when the following services
will be restored to full efficiency including:
-- Town Planning Services
-- The Licencing Department
-- Water Reticulation and Maintenance
-- Electricity Reticulation and Maintenance
-- Road Maintenance
-- Communication.
The business community further demands that a clear and
constructive communication channel be established for business to
raise and address issues of concern to the business community and
in turn would allow the Steve Tshwete Local Municipality to convey
information of importance to the business community within its
jurisdiction.
Non compliance of the demands will result in further action
including but not limited to legal action to compel the delivery of
service, and a response to the aforesaid demands which are
legitimately made by an important stakeholder within the area of
jurisdiction of the Municipality.
Subject to legal advice being obtained, the business community is
also considering the option of a boycott of payment of municipal
services, and a class action for the recovery of damages suffered
by businesses and residents as a result of the Municipality's lack
of service delivery. [GN]
MILLER'S ALE: McCrosky Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
AIMY McCROSKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MILLER'S ALE HOUSE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:22-cv-00778 (E.D. Pa., March 3, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act's tip credit
and subsequent underpayment of their employees at the federally
mandated minimum wage rate, as well as violations of the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, Pennsylvania's Wage Payment and
Collection Law, and Pennsylvania common law, for Defendant's
alleged failure to pay Plaintiff and all similarly situated workers
their earned minimum wages.
Ms. McCrosky is an individual who worked for Defendant as a
waitress and bartender at the Miller's Ale House restaurant located
in Willow Grove, Pennsylvania from approximately August 2018
through January 2021.
Miller's Ale House, Inc. operates a chain of restaurants under
throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sean L. Ruppert, Esq.
RUPPERT LAW FIRM, LLC
4099 William Penn Highway, Suite 215
Monroeville, PA 15146
Telephone: (412) 206-9474
Facsimile: (412) 571-8825
E-mail: sean@ruppertlawfirm.com
- and -
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM LLC
The Heritage Building, Suite 250
34555 Chagrin Boulevard
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 696-5000
Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
- and -
Don J. Foty, Esq.
William M. Hogg, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP
4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
whogg@hftrialfirm.com
NAUTILUS INC: June 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff, Robert Walker ("Plaintiff") has reached a proposed
Settlement in Walker v. Nautilus, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-3414, a
class action lawsuit (the "Lawsuit") with Defendant Nautilus, Inc.
("Defendant" or "Nautilus") concerning certain Bowflex, Schwinn,
and Nautilus treadmills ("Treadmills").
PLEASE READ THE NOTICE CAREFULLY. If you live within the United
States and its territories and purchased a Bowflex, Schwinn, or
Nautilus treadmill between July 7, 2016 and November 16, 2021, your
rights may be affected whether or not you act.
YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS ARE AFFECTED BY THIS SETTLEMENT WHETHER YOU ACT
OR DON'T ACT:
SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM
Deadline: May 2, 2022
Submitting a Claim Form is the only way to be eligible to receive
any benefit under this Settlement.
EXCLUDE YOURSELF
Deadline: April 1, 2022
Excluding yourself, or "opting-out," is the only option that allows
you ever to be part of another lawsuit against Nautilus about the
claims resolved by this Settlement. If you exclude yourself from or
opt out of this Settlement, you will not be able to get any
benefits from it.
OBJECT
Deadline: April 1, 2022
Mailing an objection is the only way to notify the Court that you
are unhappy with any aspect of the Settlement. You cannot object to
the proposed Settlement unless you are a Class Member.
APPEAR AND BE HEARD AT THE FAIRNESS HEARING
Deadline: April 1, 2022
You must file a Notice of Intention to Appear with the Court if you
wish to speak at the Fairness Hearing.
GO TO THE HEARING
Deadline: June 21, 2022
You may attend the hearing, but you do not have to do so. The Court
will hold the Fairness hearing at 10 a.m. on June 21, 2022, at the
Joseph P. Kinneary U.S. Courthouse, 85 Marconi Boulevard, Columbus,
OH 43215, in Courtroom 301.
DO NOTHING
If you are a Class Member and do not submit a Claim Form by
May 2, 2022, you will not receive any benefit from the Settlement
and you will give up your right to ever be part of another lawsuit
against Nautilus regarding the legal claims resolved by this
Settlement.
If you have any questions about the Notice, the proposed
Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement,
please DO NOT contact Nautilus or its legal counsel. All questions
should be directed to the Settlement Administrator (see the Contact
Us page). You may also contact Class Counsel. [GN]
PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Court Grants in Part Bid to Toss Ford Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL J. FORD, Plaintiff v. PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action No. 21-04147 (E.D. Pa.),
Judge Joel H. Slomsky of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
I. Background
In Donovan v. State Farm, a decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court, Donovan suffered significant injuries during a collision of
his motorcycle with an underinsured vehicle. He initially filed
liability claims with two insurance companies. From the first
insurance company, he recovered the $25,000 policy limit on the
underinsured vehicle. From the second insurance company, which
insured his motorcycle, he recovered the $50,000 limit. He believed
that the $75,000 total was not adequate to compensate him for his
injuries. So he then sought to recover underinsured motorist
benefits from his mother's insurance policy, where he was insured
as a resident relative.
Mr. Donovan's mother's policy insured three vehicles, but not the
motorcycle. The underinsured motorist liability limits for each
vehicle could have been stacked, but his mother had signed the
stacking waiver form statutorily provided in 75 Pa. C.S.A Section
1738(d), a provision of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial
Responsibility Law ("MVFRL"). Because of this signed waiver and the
fact that his mother's policy also had a household vehicle
exclusion, which bars coverage for a vehicle owned by a resident
relative not insured under the Policy, the insurance company denied
Donovan's claim under this policy. He then sought declaratory
relief, claiming that the waiver provision in 75 Pa. C.S.A. Section
1738(d) is not a knowing waiver of inter-policy stacking when
policies insure multiple vehicles.
Based upon two other Pennsylvania Supreme Court cases, Gallagher v.
GEICO Indemnity Company, 201 A.3d 131, 137 (Pa. 2019) and Craley v.
State Farm, 895 A.2d 530 (Pa. 2006), the Donovan Court finds the
logic of the case at bar indistinguishable from that in Gallagher.
In both cases, the insured did not validly waive inter-policy
stacking. Whether the insured did not sign a waiver, as in
Gallagher, or signed a deficient waiver as to inter-policy
stacking, as in Donovan, the result is the same: the policy
defaults to inter-policy stacking of UM/UIM2 coverage. In either
case, the household vehicle exclusion cannot operate as a de facto
waiver of inter-policy stacking because it fails to provide the
insured with a knowing waiver of that coverage.
In the present case, Plaintiff Michael Ford was driving his
motorcycle and collided with an underinsured vehicle. He received
the $15,000 in liability coverage from the insurance company
insuring the underinsured vehicle. The Plaintiff also had two of
his own insurance policies: One at Progressive Preferred Insurance
Company covering his motorcycle and another at a different
insurance company, Defendant Progressive Specialty Insurance Co.
Two other vehicles were insured by the Defendant. The company
insuring the motorcycle paid the full amount of coverage, $25,000.
However, the Defendant declined to pay any underinsured benefits,
claiming that the Plaintiff waived inter-policy stacking under 75
Pa. C.S. Section 1738(d) by signing the waiver. Thereafter, the
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and putative class members,
commenced the action, seeking a declaratory judgment in Count I and
asserting a claim for breach of contract in Count II against the
Defendant for breaching the insurance policy by not paying the
stacked coverage under its insurance policy.
Count I is a claim for declaratory relief, seeking a declaration
that, because of the Donovan decision, his claim under the Policy
for underinsured motorist benefits is not barred by the stacking
waiver or the household regular use exclusion. He requests the same
declaration on behalf of "each member of the class." While the
Plaintiff has not moved for class certification at this time, his
filings signal that he intends to seek certification of a class
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), which permits class
certification where a defendant "has acted or refused to act on
grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive
or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the
class as a whole."
Count II is a claim for breach of contract on behalf of both
himself and putative class members. The parties do not dispute that
the Policy is a valid contract. Like the request for a declaratory
judgment, the claim is based on the denial of underinsured motorist
benefits under the Policy. The crux of the dispute is whether the
Donovan decision, decided in August 2021, can be applied
retroactively to Plaintiff's insurance claim, which arose in 2020.
The Plaintiff argues that if the decision is applied retroactively,
he states a claim for breach of contract because Defendant breached
the insurance policy when it denied him underinsured motorist
benefits. The Defendant argues that the decision should not be
applied retroactively.
Given the Donovan holding, the parties agree in the case that the
facts are similar to those in Donovan and that Donovan would
ordinarily apply and resolve liability coverage. The Defendant
contends, however, that the holding in Donovan is not retroactive
because it creates a new rule of law and therefore the signed
stacking waiver is enforceable. The Plaintiff claims that Donovan
applies retroactively. If Donovan is retroactive, the Plaintiff has
sufficiently alleged a valid claim for breach of contract at the
motion to dismiss stage.
II. Discussion
In a diversity of citizenship jurisdiction case, the Court must
predict whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will apply Donovan
retroactively. Based upon his analysis, Judge Slomsky predicts that
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will hold that Donovan is
retroactive. Consequently, he holds that the Plaintiff does state a
claim here against the Defendant for breach of contract and will
survive the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, which is before the
Court for disposition.
In the same Motion, Judge Slomsky opines that the Defendant submits
that the request for a declaratory judgment in the Complaint is
duplicative of the breach of contract claim and should be
dismissed. Although he disagrees with the Defendant on the
retroactivity issue, he agrees with it that the declaratory
judgment action is duplicative of the breach of contract claim and
should be dismissed.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Slomsky granted in part and denied
in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Motion to Dismiss
Count I seeking a declaratory judgment is granted. The Motion to
Dismiss Count II for breach of contract is denied. An appropriate
Order follows.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 2, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y2pmmy3s from Leagle.com.
SAKS INC: Harvey Sues Over Sales Tax Imposed on Retail Merchandise
------------------------------------------------------------------
CATALEEN HARVEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SAKS, INC.; SAKS & COMPANY, LLC; SAKS OFF
5TH LLC; and HUDSON BAY COMPANY LLC, Defendants, Case No. 220300922
(Pa. Ct. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., March 8, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for violation of the Pennsylvania
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, breach of
implied contract for violation of the implied duty of good faith
and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment/disgorgement.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in a
systematic scheme of deceptive and misleading sales practices with
respect to the sale of footwear and clothing in their Saks Off 5th
retail stores by imposing what was falsely described by the
Defendants as a sales tax on the selling price of such merchandise,
even though the merchandise was and is exempt from Pennsylvania
sales tax.
Saks, Inc. is an operator of retail stores, with its principal
place of business located at 225 Liberty Street, Floor 24, New
York, New York.
Saks & Company, LLC is an operator of retail stores, with its
principal place of business located at 225 Liberty Street, Floor
24, New York, New York.
Saks Off 5th LLC is an operator of retail stores, with its
principal place of business located at 225 Liberty Street, Floor
24, New York, New York.
Hudson Bay Company LLC is an operator of retail stores, with its
principal place of business at 25 Keystone Boulevard East,
Pottsville, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
Shane T. Prince, Esq.
DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
1515 Market Street, Suite 1200
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 564-1721
E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com
SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Enomoto Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages, Commissions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chanielle Enomoto, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Siemens Industry, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 8:22-cv-00334 (C.D. Cal., March 2, 2022) seeks to recover
from the Defendant unpaid overtime wages and commissions, interest,
attorneys' fees, costs, expenses, and penalties pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from approximately February
of 2020 to March of 2020. She brings this action pursuant to the
FLSA, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated commissioned
employees who elect to opt into this action who work or have worked
for Defendant as commissioned employees nationwide in the past
three years.
Siemens Industry, Inc. is in the business of developing and
manufacturing technology in the industry, infrastructure, mobility
and healthcare sectors across the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
Annaliz Loera, Esq.
LEBE LAW, APLC
777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90021
Telephone: (213) 444-1973
E-mail: jon@lebelaw.com
annaliz@lebelaw.com
SWISSPORT USA: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Adduci Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS ADDUCI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SWISSPORT USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-01172 (E.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022) seeks to recover liquidated
and other damages for Defendant's failure to pay timely wages in
violation of the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff seeks liquidated damages equal to 100% of the Class's
late-paid wages. Because Plaintiff and the Class were paid on a
biweekly basis, roughly one-half of their annual wages were paid
late, says the suit.
Mr. Adduci worked for the Defendant as a manual worker in
Ronkonkoma, New York from approximately July 2021 to September
2021.
Swissport USA, Inc. offers ground handling, passenger, baggage and
cargo handling, and aircraft loading and unloading services for
airlines.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
Garrett Kaske, Esq.
KESSLER MATURA P.C.
534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 499-9100
Facsimile: (631) 499-9120
E-mail: tkessler@kesslermatura.com
gkaske@kesslermatura.com
- and -
Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
447 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (800) 616-4000
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com
- and -
Gregg I. Shavitz, 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
T&T EXPRESS: Davis Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Non-Exempt Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAWAIN DAVIS, LUKE LAPOMP, and JOSHUA MORRIS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. T&T
EXPRESS SHIPPING, LLC, and DALE MILLER, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-01936 (S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law including failure to pay appropriate minimum
wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to furnish accurate
wage statements, and failure to provide accurate wage notice.
Mr. Davis was hired by the Defendants as a shipping coordinator in
September 2018 and worked in that role until September 2021.
Mr. Lapomp was hired by the Defendants as a warehouse assistant in
2007 and worked in that role until November 1, 2021.
Mr. Morris was hired by the Defendants as a forklift operator in
2007 and worked in that role until January 2020.
T&T Express Shipping, LLC is a freight forwarding service provider,
with its principal place of business at 1100 Linwood Street,
Brooklyn, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Frank J. Tantone, Esq.
BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Suite 208
Garden City, NY
Telephone: (516) 280-3008
E-mail: ft@Belllg.com
THRAS.IO INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Ortega Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN ORTEGA, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THRAS.IO, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-01795-MKV (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022) arises from the
Defendants' failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website -- https://www.sdaraskin.com/ -- to be fully accessible to
and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired people in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination due to the inaccessibility of its
website, and seeks a permanent injunction to cause Defendant to
change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually
impaired consumers.
Thras.io, Inc. is an online retail company that owns and operates a
website offering products that it delivers to New York and across
the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
Jarrett S. Charo, Esq.
William J. Downes, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Telephone: (212) 595-6200
Facsimile: (212) 595-9700
E-mail: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
wdownes@mizrahikroub.com
U.S. SOCCER: Fisher Phillips Attorneys Discuss $24MM Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen McLeod Caminiti, Esq., and Jack O'Connor, Esq., of Fisher
Phillips, disclosed that in what is being portrayed as a
significant victory for women in sports, the United States women's
national soccer team (USWNT) announced a $24 million-dollar
settlement of a class action equal pay action against the U.S.
Soccer Federation (USSF). The February 22 settlement comes almost
three years after the Morgan v. United States Soccer Federation
gender discrimination claim was filed in March 2019. The lawsuit
and settlement provide important lessons for all employers when it
comes to pay equity and the increasing press for parity in women's
sports.
Off the Pitch: Lawsuit Focused on Pay Disparities
The lawsuit, which included notable athletes from the 2019 World
Cup winning team like Megan Rapinoe, Carli Lloyd, and Alex Morgan,
was brought under the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 alleging institutionalized gender
discrimination in the form of unequal pay and working conditions.
The complaint alleged that USSF discriminated against the USWNT by
"paying them less than members of the MNT for substantially equal
work and by denying them at least equal playing, training, and
travel conditions… and other terms and conditions of employment."
The subject of the Morgan lawsuit focused on the disparity of the
bonus structure between the woman's and men's teams which was
established by USSF. Under the structure, the USWNT had the
opportunity to earn substantially lower bonuses than the men's
national team for the same accomplishments. For example, making the
World Cup team would net a men's player $67,000 whereas a player
making the women's team would net just $37,500.
Athletes Reach Their Goal! $24 Million Settlement Reached
One of the reasons the settlement is so significant is that the
USWNT had suffered some significant legal setbacks in court. The
lowest moment for the athletes came in May 2020 when U.S. District
Judge Gary Klausner granted the USSF's motion for summary judgment
dismissing equal pay claims. That decision appeared to eliminate
any hope of an eventual victory. But the USWNT appealed the
decision reached a final settlement of the equal pay claims after
years of litigation and negotiation.
According to the press release, the settlement includes a $24
million settlement fund of which $22 million will go to the class
of athletes in the form of back pay and $2 million is set aside for
future charitable efforts related to women's and girls' soccer.
The agreement also is conditioned on a new collective bargaining
agreement in which the USSF has committed to providing equal pay
rates for the women's and men's national teams. The latter is
considered the true achievement for the plaintiffs as it changes
the future for women's soccer by guaranteeing equality in
compensation. Vocal leader Megan Rapinoe described the settlement
as "a monumental win for women's sports and women's soccer in
particular."
Costs Above and Beyond the Settlement
Notwithstanding the notoriety of the $24 million settlement,
resolution of the lawsuit does not address another significant
issue at play – the disparity in cash awards available to the
men's and woman's teams as those awards are established at the
discretion of soccer's world governing body, FIFA. In 2019, the
World Cup championship title for the women's team paid $30 million
in comparison to the $400 million awarded to the men's champion.
Based upon news reports of the settlement with USSF, the women's
World Cup team is expected to continue to pressure FIFA for parity
in pay, which means there may be a lot of action between now and
the next World Cup games in 2023.
An issue that is easily overlooked in settlements such as these is
defense costs. Attorneys' fees for defense of the case are reported
to have exceeded $9 million. Without question, equal pay litigation
is on the rise and defense costs can be crippling. This harsh
reality is not confined to soccer but is a challenge facing
employers throughout the country. What's more, the stakes are
increasing dramatically as robust pay equity laws have been acted
in many of the most litigious states in the nation. What can
employers do to protect themselves?
Action Items to Ensure Compliance with Pay Equity Laws
The settlement with the USWNT reached the front page of many media
outlets and debate about pay parity will likely continue into 2023.
This likely will spur employees, government officials, and
plaintiffs' attorneys to scrutinize pay practices at workplaces
across the country. As pay equity litigation continues to
employers should take the following steps to ensure their own
workplace pay policies aren't deserving of a red card:
Evaluate your compensation data to identify pay disparities.
An audit of pay practices is an indispensable first step in any
compliance effort. Review your compensation policies and pay
determinations to ensure organizational decisions are properly
documented. Identify differences in pay across gender and other
classifications. Make adjustments or be able and ready to justify
any disparities based on legitimate factors such as location,
education, or training.
Implement pay practices designed to comply with the increasing
demands of new laws and regulations.
Pay equity laws are complex, exacting, and vary by state. They can
carry substantial penalties. Train management level employees, HR
staff, and compliance experts who are responsible for determining
and monitoring employee compensation and ensure they understand the
mandates of the federal Equal Pay Act and applicable state and
local laws.
Educate and train your managers.
Failure to comply with pay equity laws can be costly and defense
costs alone can be exorbitant. Often the best defense is a good
offense -- and organizations can do a lot to protect themselves by
understanding the law. This is especially true in pay equity where
there are significant differences between federal and state law.
Moreover, recent legislation mandating pay transparency and posting
requirements impose significant obligations on companies.
Conclusion
Now is the time for employers to understand the pay equity laws and
train their managers and HR professionals. Failure to comply with
these requirements could see even the most well-intentioned
employer facing a costly penalty kick.
Fisher Phillips maintains a comprehensive Pay Equity Map detailing
various state laws on pay equity from across the country so that
you can quickly check the lay of the land in your state. We'll
continue to monitor development in this area and provide updates as
warranted. Make sure you are subscribed to the Fisher Phillips
Insight service to ensure you receive the latest news directly to
your inbox. For further information, contact your Fisher Phillips
attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any member of our Pay
Equity Practice Group. [GN]
UNITED STATES: Ill. Court Approves Settlement in Nava v. ICE Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Documented reports that a federal court in Illinois recently
approved a final settlement in a case that will prevent Immigration
and Customs Enforcement from conducting unlawful arrests. The
ruling in Castanon Nava v. ICE will mandate the agency adopt new
policies related to warrantless arrests, re-train its officers, and
release people from detention if the settlement is violated. The
settlement agreement is nationally binding and is based on a case
that was filed in response to a four-day raid in Chicago in May
2018. ICE agents, without having warrants for people they arrested,
often targeted particular neighborhoods, types of vehicles, work
places, and commercial spaces where immigrants lived, worked, and
spent time. [GN]
VESTA PROPERTY: Esmailzadegan Balks at Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
OMID ESMAILZADEGAN, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VESTA PROPERTY SERVICES INC and JAMESTOWN
ASSOCIATION INC, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-20634 (S.D. Fla.,
March 2, 2022) arises from the Defendant's unlawful debt collection
practices in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, Vesta Property sent a collection letter
to Plaintiff in an attempt to collect a consumer debt. However, at
all times relevant, the Defendant was not registered as a consumer
collection agency with the Florida Department of State. The failure
to obtain a license constitutes a false representation of the
character and legal status of the underlying debt, says the suit.
Vesta Property Services Inc. is a business entity engaged in the
business of soliciting consumer debts for collection.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
tom@jibraellaw.com
VYERA PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Daraprim Class Action for $28MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Daraprim manufacturers agreed to pay
up to $28 million to resolve claims that they worked to suppress
generic alternatives to the malaria preventative while raising the
price of brand-name drugs.
The settlement benefits third-party payors who paid or provided
reimbursement for Daraprim between Aug. 7, 2015, and Jan. 28, 2022.
This includes a variety of third parties, such as health insurance
companies, benefit plans, self insured employers, and more.
Daraprim (pyrimethamine) is an antiparasitic drug used in the
treatment and prevention of parasitic infections such as
toxoplasmosis and malaria, according to WebMD. The drug can be life
saving for those impacted by the potentially fatal parasites.
Vyera Pharmaceuticals allegedly suppressed generic alternatives
while raising the drug's price by 4,000 percent.
Vyera Pharmaceuticals is the former company of Martin Shkreli,
known as "pharmacy bro" in pop culture. Shkreli, who was recently
banned for life from running any public U.S. companies, Reuters
reported, came to fame when he raised the price of Daraprim from
$17.50 per tablet to $750 per tablet in 2015.
Third-party payors objected to this massive price increase in a
class action lawsuit against Shkreli, Vyera, and parent company
Phoenixus AG. According to the plaintiffs, the Daraprim price
increase was unethical and unlawful under antitrust and consumer
protection laws.
The defendants did not admit any wrongdoing but agreed to resolve
these allegations with a settlement worth up to $28 million. This
fund includes a minimum $7 million with $21 million in additional
potential cash payments.
The companies also agreed to pay $40 million to the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) to resolve monopoly and price gouging
allegations.
Under the terms of the settlement, third-party payors can collect
cash payments based on the amount paid for Daraprim.
Payments will vary depending on the amount claimed, documentation
provided, and other factors, but will be at least $100.
Without claim documentation, payments are capped at 80 percent
reimbursement of Daraprim payments made. Acceptable documents
include receipts, canceled checks, invoices, statements, and other
records.
The deadline for exclusion in the settlement is April 18, 2022.
The objection deadline is May 23, 2022.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for June
17, 2022.
In order to receive settlement benefits, Class Members must submit
a valid claim form by June 1, 2022.
Who's Eligible
The settlement benefits third-party payors who paid or provided
reimbursement for Daraprim between Aug. 7, 2015, and Jan. 28, 2022.
This includes a variety of third parties, such as health insurance
companies, benefit plans, self insured employers, and more.
Potential Award
Varies
Proof of Purchase
Without claim documentation, payments are capped at 80 percent
reimbursement of Daraprim payments made. Acceptable documents
include receipts, canceled checks, invoices, statements, and other
records.
Claim Form
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
06/01/2022
Case Name
BCBSM, Inc. v. Vyera Pharmaceuticals, et al., Case No.
21-cv-1884-DLC pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York
Final Hearing
06/17/2022
Settlement Website
DaraprimTPPSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Daraprim TPP Settlement
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173115
Milwaukee, WI 53217
info@DaraprimTPPSettlement.com
877-316-0144
Class Counsel
Kellie Lerner
Benjamin Steinberg
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
Defense Counsel
Steven A Reed
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
Kennith R David
KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
Christopher H Casey
DUANE MORRIS LLP [GN]
WELLS FARGO: May Face Refinance Discrimination Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that are you a Black, Latino, or minority
homeowner who was denied a Wells Fargo refinance request between
2019 and 2021?
Did you know Wells Fargo may have denied refinancing applications
made by racial minorities at a much higher rate than white
applicants?
One silver lining spurred by pandemic policies was low interest
rates that allowed Americans to renegotiate their mortgages,
however, according to recent reports, Black and Latino homeowners
may have been left behind.
Wells Fargo, in particular, may have used discriminatory practices
that resulted in the bank denying refi requests by Black, Latino,
and other racial minorities than white applicants.
A Wells Fargo refinance, or one from another bank, could have saved
Black and Latino homeowners thousands of dollars, but
discriminatory practices may have put this needed money out of
reach.
If you are a Black, Latino, or other racial minority homeowner
who's mortgage refinance application was denied by Wells Fargo, you
may be able to join a Wells Fargo class action lawsuit and seek
compensation.
Do You Qualify?
If you are Black, Latino, or another racial minority and your Wells
Fargo refinance application was denied between 2019 and 2021, you
may be able to join a class action lawsuit investigation into the
bank's practices.
Wells Fargo mortgage discrimination practices may be especially
prevalent in these states:
Atlanta, Georgia
Boston, Massachusetts
Chicago, Illinois
Dallas, Texas
Detroit, Michigan
Houston, Texas
Los Angeles, California
Miami, Florida
Minneapolis, Minnesota
New York - New Jersey
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Phoenix, Arizona
Riverside, California
Tampa, Florida
Washington, D.C.
If you are a resident of one of these states and your mortgage
refinance request was denied, see if you qualify to join a Wells
Fargo discrimination class action lawsuit.
Pandemic Exacerbates Barriers to Minority Homeownership, Refinance
Black and Latino borrowers faced barriers to homeownership and
mortgage refinance prior to 2019, but COVID-19 made those problems
worse.
Indeed, while 12 percent of white homeowners successfully
refinanced their mortgages during the first ten months of 2020,
only 6 percent of Black mortgage holders and 9 percent of Latino
mortgage holders were successful in renegotiating their loans,
according to The Wall Street Journal.
These rates demonstrating the barriers to mortgage refinance, and
significant savings, were compiled using borrower data from Fannie
Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Housing Authority and explained
by experts at the Federal Reserve Banks of Atlanta, Philadelphia,
and Boston.
Experts say that factors influencing the low acceptance rate of
mortgage refinance requests made by racial minority borrowers
include:
-- High fees
-- Undervalued homes
-- Discrimination in the lending process
-- Discrimination in the home appraisal process
-- Does Wells Fargo Refinance Minorities at a Lower Rate?
Wells Fargo, in particular, denied refi requests made by African
Americans and Latinos at a much high rate than similarly situated
white homeowners between 2019 and 2021. Gender also is a factor.
The refinance rates for African American and Latino women were far
worse than similarly situated white males. Such disparities reflect
discrimination by Wells Fargo based on race and gender in their
mortgage refinance practices.
Despite needing the extra money a mortgage refinance would have
secured, minority homeowners' refi applications have been denied at
higher rates by Wells Fargo, making them more likely to enter
mortgage forbearance -- disqualifying them from refinancing.
Wells Fargo's own executives admitted the existence of racial and
gender bias within the company. Charles Scharf, Wells Fargo's
Chief Executive Officer, recently apologized for blaming the
company's lack of diversity on a "limited pool of Black talent",
calling his statement 'insensitive' and a reflection of his 'own
unconscious bias.'"
In a press release, Jimmie Paschall, Wells Fargo's head of
enterprise diversity and inclusion, revealed: "There definitely is
a sense that bias lives vibrantly at Wells Fargo. And I think it is
around gender, gender identity, as well as race and ethnicity."
Additionally, in his 2020 testimony before Congress, Scharf
effectively admitted that "Wells Fargo's customers have been
exposed to countless abuses, including racial discrimination," such
as "discrimination against minority home loan borrowers . . ." [GN]
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Dishwasher Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Who Qualifies: The settlement
benefits individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired certain
Whirlpool dishwashers built between 2010 and 2018. A full list of
included models can be found on the settlement website.
Potential Award: Up to $225
Proof of Purchase Required: Yes -- the model number and serial
number of the dishwasher, and documentation such as
receipts/invoices for repairs.
Claim Deadline: 7/26/2022
Whirlpool agreed to pay $21 million to resolve claims its
dishwashers are prone to leaks.
The settlement benefits individuals who purchased or otherwise
acquired certain Whirlpool dishwashers built between 2010 and 2018.
A full list of included models can be found on the settlement
website.
Whirlpool manufactures several types of home appliances, including
dishwashers.
In 2020, Whirlpool consumers filed a class action lawsuit against
the company alleging the dishwashers are prone to leaks. According
to the plaintiffs, the dishwashers leak due to faulty seals within
the appliances.
"The dishwashers were and are equipped with a pump motor diverter
shaft seal . . . oriented incorrectly, accelerating degradation of
the seal and creating a buildup of debris that prevents the shaft
seal spring from properly sealing the diverter shaft and sump," the
Whirlpool class action lawsuit says.
Whirlpool allegedly knew about this defect but failed to inform
consumers or remedy the issue.
As a result, consumers such as the plaintiffs suffered from leaks
and property damage, the class action contends. Plaintiffs say they
had to pay out of pocket for repairs as a result of leaking
dishwashers.
Whirlpool hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to settle the
claims against it with a $21 million settlement.
Under the terms of the settlement, Class Members can receive cash
payments of up to $225 in reimbursement for out of pocket repair
expenses. These payments specifically reimburse customers for
replacement or repairs of a dishwasher's diverter motor or sump
pump due to a diverter seal leak.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is March 17, 2022.
The Whirlpool dishwasher class action lawsuit settlement final
approval hearing is scheduled for May 26, 2022.
In order to receive a payment from the settlement, Class Members
must file a claim form by July 26, 2022.
Who's Eligible
The settlement benefits individuals who purchased or otherwise
acquired certain Whirlpool dishwashers built between 2010 and 2018.
A full list of included models can be found on the settlement
website.
Potential Award
Up to $225
Proof of Purchase
The model number and serial number of the dishwasher, and
documentation such as receipts/invoices for repairs.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
07/26/2022
Case Name
Cleveland, et al. v. Whirlpool Corporation, Case No.:
20-cv-1906-WMW-KMM, in the U.S. District Court District of
Minnesota
Final Hearing
05/26/2022
Settlement Website
WhirlpoolDishwasherSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Cleveland v. Whirlpool Corp.
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
info@whirlpooldishwashersettlement.com
833-940-3377
Class Counsel
Harper T. Segui
Rachel Soffin
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP
Defense Counsel
Andrew M. Unthank
WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP [GN]
[*] Software Bugs Becoming Target of Tech-Based Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Lurah Lowery, writing for Repairer Driven News, reports that as
with any new technology, especially software-based, it's no
surprise to vehicle owners that there will be bugs and updates, but
a recent New York Times article points out consumers have an added
concern with such technologies -- safety. And while class
litigation has focused on automakers, the correlation can certainly
be made as to why repairers need to follow OEM repair procedures
and document those steps to avoid any resulting technological
glitches that could turn the litigious focus on them.
Software that operates in-vehicle infotainment screens, backup
cameras, and/or sound that cuts out or unexpectedly increases has
been the source of lawsuits against OEMs for years now. While touch
screens aren't inherently linked to vehicle safety measures,
"plaintiffs have successfully argued that a malfunctioning
dashboard display is a serious distraction and potential safety
hazard," according to the NYT article.
Subaru, Honda/Acura, and Ford have paid out millions in
software-related lawsuit settlements - $8 million by Subaru for a
class-action suit over in-vehicle screens going blank, an estimated
$30 million by Honda and Acura for a similar issue, and $17 million
by Ford over MyFord Touch system defects, according to the NYT.
Even Tesla, whose software is created in-house, is facing a
class-action lawsuit over its S and X models that were built before
2018 having touch screen failures. Last year, Tesla recalled more
than 100,000 S and X models built before March 2018 because their
touch screens could fail. Tesla planned to update software and
replace the 8GB embedded MultiMediaCard (eMMC) in the media control
unit (MCU) "that may experience a malfunction due to accumulated
wear," according to Tesla's website.
Software capabilities are a hard nut to crack for OEMs due to
constantly needed updates. Think about your smartphone. Updates are
frequent, but it's not quite that simple for vehicles.
Mark Wakefield, co-leader of the automotive and industrial practice
at consulting firm AlixPartners, told The New York Times, "The time
window of developing vehicles and putting the hardware into those
vehicles is quite different than for a cellphone. When a vehicle is
done, it's done. Software is never really done."
And as a recent Reuters article points out, software capabilities
are only going to increase in vehicles. "Software is playing an
increasing role in vehicles, from managing electric motors and
batteries to supporting functions such as autonomous driving,
entertainment and navigation."
Also, more and more OEMs may start launching their own software
companies. Toyota plans to have its own operating system in its
vehicles by 2025 and has said it will "in the future" offer it to
its affiliates, including Suburu. Volkswagen is also working on its
own software for release by 2025 as is Mercedes-Benz, which plans
to launch its own operating system by 2024.
Along with the importance of including detailed line notes in
estimates, documenting the entire repair process is of the utmost
importance, according to CollisionAdvice.com CEO Mike Anderson and
Database Enhancement Gateway (DEG) administrator Danny Gredinberg.
In a recent "Quick Tips" video released by the Society of Collision
Repair Specialists (SCRS), Anderson said shops should:
Document unrelated damage to avoid getting blamed for it later;
Take photos of damages, computerized printouts, pre-alignment
specifications, scan reports, OEM owner's manual, and more to prove
the shop's work to get reimbursed by a third-party payer; and Take
photos of calibration procedures out of the ESM, stall preparation,
and vehicle preparation for liability purposes. Gredinberg noted
that some shops also take videos as documentation. [GN]
*********
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 2022. 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 ***