/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220802.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, August 2, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 147
Headlines
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products "Defective," Payton Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Jobes Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: Barnes Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to PFAS, Reinhart Suit Claims
3M COMPANY: Faces Houser Suit Over AFFF Products' PFAS Content
3M COMPANY: Faces Marshman Suit Over AFFF Products' Side Effects
3M COMPANY: Fortunato Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Garner Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Leeds Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Leflore Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Perez Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Schaffer Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Smith Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
AETHON ENERGY: Faces Fay Suit Over Company Men's Unpaid Wages
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Steinmetz Sues Over False Debt Collection Letter
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Class Cert. Bid Referred to Judge Carlson
ALLY FINANCIAL: Faces Grossinger Suit Over Unlawful Mortgage Fees
ANASTASIA BEVERLY: Dorton Sues Over Unwanted Telephonic Sales Calls
ANDOLINI'S PIZZA: Fails to Pay Delivery Drivers' Sufficient Wages
ANDREW CUOMO: Order on Class Cert. Deadlines Entered in M.G. Suit
ARMOS 8 RESTORATION: Lema Sues Over Failure to Pay Carpenters' OT
BAMIA 2: Remand of Johnson Suit to Sacramento Super. Court Denied
BEEKMAN ARMS-DELAMATER: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BIOGEN INC: Elaine Wang Sues Over Dropped of Common Stock Price
BOSTIK INC: Curry FLSA Suit Moved From E.D. Pa. to W.D. Ken.
BROOKSTONE COMPANY: Dicks Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CALIFORNIA: Dismissal of Fernandez Suit With Prejudice Recommended
CALVIN BROADUS: Faces Class Suit Over Sexual Assault, Retaliation
CANADA: Millennium Scoop, Jordan's Principle Class Suits Settled
CAPITAL VISION: Clark Wins Bid to Conditionally Certify Class
CARDINAL LOGISTICS: Nunley FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California
CBS CORP: $14.75MM Class Settlement to be Heard on November 3
CELSIUS NETWORK: Bragar Eagel Reminds of September 13 Deadline
CENTERRA GROUP: 2nd Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Williams
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Hicks Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Ohio
CHENMED LLC: Golden Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls
CHICAGO, IL: Williams Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
CHICK-FIL-A INC: Ortega's Breach & Unjust Enrichment Claims Tossed
CHICO'S FAS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Velazquez Says
CHILO AND CHELA: Vasquez et al. Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CIRCLE MEDICAL: Arevalo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CIRTON INC: Macal Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Cooks
CITIBANK NA: Bjorklund Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
COINBASE GLOBAL: N.D. California Allows Arbitration in Alfia Suit
CONAGRA BRANDS: Securities Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
CONAGRA BRANDS: Securities Suit Over Merger Deal Dismissed
CONAGRA BRANDS: Securities Suit Over Merger Tossed
CONSUMER DIRECT: Miranda Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to W.D. Wash.
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Kertzner Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
DAVE INC: Faces Lopez Suit Over Improper Business Practices
DECKERS OUTDOOR: Hobbs Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DIGITAL TURBINE: Faces Kirshner Class Suit Over Share Price Drop
DIRECT RECOVERY: Bogle Sues Over Unauthorized Debt Collection
DUNCAN BURCH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hernandez Suit Alleges
EMEREST HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Anderson Suit Says
EPOCH TIMES ASSOCIATION: Roberts Files Suit in S.D. Ohio
EQUIFAX INC: Data Breach Suit Settled
EXCELL COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Martinez Claims
FEDERAL SAVINGS: Clotz Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
FLAGSTAR BANK: Faces Cousino Suit Over Cybersecurity Breach
FORD MOTOR: Barnes Consumer Suit Moved From D. Del. to C.D. Cal.
FORUM INVESTORS: Bannerman Sues Over Misleading Proxy Statement
FOX REHABILITATION: Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply in Conner Suit
GAMECHANGER305 LLC: Underpays Nightclub Employees, Branda Claims
GENERAL STORE: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GIFT CRATES: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GRACE PHARMACY: Faces Etminan Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
HOLADOCTOR INC: Faces Nichols Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Bendorfs Sue Over Unsafe, Defective Vehicles
IMPAX LAB: Ct. Approves $33M Settlement in Fleming Class Suit
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Faces Antitrust Suit in California
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit in CA Court
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Kaleida Health Dismissed as Party in Class Suit
IT'S A NEW 10: Faces Class Action Over "Miracle" Hair Shampoo
J. CREW GROUP: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
JAMES PERSE ENTERPRISES: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
JELD-WEN INC: Faulk Consumer Suit Removed to D. Alaska
JENNY YOO COLLECTION: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
JERRY INSURANCE: Faces Hopper Suit Over Telemarketing Campaigns
JILCO INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JPMORGAN CHASE: Santander Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
KENNETH COMPANY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Juarez Suit Alleges
KIWIKO INC: Raslavich Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls
LA MER TECHNOLOGY: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LEMON TREE: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Johnson Suit Moved From M.D. to S.D. Fla.
LIME ROCK: Colton Sues Over Unpaid Statutory Interest to Oil Owners
LIME ROCK: Fails to Properly Pay Mineral Owners, Colton Alleges
LING LTD: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
LOTTE HOTEL: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
LOWE'S HOME: Bartholomew Can't Compel All Privilege Log Documents
MADISON AVENUE: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MARS INC: Faces Class Action Over Toxins in Skittles Candy
MDL 3030: Six Anti-Trust Suits Consolidated in N.D. Ill.
MDL 3031: Three Direct Purchaser Actions Transferred to D. Minn.
MDL 3032: 7 Rodent Infestation Cases Consolidated in W.D. Tenn.
MDL 3033: Panel Denies Centralization of 3 Cases to E.D. Pa.
MDL 3034: 7 Neo Wireless Suits Consolidated in E.D. Mich.
MDL 3035: Five Case Consolidated in W.D. Tenn.
MEDICAL REVIEW: Co-Lead & Liaison Counsel Named in White and Purvis
METRO MAILING SERVICE: Perez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MICHAEL STOCKBRIDGE: Stockbridge Suit Removed to C.D. California
MICHIGAN: Court Dismisses Simpson-Vlach v. MDE Without Prejudice
MICHIGAN: Court Junks Cardello-Smith Class Suit
MIDLAND CREDIT: Bianco Files FDCPA Suit in D. Massachusetts
MILKBREAD LLC: Conner Files ADA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
MISSFRESH LIMITED: Kessler Topaz Announces Securities Fraud Suit
MMS GROUP: Torres Files Suit in S.D. New York
MRS BPO: Sussman Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
MULBERRY AND GRAND: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
MVP EVENT PRODUCTIONS: Youngblood Suit Removed to N.D. Oklahoma
NETGAIN TECHNOLOGY: Xiong Files Suit in D. Minnesota
NEW SOUTH WALES: Hundreds of People Join Class Action v. NSW Police
NEW YORK: Sughrim, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
NISSAN MOTOR: Class Action Suit Over Exploding Sunroofs Certified
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Pascal, et al., Seek to Certify Classes
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Putative Classes
NORDIC ENERGY: Perrong Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
NORTH ATLANTIC: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Kucharczyk Suit Says
NUTS 'N MORE: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
OMNI HOTELS: Fails to Pay Wages for All Time Worked, Aquino Alleges
OSCAR HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over IPO Financial Disclosures
OUTSET MEDICAL: Robbins LLP Reminds Investors of Class Action
OUTSET MEDICAL: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of September 6 Deadline
PACIFIC DECORATIVE: Williams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PEABODY ENERGY: Oregon Public Employees Seek to Certify Class
PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Felipe Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to D. Nev.
PORTSMOUTH REDEVELOPMENT: Fails to Pay Security Officers' Wages
PRINCE GEORGE'S: Frazier Sues Over Unlawful Pretrial Detention
PROFESSIONAL FINANCE: Schroeder Files Suit in D. Colorado
PRYOR INVESTMENTS: Fails to Pay Drivers Legally Mandated Wages
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Aids Facebook to Collect Personal Info
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Pensioners' Suit in New Jersey Court
RADIUS GLOBAL: Fonseca FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
RAUSCH STURM: Stenner Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
RECON OILFIELD: Seeks Extension to File Conditional Cert. Response
REX SIGNATURE: Taylor Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
RHONDA LINDQUIST: Redd's Bid to Proceed in Forma Pauperis OK'd
RICH DOSS: Haynes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ROGERS COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Action Over Network Outage
SACRAMENTO, CA: Garza Bid for Class Certification Tossed
SCHUETTE INC: Faces Alcione Suit Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation
SEALED AIR: UA LOCAL 13, et al., Seek to Certify Class Action
SECURITY PAVING: Uffelman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SEKO WORLDWIDE: Faces Paisley Suit Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
SELECT EMPLOYMENT: Villanueva Seeks to Certify Class Action
SHAUM'S CASABLANCA: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Jones et al. Say
SMILEDIRECTCLUB: Court Won't Review Discovery Denial in Ciccio Suit
SOCLEAN INC: CPAP Cleaning Device Emits Ozone, Clark Suit Alleges
SOUTHCOAST HEALTH: Souza Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
SPA'AH LLC: Wells Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Arkansas
STEMILT AG: Garcia Class Certification Bid Partly OK'd
STEPHEN NG: Ng Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
STUPP BROS: Class Status Deadlines Extended in Stoklosa Suit
SUNFLOW INC: Hobbs Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SWEETIE BOY: Munn Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages for Auto Pilots
T-MOBILE: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $350 Million
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Cert Briefing Extended to August 9
TAMPA FLORIDA: Faces Timber Suit Over Failure to Secure Trailers
TAPPED 1010: Reyes Files Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
TAX AFFAIR: Fails to Pay Premium Overtime Wages, Bopp Suit Alleges
TAX DEFENSE NETWORK: Reimer Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
TERRAFORM LABS: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action
TESLA INC: Securities Suit in Delaware Court Ongoing
TESLA INC: Securities Suits in California Court Ongoing
TG THERAPEUTICS: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of Sept. 16 Deadline
TJB GEARYS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TRANSDEV SERVICES: Ganther Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. Cal.
TRANSPORTATION MARKETING: Nordstedt Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TREK RETAIL: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Green Suit
TRI-COUNTY CONSTRUCTION: Bailey Class Suit Junked
UKG INC: Arpie Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Compromised Employees' Info
UNITED STATES: Gov't. Issues Formal Apology for Anti-Black Racism
UNITED STATES: Murphey Files Suit in D. Arizona
UNITY SOFTWARE: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of September 6 Deadline
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Students Seek to Certify Classes
UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO: More Student-Athletes File Abuse Suit
UPTOWN TAVERN: Fails to Pay Mandated Wages for Restaurant Servers
UTILITY TRAILER: Class Certification Filing Extended to August 26
VALLE DEL SOL: Pineda Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. California
VELEX INC: Jordan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
VIAERO WIRELESS: Fails to Pay Briseno Lawful OT Wages Under FLSA
VIESTE SPE: Crossfirst Bank, et al., File Class Certification Bid
VISION SOLAR: Sego Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: S&C Eliminates 2019 Lawsuit Over Used Cars
WALMART INC: Vazquez Files Suit in S.D. New York
WELLS FARGO: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of August 29 Deadline
WORLD RUGBY: Former Rugby Players File Brain Injury Class Action
WYNDHAM VACATION: Bennett Suit Removed to S.D. California
YEXT INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of August 16 Deadline
YONISKI AMSTERDAM: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Victoriano Claims
YUGA LABS: Scott+Scott Mulls Class Suit Over Inflated Crypto Assets
YUMA REGIONAL MEDICAL: Ashby Files Suit in D. Arizona
YUMA REGIONAL MEDICAL: Ogrady Suit Removed to D. Arizona
ZRS & ASSOCIATES: Fails to Pay Paramedics' OT Wages, Corbell Says
ZYNGA INC: Court Okays Rider to Protective Order in Ferrando Suit
[*] Companies Hit with Class Action Over "Sustainability" Claims
*********
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products "Defective," Payton Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN PAYTON, 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-02334-RMG
(D.S.C., July 20, 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 civilian
firefighters, 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:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Jobes Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
DARRELL JOBES, 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-02314-RMG
(D.S.C., July 19, 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 civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, the suit
alleges.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Barnes Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS BARNES, 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-02331-RMG
(D.S.C., July 20, 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 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 civilian
firefighters, 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:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to PFAS, Reinhart Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS REINHART, 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-02333-RMG
(D.S.C., July 20, 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 civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with bladder cancer, the suit
alleges.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Faces Houser Suit Over AFFF Products' PFAS Content
--------------------------------------------------------------
JACK HOUSER, JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; 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-02362-RMG
(D.S.C., July 21, 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 civilian
firefighters, 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:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Faces Marshman Suit Over AFFF Products' Side Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAN MARSHMAN, 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-02329-RMG
(D.S.C., July 20, 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 civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, the suit
alleges.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Fortunato Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY FORTUNATO, 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-02363-RMG
(D.S.C., July 21, 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 civilian
firefighters, 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 leukemia, the suit alleges.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Garner Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
BOBBY GARNER, 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-02364-RMG
(D.S.C., July 21, 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 civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, the suit
says.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Leeds Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
------------------------------------------------------------
DOUG LEEDS, 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-02328-RMG
(D.S.C., July 20, 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 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 civilian
firefighters, 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:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Leflore Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN LEFLORE, 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-02315-RMG
(D.S.C., July 19, 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 civilian
firefighters, 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:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Perez Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID PEREZ, 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-02330-RMG
(D.S.C., July 20, 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 civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, the suit
alleges.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Schaffer Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID SCHAFFER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AGC, INC.,
f/k/a Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
MANAGEMENT, LLC; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; individually and
as successor-in-interest to Atofina S.A.; BASF CORPORATION,
individually and as successor-in-interest to Ciba Inc.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, individually
and as successor-in-interest to Kidde-Fenwal, Inc.; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to
Sandoz Chemical Corporation; CORTEVA, INC., individually and as
successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise;
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC, f/k/a Dowdupont
Inc., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont
Chemical Solutions Enterprise; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., individually and
as successor-in-interest to Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc.; KIDDE PLC,
INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to
DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC,
individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, individually and as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02313-RMG (D.S.C.,
July 18, 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 actual and constructive fraudulent
transfer.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam 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 civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with kidney cancer, the suit
alleges.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma Management, LLC is a specialty chemicals company
headquartered near Basel, Switzerland.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
BASF Corporation is a multinational chemical company, headquartered
in Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Esq.
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM, P.A.
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 375-0111
E-mail: jferraro@ferrarolaw.com
james@ferrarolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Smith Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
HOLLY SMITH, as Personal Representative/Administrator/Executor of
the Estate of ROBERT WILLIAM VISSAGE, 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-02305-RMG (D.S.C., July 19, 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 personal injury and death of Robert William
Vissage, 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 civilian firefighters, 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 Plaintiff
was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with bladder
cancer. The Decedent's diagnosis caused and/or contributed to his
death, 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
AETHON ENERGY: Faces Fay Suit Over Company Men's Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES FAY, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated
v. AETHON ENERGY OPERATING, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00959-UNA (D.
Del., July 21, 2022) alleges that Aethon does not pay its Company
Men as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, Aethon pays its Company Men a flat
daily rate for all hours worked in a workweek, including those in
excess of 40 in a workweek. Aethon's day rate pay plan violates the
FLSA because the Company Men are owed overtime for hours worked in
excess of 40 in a week at the rate of one-and-one-half times their
regular rates, says the suit.
Plaintiff James Fay brings this action to recover the unpaid
overtime and other damages owed to Aethon's Company Men.
Aethon is an oil & gas management company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Taylor S. Montgomery, 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
tmontgomery@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail :rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
Sue L. Robinson, Esq.
Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
FARNAN LLP
919 North Market St., 12th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 777-0300
Facsimile: (302) 777-0301
E-mail: srobinson@farnanlaw.com
bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Steinmetz Sues Over False Debt Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOEL STEINMETZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIED INTERSTATE LLC and LVNV FUNDING LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 520463/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., July
19, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants sent a debt collection
letter to the Plaintiff with false information. Defendant Allied
stated in its first collection letter that Defendant LVNV Funding
LLC is willing to accept payment in the amount of $0.00 in
resolution of this debt. However, this statement is false because
Defendant LVNV was not willing to accept a zero-dollar payment. In
the second collection letter, Defendant Allied changed the payment
amount and stated LVNV Funding LLC is willing to accept payment in
the amount of $575.73 in resolution of this debt. The Plaintiff
relied on the zero-dollar amount in the first letter to his
detriment. Had the Defendant provided the correct amount in the
first letter, or clearly stated that the first amount was a mistake
in the second letter, the Plaintiff could have paid off his debt in
part or full, says the suit.
Allied Interstate LLC is a debt collector based in New York, New
York.
LVNV Funding LLC is a debt collector based in Albany, New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tamir Saland, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
E-mail: tsaland@steinsakslegal.com
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Class Cert. Bid Referred to Judge Carlson
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMANTHA SAYLES
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:16-cv-01534-MEM (M.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge Malachy E. Mannion entered an order that the motion
to certify class is referred to Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson
for the preparation of a report and recommendation.
The Allstate Corporation is an American insurance company,
headquartered in Northfield Township, Illinois, near Northbrook
since 1967.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JisvnP at no extra charge.[CC]
ALLY FINANCIAL: Faces Grossinger Suit Over Unlawful Mortgage Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KARL GROSSINGER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLY FINANCIAL INC., ALLY BANK, and BETTER
MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-22228 (S.D.
Fla., July 19, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Truth
in Lending Act, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged practice of charging
mortgage borrowers unwarranted fees to complete the loan process.
The Defendants charged the Plaintiff and similarly situated home
loan and refinance borrowers fees to extend their mortgage interest
rate lock periods when the closing process was delayed even though
the borrowers did not cause the delay. The Plaintiff and Class
members seek repayment of all unlawfully charged fees, says the
suit.
Ally Financial Inc. is a financial services company, with its
principal place of business in Detroit, Michigan.
Ally Bank is an online financial services company, headquartered in
Sandy, Utah.
Better Mortgage Corporation is an online mortgage services firm,
headquartered in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marguerite C. Snyder, Esq.
Ronald P. Weil, Esq.
WEIL LAW FIRM, P.A.
201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 720
Miami, FL 33131
E-mail: msnyder@weillawfirm.net
RWeil@weillawfirm.net
- and –
Hirlye R. "Ryan" Lutz, III, Esq.
F. Jerome Tapley, Esq.
CORY WATSON, P.C.
2131 Magnolia Avenue
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-2200
Facsimile: (205) 324-7896
E-mail: rlutz@corywatson.com
jtapley@corywatson.com
ANASTASIA BEVERLY: Dorton Sues Over Unwanted Telephonic Sales Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hope Dorton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Anastasia Beverly Hills, LLC, Case No. 153791641 (Fla.
Cir., Hillsborough Cty., July 21, 2022) contends that the Defendant
promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by placing
unsolicited calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the
Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
The Defendant is a consumer goods retailer. To promote its goods
and services, Defendant engages in telephonic sales calls to
consumers without having secured prior express written consent as
required by the FTSA, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and the Class members have been aggrieved by the
Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct, which adversely affected and
infringed upon their legal rights not to be subjected to the
illegal acts at issue.
The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of
Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons as a class action pursuant to Florida Rule of
Civil Procedure 1.220(b)(2) and (b)(3).
The "Class" that Plaintiff seeks to represent is defined as:
"All persons in the State of Florida who, (1) were sent a
telephonic sales call regarding Defendant’s goods and/or
services, (2) using the same equipment or type of equipment
utilized to call Plaintiff, (3) without "prior
express consent" as defined by Fla. Stat. section
501.059(1)(g),
(4) on or after July 1, 2021."
ABH is an American cosmetics company best known for its eyebrow
products. The company was founded by Romanian-born Anastasia Soare
in 1997 in Beverly Hills, California. Soare's daughter Claudia
Soare, also known as Norvina, is the president of the company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq.
KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A.
2110 West Platt Street
Tampa, FL 33606
Telephone: (813) 422-7782
Facsimile: (813) 422-7783
E-mail: ben@theKRfirm.com
ANDOLINI'S PIZZA: Fails to Pay Delivery Drivers' Sufficient Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER KEELER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. ANDOLINI'S PIZZA & SUBS CORP., Case No.
1:22-cv-00822 (E.D. Va., July 21, 2022) seeks declaratory judgment,
monetary damages, liquidated damages, costs, and a reasonable
attorneys' fee, as a result of Defendant's policy and practice of
failing to pay Plaintiff sufficient wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Virginia Minimum Wage Act.
The Defendant employed Plaintiff as an hourly-paid Delivery Driver
from September of 2021 until January of 2022. The Defendant also
employed other hourly-paid Delivery Drivers within the three years
preceding the filing of this lawsuit.
The Defendant directly hired the Plaintiff and other Delivery
Drivers to work on its behalf, paid them wages and benefits,
controlled their work schedules, duties, protocols, applications,
assignments and employment conditions, and kept at least some
records regarding their employment, says the suit.
The Defendant owns and operates a restaurant in Ashburn.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Krista Sheets, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: krista@sanfordlawfirm.com
ANDREW CUOMO: Order on Class Cert. Deadlines Entered in M.G. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as M.G., et al., v. ANDREW
CUOMO, et al., Case No. 7:19-cv-00639-CS-AEK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Andrew E. Krause entered an order class certification
deadlines as follows:
1. Completion of document production Oct. 13, 2022
for prioritized ESI search
strings for class certification
and updated noncustodial census
documents:
2. The Plaintiffs' motion for class Nov. 17, 2022
certification:
3. The Defendants' opposition to Dec. 22, 2022
Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification:
4. The Plaintiffs' reply in further Jan. 12, 2023
support of their motion for
class certification:
5. Completion of document productions March 13, 2023
and interrogatory responses to
all previously served
discovery requests:
6. Fact depositions completed: June 23, 2023
7. Any further interrogatories June 23, 2023
and requests for production
must be served:
8. Requests to admit must June 23, 2023
be served:
9. Plaintiffs' expert disclosures: July 14, 2023
10. All fact discovery must July 24, 2023
be completed:
11. Defendants' expert Aug. 11, 2023
disclosures:
12. All expert discovery,
including expert depositions: Sept. 29, 2023
13. All discovery must be Sept. 29, 2023
completed:
A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cxVesq at no extra charge.[CC]
ARMOS 8 RESTORATION: Lema Sues Over Failure to Pay Carpenters' OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OLMEDO POMAQUIZA LEMA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARMOS 8 RESTORATION INC. and
ANGELOS BRISNOVALIS, as an individual, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-04195 (E.D.N.Y., July 18, 2022) alleges the Defendants of
egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a carpenter while
performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants from in
or around July 2017 until in or around September 2021.
The Plaintiff claims that throughout his employment with the
Defendants, he regularly worked more than 40 hours per week as
required by the Defendants. However, the Defendants did not pay him
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his
regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek. Instead, he was only paid a flat daily rate without any
overtime compensation. The Defendants also willfully failed to post
notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a
conspicuous place at the location of their employment. In addition,
the Defendants willfully failed to keep payroll records, and
willfully failed to provide the Plaintiff with any wage statements
and with a written notice in accordance with NYLL, says the
Plaintiff.
On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated carpenters,
the Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action seeking
compensatory damages and liquidated damages in an amount exceeding
$100,000.00, as well as statutory interest, attorneys' fees, costs,
and all other legal and equitable remedies that the Court deems
appropriate.
Armos 8 Restoration Inc. provides restoration services. Angelos
Brisnovalis is the owner of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Tel: (718) 263-9591
BAMIA 2: Remand of Johnson Suit to Sacramento Super. Court Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California denies the Plaintiff's motion to
remand the case, Paris Johnson, Plaintiff v. Bamia 2 LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00548-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal.), to the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Sacramento.
Ms. Johnson brought the putative wage-and-hour class action against
her employer, Defendants Reef Global, Inc., Reef Technologies,
Inc., and Bamia 2, in Sacramento County Superior Court. The
Defendants timely removed to the Court, invoking its jurisdiction
under the Class Action Fairness Act.
The Plaintiff worked as a kitchen line cook for the Defendants. She
sued them in February 2022, alleging unfair business practices and
seven violations of the California Labor Code: (1) failure to pay
minimum wage in violation of section 1197 and 1182.12; (2) failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of sections 510 and 1198; (3)
failure to provide meal period premiums in violation of sections
226.7 and 512(a); (4) failure to provide rest break premiums in
violation of section 226.7; (5) failure to provide complete
itemized wage statements in violation of section 226(a); (6)
failure to timely pay wages upon termination in violation of
sections 201 to 203; and (7) failure to reimburse business expenses
in violation of sections 2800 and 2802.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class comprising current and
former non-exempt California employees who worked for defendants
during the four years preceding the filing of the complaint through
the date of the trial.
The Plaintiff has moved to remand, arguing the Defendants failed to
establish the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.
The core dispute is whether the Defendants have sufficiently
supported the assumptions undergirding their amount-in-controversy
calculation. The Defendants calculate the amount in controversy in
three steps. First, Defendant Bamia 2's Senior Human Resources
Manager - West, Amy Johnson, attests to the size of the putative
class and each class member's actual hourly wage, among other
relevant metrics. To generate these numbers, Ms. Johnson reviewed
Bamia 2's records. Second, the Defendants assume a violation rate
of at least two violations per week for both the meal and rest
break claims, totaling four violations per week. They argue the
Plaintiff's allegations could support a violation rate of up to
100%. Third, combining Ms. Johnson's data and their inferred
violation rates, the Defendants calculate the amount in controversy
for each of the Plaintiff's claims. The Defendants' lowest
calculation is $5,037,165.70 and their highest is $5,985,913.56.
The Plaintiff does not offer alternative calculations.
The Defendants initially determined that missed meal and rest
breaks put a total of $1,897,495.70 in controversy. First, because
the Plaintiff does not propose a better or more reasonable
alternative, and the Defendant's approach is reasonable, Judge
Mueller accepts the Defendant's original assumption that all 860
putative class members missed two meal breaks and two rest breaks
per week. Using this estimate, the Defendants calculate that the
Plaintiff's claims for missed meal and rest breaks put
$1,897,495.70 in controversy. They arrive at this figure by
multiplying three numbers together: 25,310 workweeks completed by
class members, four meal and rest violations per week, and the
actual hourly rate of each of those 860 class members.
In connection with the Plaintiff's claims for waiting time and wage
statement penalties, the Defendants assume no terminated employee
was paid in full by the thirty-first day after termination, and all
pay stubs issued during the limitations period contained at least
one error. The Plaintiff does not propose an alternative violation
rate for either claim.
The Defendants generate their estimate for waiting time penalties
-- $2,202,120 -- by multiplying together three numbers: The number
of class members terminated during the limitations period (474), 30
days of penalties for each terminated class member, and the average
daily pay rate of each employee, which is based on each eligible
employee's regular hourly pay rate. They value the Plaintiff's
claim for wage statement penalties at $937,550 by applying the
initial penalty amount ($50) and subsequent penalty amount ($100)
to each eligible putative class member's number of pay period wage
statements (9,730), up to an aggregate penalty of $4,000.
Judge Mueller adopts both figures. Without needing to reach the
Plaintiff's remaining claims for attorneys' fees, unreimbursed
business expenses, and failure to timely pay minimum wage or
overtime, she finds that the Defendants have shown it is more
likely than not that more than $5 million is in controversy. Her
Order resolves ECF No. 7.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 22, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/hmvxyw6j from Leagle.com.
BEEKMAN ARMS-DELAMATER: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beekman
Arms-Delamater Inn, Inc. The case is styled as Leshawn Young, on
behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v.
Beekman Arms-Delamater Inn, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06209 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 21, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Beekman Arms -- https://www.beekmandelamaterinn.com/ -- is
America's oldest continuously operated hotel located in the center
of the Village of Rhinebeck in the historic Hudson Valley.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
BIOGEN INC: Elaine Wang Sues Over Dropped of Common Stock Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
ELAINE WANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MICHEL VOUNATSOS, STELIOS PAPADOPOULOS,
ALEXANDER J. DENNER, CAROLINE D. DORSA, MARIA C. FREIRE, WILLIAM A.
HAWKINS, WILLIAM D. JONES, JESUS B. MANTAS, RICHARD C. MULLIGAN,
ERICK K. ROWINSKY, STEPHEN A. SHERWIN, NANCY L. LEAMING, and BRIAN
S. POSNER, Defendants, and BIOGEN INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-11180 (D. Mass., July 21, 2022) is a shareholder derivative
action against the Defendants for violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding
and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of
corporate assets.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made false and
misleading statements regarding Aduhelm, Biogen's developed
treatment for Alzheimer's disease, in order to trade Biogen
securities at artificially inflated prices between June 7, 2021 and
January 11, 2022. Specifically, the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, or omitted material facts, concerning: (i)
the number of sites ready to administer Aduhelm in the near-term;
(ii) the significance of logistical constraints on diagnosing
potential patients; (iii) the degree to which Medicare's coverage
of the treatment was independent of the Food and Drug
Administration's (FDA) approval of the treatment, and not
"automatically presumed" following approval; (iv) the willingness
of third-party payors to cover Aduhelm absent peer-reviewed data
supporting the treatment's clinical effectiveness; and (v) the
Veterans Health Administration's willingness and capacity to cover
and administer Aduhelm for its beneficiaries. When the truth
emerged, the company's common stock price fell $16.18 per share to
a price of $225 per share at market close on January 12, 2022. As a
result of the Defendants' wrongful conduct, the company has
suffered significant damages, alleges the suit.
Biogen Inc. is a global biopharmaceutical company headquartered in
Cambridge, Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq.
MATORIN LAW OFFICE, LLC
18 Grove Street, Suite 5
Wellesley, MA 02482
Telephone: (781) 453-0100
E-mail: mmatorin@matorinlaw.com
- and –
Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
Vincent A. Licata, Esq.
RIGRODSKY LAW, P.A.
825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 683-3516
E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
tjm@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
vl@rl-legal.com
- and –
Gloria Kui Melwani, Esq.
MELWANI & CHAN LLP
1180 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 382-4620
E-mail: gloria@melwanichan.com
BOSTIK INC: Curry FLSA Suit Moved From E.D. Pa. to W.D. Ken.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSHUA CURRY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BOSTIK, INC. and ARKEMA INC., Case No.
2:22-cv-02417, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky on July 19, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Kentucky assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-00370-DJH to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Kentucky Wages and Hours Act.
Bostik, Inc. is a specialty chemicals and advanced materials
company, with a principal place of business at 900 First Avenue,
King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Arkema Inc. is a specialty chemicals and advanced materials
company, with a principal place of business at 900 First Avenue,
King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
Liberato P. Verderame, Esq.
Shoshana Savett, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S. State Street, Suite N-300
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (215) 867-2399
E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com
lverderame@edelson-law.com
ssavett@edelson-law.com
BROOKSTONE COMPANY: Dicks Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brookstone Company,
Inc. The case is styled as Victoria Dicks, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Brookstone Company, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-06188-JGK (S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Brookstone -- https://www.brookstone.com/ -- is a chain of retail
stores in the United States and China.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail
CALIFORNIA: Dismissal of Fernandez Suit With Prejudice Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRANDON ALEXANDER FERNANDEZ, Plaintiff v. GAMBOA, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01748-JLT-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California recommends that the
Plaintiff's first amended complaint be dismissed with prejudice for
failure to state a claim.
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against an
officer or employee of a governmental entity.
Plaintiff Fernandez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis in the civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983. He is currently housed at California State Prison, Corcoran
in Corcoran, California. The events in the first amended complaint
are alleged to have occurred while Plaintiff was housed at Avenal
State Prison in Avenal, California, and continued after his
transfer to the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility
("SATF") in Corcoran, California.
The Plaintiff purports to bring suit on behalf of himself and Doe
Plaintiffs, who are inmates who may be incapacitated at this time
by COVID-19, inmates who cannot legally defend themselves due to
current isolation, inmates who have died from COVID-19, any and all
inmates who have contracted COVID-19 while in custody, all inmates
who are currently at risk of COVID-19, inmates who may be under
duress at this time and afraid to participate due to fears of
retaliation by defendants, and inmates who Plaintiff cannot
physically contact because of the prison lockdown status and
physical separation issues.
The Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) Gavin Newsom,
Governor; (2) Kathleen Allison, Secretary CDCR; (3) Ralph Diaz,
Former Secretary CDCR; (4) Martin Gamboa, Warden Avenal State
Prison; (5) Theresa Cisneros, Warden SATF Corcoran; and (6)
Rosemary Ndoh, Former Warden Avenal State Prison. All defendants
are sued in their official and individual capacities. He alleges
that all the Defendants acted in concert and every defendant in the
suit personally knew of the risks and individually chose to violate
his rights, and he is not bringing a claim of supervisory liability
as to each defendant.
On April 21, 2020, the Plaintiffs, along with other inmates, filed
an emergency administrative 602 appeal regarding the Defendants'
illegal actions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The 602
appeal requested immediate release of the Plaintiff(s) to reduce
the population below 100% of capacity and cease the response of
mandatory "8 man cohorting" that CDCR had implemented as a
procedure on the Plaintiff, against Center of Disease Control
recommendations to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in dorms.
At the time of the 602 appeal, zero cases of COVID-19 were present
at the facility where the Plaintiff was housed. All the Defendants
acted in concert to bypass the CDC recommendations of a 50%
reduction of dorms to "4 man or less cohorts" and instead increased
the population density, thus overcrowding the dorms and increasing
the fuel to spread, and they knew the risks of doing this.
The Plaintiff alleges that overcrowding is the proximate cause of
the state and constitutional law violations, and combined with "8
man cohorts" increasing population density within dorms, caused the
spread of the virus and made the virus unmanageable within the
prison system. CDCR has also experienced massive staff shortages,
further compounding the inability to safely care for the
overcrowded inmate population. If the inmate population was at 50%
of its current population, they would have enough staff to manage
the yards safely.
The Plaintiff contends that CDCR intentionally overcrowded the
dorms of not only Avenal, but other CDCR dorm facilities as well,
knowing that the risks of doing so would accelerate the spread of
COVID-19 and would place him in the path of harm. He was in fact
later harmed by these conditions, that were not part of normal
prison hardships, and these "8 man cohorts" were intentionally
created and implemented by Defendants, completely outside the
recommendations of the CDC, science, doctors, and scientists.
Combined with the Plaintiff's right to be free from infectious
diseases, the Defendants deprived him of his constitutional right
and ability to defend himself from the COVID-19 virus because he
was unable to socially distance from sick inmates.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to act
responsibly, and each Defendant had the opportunity and the legal
authority to release and reduce inmates under emergency legal
provisions defined in California Law (Cal. Gov. Code Section 8658)
to reduce the population either by transfers or a prison release
order pursuant to the CDC recommended levels of inmates per
dorm/cell/housing configurations, and they intentionally did not do
so. Each Defendant is and was fully aware of the devastation that
would be caused by this highly contagious and aggressive virus.
They were warned by CDC experts, medical professionals, and
scientists, and other litigation efforts, of what would happen if
Defendants did not take preventative measures to reduce and release
the inmate population. They have consistently lied and claimed they
are doing everything in their power to protect inmates, except the
one thing they should have done from the start of the global
pandemic, which is to reduce the prison population to avoid the
exact catastrophe that continues to unfold.
The Plaintiff was infected by COVID-19 due to the Defendants'
actions and inactions, which caused him to be placed in "8 man
double bunk cohorts" that increased the population density at
institutions and increased the spread of disease. He is now highly
concerned about being reinfected with a new variant of COVID-19 due
to the continued living conditions that caused him to be harmed in
the first place. He is still suffering from CDCR lockdowns, which
are affecting his mental and physical health and subjecting
Plaintiff to dangerous living conditions. The Plaintiff was
transferred to SATF, where the exact same conditions have happened,
resulting in a second outbreak of the omicron variant of COVID-19.
He was never tested during the mass outbreak at SATF. Many inmates
have already suffered COVID-19 infection or reinfection, and these
plaintiffs deserve priority remedies asked for in this suit. This
should also apply to any inmates who are injured after as well.
Some plaintiffs have not yet contracted COVID-19, and almost all
inmates are still in dangerous 8 man cohort living conditions
forced by Defendants.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants used COVID-19 as an excuse to
shuffle bodies and compact more people per housing unit than was
recommended by the CDC. CDCR staff is a virus vector for bringing
the disease into the prison. Defendants ignored scientific evidence
and recommendations by the CDC and chose their own methods to
control the virus. Defendants ordered Plaintiff to double bunk,
living in 8 man cohorts per dorm, giving Plaintiff zero chance to
social distance from any single person and forced Plaintiff to
breathe the same air as contaminated persons. They were told to
make them "4 man or less cohorts" and instead made them "8 man
cohorts," increasing population density, and they knew beyond all
doubt it would accelerate the spread of the virus.
The Plaintiff requests the following relief: (1) appointment of
counsel; (2) a jury trial; (3) costs of suit or attorneys fees; (4)
further damages; (5) a Court order for a 50% population cap to
address the issue of overcrowding; (6) priority early release or
release of inmates past their MEPD; (7) priority release for
Plaintiff; and (8) compensatory damages.
Judge McAuliffe holds that the Plaintiff's first amended complaint
fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and fails to
state a cognizable claim for relief. Despite being provided with
the relevant pleading and legal standards, the Plaintiff has been
unable to cure the identified deficiencies.
Appointment of Counsel
As the Plaintiff was previously informed, he does not have a
constitutional right to appointed counsel in the action, and the
Court cannot require an attorney to represent him. However, in
certain exceptional circumstances, the Court may request the
voluntary assistance of counsel.
Judge McAuliffe has considered the Plaintiff's request, but does
not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it is
assumed that he is not well versed in the law and that he has made
serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief,
his case is not exceptional. The Court is faced with similar cases
filed by prisoners with limited access to a law library almost
daily. These prisoners also must conduct legal research and
prosecute claims without the assistance of counsel.
Furthermore, at this stage in the proceedings, Judge McAuliffe
cannot make a determination that the Plaintiff is likely to succeed
on the merits. The Plaintiff's first amended complaint fails to
state a cognizable claim for relief. Finally, based on a review of
the record in the case, Judge McAuliffe does not find that the
Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his purported claims.
Plaintiff Cannot Represent Other Inmates
Insofar as the Plaintiff is attempting to assert claims on behalf
of other inmates, he may not do so, Judge McAuliffe finds. She
says, the Plaintiff may only represent his own legal interests; he
may not represent the legal interests of other inmates or other
individuals. A litigant appearing in propria persona has no
authority to represent anyone other than himself in a civil rights
action. For these reasons, the Court construes the action as an
individual civil rights suit brought by the Plaintiff alone.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
Judge McAuliffe finds that the Plaintiff's complaint is neither
short nor a plain statement of his claims. She finds that most of
his allegations are vague and conclusory statements that do not
contain enough factual details to permit the Court to draw the
reasonable inference that any named Defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged. He may not simply recite the elements of
various causes of action without supporting factual allegations, or
state in a conclusory fashion that his rights were violated. The
Plaintiff fails to include factual allegations identifying what
happened, which the Defendant was involved, and how the actions or
inactions of each Defendant violated his rights.
Linkage
The Plaintiff's first amended complaint again lumps all Defendants
into all of the allegations. While the Plaintiff attempts to allege
that each and every Defendant knew certain information or acted
intentionally with respect to the allegations in the first amended
complaint, Judge McAuliffe says these conclusory allegations are
insufficient to link any named Defendant to any actions or
omissions that may have violated the Plaintiff's rights.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20
The Plaintiff raises new claims that allegedly occurred after his
transfer from Avenal to SATF, and adds Theresa Cisneros, Warden of
SATF as a named defendant.
However, Judge McAullife holds that the Plaintiff may not bring
unrelated claims against unrelated parties in a single action. He
may not raise different claims against different defendants from
different institutions in a single action. Even if all of the
Plaintiff's allegations are based on the same type of
constitutional violation, this does not necessarily make the claims
related for purposes of Rule 18(a). Although the Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendants all acted in concert, his allegations span a
period of time where he was housed at two different institutions,
under the purview of at least two different Wardens. Judge
McAuliffe therefore concludes that the Plaintiff has provided only
conclusory allegations that the conditions he faced at each
institution were a result of a coordinated or related effort by
some or all of the Defendants.
Supervisory Liability
To the extent the Plaintiff seeks to hold any Defendant liable
based solely upon their supervisory role, Judge McAuliffe rules he
may not do so as liability may not be imposed on supervisory
personnel for the actions or omissions of their subordinates under
the theory of respondeat superior. It remains unclear what conduct
he alleges that any Defendant engaged in that violated his
constitutional rights. The Plaintiff has failed to allege direct
participation in the alleged violations. He has failed to allege
facts demonstrating that any policy is itself a repudiation of his
constitutional rights. Thus, the Plaintiff has not sufficiently
pled a cognizable claim of supervisory liability based on a
constitutionally deficient policy.
Habeas Corpus - Early Release
The Plaintiff seeks, among other relief, his early release.
To the extent that the Plaintiff is attempting to challenge the
validity of his conviction and his incarceration, the exclusive
method for asserting that challenge is by filing a petition for
writ of habeas corpus, Judge McAuliffe explains. She says, it has
long been established that state prisoners cannot challenge the
fact or duration of their confinement in a section 1983 action, and
that their sole remedy lies in habeas corpus relief.
Eighth Amendment - Deliberate Indifference
to Conditions of Confinement
The Plaintiff is attempting to bring a conditions of confinement
claim regarding the spread of COVID-19 due to overcrowded
conditions and movement of inmates. He does not allege that he is
challenging any medical care provided.
Judge McAuliffe holds that supervisor liability is insufficient to
state a cognizable claim against the Defendants. She is not
discounting the Plaintiff's concerns about contracting COVID-19.
His concerns are valid and significant. However, the allegations in
the complaint do not suggest that Defendants disregarded the risk
Plaintiff faced. Accordingly, he fails to state a claim against
them.
Injunctive Relief
The Plaintiff requests the Court orders a population cap of 50% of
capacity at every yard and institution at which he (and other
similarly situated inmates) is housed within CDCR, early release
for certain categories of inmates, and his priority release.
Insofar as the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against officials
at Avenal, Judge McAuliffe states that any such request is now moot
because the Plaintiff is no longer housed at that facility. The
injunctive relief sought in the action is not narrowly drawn, and
appears to extend much further than necessary to correct the harm
identified, particularly as it applies to institutions where the
Plaintiff is not housed and to inmates who are not parties to the
action.
Findings & Recommendations
Judge McAuliffe finds that the Plaintiff has failed to state a
cognizable claim for relief. Despite being provided with the
relevant legal standards, the Plaintiff has been unable to cure the
deficiencies in his complaint. Further leave to amend is not
warranted. Accordingly, she recommends that the action be dismissed
for failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be
granted.
These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United
States District Judge assigned to the case. Within 14 days after
being served with these Findings and Recommendation, the Plaintiff
may file written objections with the Court. The document should be
captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and
Recommendation." The Plaintiff is advised that failure to file
objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of
the "right to challenge the magistrate's factual findings" on
appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 22, 2022 Findings &
Recommendations is available at https://tinyurl.com/3a3483j5 from
Leagle.com.
CALVIN BROADUS: Faces Class Suit Over Sexual Assault, Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CALVIN BROADUS a/k/a SNOOP DOGG and DONALD CAMPBELL
a/k/a BISHOP DON MAGIC JUAN, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-04952
(C.D. Cal., July 20, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for violation of Trafficking Victims Protection Act; conspiracy;
sexual battery; sexual assault; violation of the Tom Bane Civil
Rights Act; defamation; false light; intentional infliction of
emotional distress; negligent infliction of emotional distress;
unlawful retaliation in violation of the California Labor Code; and
harassment, aiding, and abetting in violation of California
Government Code.
According to the complaint, Defendant Snoop Dogg has been engaged
in a pattern and practice of sexually assaulting women, threatening
women, and retaliating against those who oppose unlawful behavior.
Defendant Snoop Dogg allegedly sexually harassed, sexually
assaulted, and sexually battered the Plaintiff. As a result of the
Defendants' discriminatory and intolerable treatment of the
Plaintiff, she has suffered anxiety, stress, depression,
nightmares, sleep disturbances, post-traumatic stress, headaches,
severe emotional distress and physical ailments, says the
suit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matt E.O. Finkelberg, Esq.
DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, LLP
633 West 5th Street, Suite 3250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (310) 602-6050
Facsimile: (310) 602-6350
E-mail: matt@dereksmithlaw.com
CANADA: Millennium Scoop, Jordan's Principle Class Suits Settled
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Law Group is representing Victims in the claims process
who form a part of the class of First Nations Youth Millennium
Scoop and Jordan's Principle class action settlement.
Two class actions have been settled with the Government of Canada
alleging systemic discrimination in the government's funding and
provision of child and family, and other services dating back to
1991.
By signing up with CLG you're assured that someone from our team
will be assigned to your file. They will reach out and guide you
through the claims process every step of the way, filling out the
proper documentation and ensuring that your claim is valid and
complete. CLG will make every effort to guarantee that you are
properly compensated and are being treated fairly by the claims
administrator.
The Agreement in principle provides for 20 billion dollars to
hundreds of thousands of First Nations children and family members,
comprised of the following groups who may be entitled to
compensation:
-- Children living on reserves or in the Yukon who were removed
from their homes and placed in out-of-home care at any time from
April 1, 1991 to the present.
-- Children who suffered discrimination by being deprived of
timely essential public services and products due to the
Government's failure to respect a child-first principle now known
as "Jordan's Principle". These children suffered denials, delays or
gaps in obtaining essential public services or products from April
1, 1991 to November 2, 2017. Jordan's Principle is named after
Jordan River Anderson, who passed away in hospital in 2005 while
the federal and provincial governments disputed over who should pay
for his care in home.
-- Certain primary caregivers of the children described above.
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found Canada's widespread
underfunding, resulting in the removal of First Nations children
living on reserves from their homes, to be willful discrimination
that warrants substantial compensation to each child and their
primary caregivers from 2006 until the present. The Tribunal also
found Canada's breach of its duties under Jordan's Principle to be
willful discrimination warranting compensation to each affected
child and their families from 2007 until 2017. Canada's application
to the Federal Court earlier this year in which it sought to
challenge the compensation component of those findings was
unsuccessful.
If you or any First Nations individual that you know are a part of
any of the above-mentioned groups, please register on our website
here to receive further information. If you have already registered
on our website and wish to contact us for further information,
please send an email to firstnationsyouth@clg.org or call
1-888-909-7863. [GN]
CAPITAL VISION: Clark Wins Bid to Conditionally Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARY ALICE CLARK, CHRISTOPHER COULTER, AARON PEREZ and
KEVIN NELSON, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAPITAL VISION SERVICES, LLC
d/b/a MyEyeDr, Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-10236-DJC (D. Mass.),
Judge Denise J. Carper of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts allows the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification.
The Named Plaintiffs, along with the 17 opt-in Plaintiffs, bring
the putative collective action against Defendant MyEyeDr alleging
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et
seq., Massachusetts wage laws, Mass. Gen. L. c. 151, Sections 1A
and 1B, and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968, 43 Pa. Stat.
Section 333.101 et seq.
MyEyeDr owns and operates over 500 optical stores across the United
States. The Plaintiffs formerly worked as General Managers at 49
MyEyeDr locations across nine states. Seven of them also worked as
General Managers in Training across five states. During the
relevant period, MyEyeDr uniformly classified all GMITs and GMs as
exempt, paid all GMITs and GMs a purported salary, and did not pay
GMITs and GMs overtime compensation for working more than forty
hours per week.
The Plaintiffs commenced the action on Feb. 11, 2022, and later
filed an amended complaint. They have moved to certify a collective
action conditionally pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). Judge
Casper heard the parties on the pending motion and took the matter
under advisement.
The Plaintiffs request the Court conditionally certifies the
following collectives:
a. Putative FLSA GM Collective: All current and former
employees with the title General Manager (GMs) employed by Capital
Vision Services, LLC d/b/a MyEyeDr (MyEyeDr or Defendant) at any of
Defendant's retail locations in the United States at any time on or
after Feb. 11, 2019.
b. Putative FLSA GMIT Collective: All current and former GMs
who were hired from outside of MyEyeDr, and spent a week or more
in-store training (hereafter referred to as General Managers In
Training or GMITs), employed by MyEyeDr at any of MyEyeDr's retail
locations in the United States at any time on or after Feb. 11,
2019.
MyEyeDr argues that an alleged blanket misclassification of
employees with certain job titles is insufficient as a matter of
law to establish a common unlawful policy to support that such
employees were "similarly situated." It also argues that
conditional certification should be denied because the Court will
need to make individualized determinations as to whether and which
FLSA exemptions or exceptions will apply to each Plaintiff.
Judge Casper holds that even assuming that uniform
misclassification of a discrete class were insufficient to satisfy
the showing that the purported class is "similarly situated," the
Plaintiffs have made a greater showing here regarding same,
specifically by demonstrating similarity in their duties,
responsibilities and experiences as GMs. Their showing meets the
low standard to provide "some factual support" that the proposed
collectives are similarly situated.
MyEyeDr also argues that, even if the Court allows the Plaintiffs'
conditional certification motion, it should limit who may join the
collectives. First, it asserts that "the collectives should not
include any employees who never worked more than 40 hours during
the relevant period." Second, it contends that the Court should at
most allow the Plaintiffs to send notices to employees who worked
within three years of the date of the conditional certification
order or else individuals with no timely claims may join, only to
be immediately dismissed.
Judge Casper finds that there is no reliable way to determine from
MyEyeDr's records which GMs worked more than 40 hours in a
workweek. Accordingly, she does not limit the collectives based
upon hours worked per week as proposed by MyEyeDr. She also finds
that courts commonly use the date of the filing of the complaint to
calculate the relevant period. Accordingly, Judge Casper
conditionally certifies the collectives as requested by the
Plaintiffs.
In addition to seeking conditional certification, the Plaintiffs
seek approval of their proposed procedures for notifying the
collective, and consenting to join the collective action. They also
request that notice be sent to each potential collective member by
first-class mail, email and text message. They, further, ask that
the Court allows the consent to join form to be signed through a
website maintained by their counsel or a third-party notice
administrator. Finally, they ask that the Court orders MyEyeDr to
disclose "the names, job titles, employee-identification numbers,
dates of employment, last known mailing addresses, last known
personal e-mail addresses, last known phone numbers, and work
locations for the conditionally certified collective-action
members" to their counsel within 10 business days of the Court's
Order.
MyEyeDr challenges the content of proposed notice. First, it
contends that the notice should include the following language:
"Individuals who join this action will assume the role of parties
to the litigation, which comes with obligations and risks. If you
join the case, you may be asked to provide relevant documents,
respond to written questions, and provide testimony under oath at a
deposition, which may take place in Boston, Massachusetts. You may
also be required to attend and testify at the trial of this matter
in Boston. In addition, you will be required to preserve and
produce evidence including, but not limited to, your social media
accounts for the relevant time period, potentially at your own
expense." Second, it proposes to include language about potential
claim preclusion of state law claims, citing a recent case from the
Supreme Judicial Court.
Judge Casper authorizes the content of the notice as proposed by
the Plaintiffs, with the addition of the following language
regarding potential discovery and trial obligations. "If you opt
into this suit, there is some possibility that you may be required
to provide sworn written answers to questions, documents in
support, and/or sworn testimony in person or by remote
(videoconferencing) means."
Judge Casper also grants the Plaintiffs' proposed method of notice
by first-class mail, email and text message and authorizes one
reminder notice to be sent by the same methods half-way through the
notice period to those potential opt-in Plaintiffs who have not yet
returned signed consent to join forms. And, because MyEyeDr does
not oppose the Plaintiffs' proposed consent to join form, she
allows the consent to join form to be signed through a website
maintained by the Plaintiffs' counsel or a third-party notice
administrator, or the Plaintiffs' request for disclosure of
information regarding the potential opt-in Plaintiffs within 10
business days of the Court's order.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 22, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yytnc8yx from Leagle.com.
CARDINAL LOGISTICS: Nunley FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TONY NUNLEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CARDINAL LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION and ROBERT SHEERIN, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. CIVSB2210430, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on July 19, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:22-cv-01255 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, the California Investigative Consumer
Reporting Agencies Act, and the California Consumer Credit
Reporting Agencies Act by allegedly not providing legally compliant
disclosure and authorization forms to the Plaintiff as part of the
employment application process.
Cardinal Logistics Management Corporation is a logistics provider,
with its principal place of business in Concord, North Carolina.
[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Drew R. Hansen, Esq.
Pavneet Singh Mac, Esq.
J. Randall Boyer, Esq.
NOSSAMAN LLP
18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1800
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 833-7800
Facsimile: (949) 833-7878
E-mail: dhansen@nossaman.com
pmac@nossaman.com
rboyer@nossaman.com
CBS CORP: $14.75MM Class Settlement to be Heard on November 3
-------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP regarding the CBS Securities Settlement:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CONSTRUCTION LABORERS PENSION
TRUST FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,
GENE SAMIT and JOHN LANTZ,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CBS CORPORATION and LESLIE MOONVES,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-07796-VEC
(Consolidated)
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED CBS CORPORATION
N/K/A PARAMOUNT GLOBAL ("CBS") CLASS B COMMON STOCK DURING THE
PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 29, 2017 AND JULY 27, 2018, INCLUSIVE
("SETTLEMENT CLASS" OR "SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS")
THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION.
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on November 3,
2022, at 2:30 p.m., before the Honorable Valerie E. Caproni at the
United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square,
Courtroom 443, New York, NY 10007 to determine whether: (1) the
proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the above-captioned
Action as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
("Stipulation")^1 for $14,750,000 in cash should be approved by the
Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) the Judgment as
provided under the Stipulation should be entered dismissing the
Action with prejudice; (3) to award Lead Plaintiff's Counsel
attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined
in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action
("Notice"), which is discussed below) and, if so, in what amount;
(4) to pay Lead Plaintiff for its costs and expenses in
representing the Settlement Class out of the Settlement Fund and,
if so, in what amount; and (5) the Plan of Allocation should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate.
The outbreak of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) is a fluid situation
that creates the possibility that the Court may decide to conduct
the Final Approval Hearing by video or telephonic conference, or
otherwise allow Settlement Class Members to appear at the hearing
by phone, without further written notice to the Settlement Class.
In order to determine whether the date and time of the Final
Approval Hearing have changed, or whether Settlement Class Members
must or may participate by phone or video, it is important that you
monitor the Court's docket and the Settlement website,
www.CBSSecuritiesSettlement.com, before making any plans to attend
the Final Approval Hearing. Any updates regarding the Final
Approval Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the
hearing or updates regarding in-person or telephonic appearances at
the hearing, will also be posted to the Settlement website,
www.CBSSecuritiesSettlement.com. Also, if the Court requires or
allows Settlement Class Members to participate in the Final
Approval Hearing by telephone, the phone number for accessing the
telephonic conference will be posted to the Settlement website,
www.CBSSecuritiesSettlement.com.
IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED CBS CLASS B COMMON STOCK FROM NOVEMBER
29, 2017 THROUGH JULY 27, 2018, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS ARE AFFECTED
BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION.
To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than September
19, 2022) or electronically (no later than September 19, 2022).
Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by September 19, 2022,
will subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving
any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this
Action. If you purchased or acquired CBS Class B common stock from
November 29, 2017 through July 27, 2018, inclusive, and do not
request exclusion from the Settlement Class, you will be bound by
the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Action,
including, but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you
submit a Proof of Claim.
If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more
completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder
(including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of
Claim, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the
Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for
the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other settlement
documents, online at www.CBSSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by writing
to:
CBS Securities Settlement
Claims Administrator
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box 8040
San Rafael, CA 94912-8040
Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of
Claim, may be
made to Lead Counsel:
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Shareholder Relations Department
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 1-800-449-4900
settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com
IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOU MUST
SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY
SEPTEMBER 19, 2022, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.
ALL SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN
IF THEY DO NOT SUBMIT A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM.
IF YOU ARE A SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT
TO THE SETTLEMENT THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY LEAD
PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES NOT TO EXCEED
25% OF THE $14,750,000 SETTLEMENT AMOUNT AND EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED
$500,000, PLUS INTEREST, AND/OR THE PAYMENT TO LEAD PLAINTIFF FOR
ITS COSTS AND EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $22,500. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST
BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO LEAD COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS'
COUNSEL BY SEPTEMBER 19, 2022, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN
THE NOTICE.
Dated: May 13, 2022
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Contact:
Media:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
Shareholder Relations Department
Greg Wood
(619) 231-1058
CELSIUS NETWORK: Bragar Eagel Reminds of September 13 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, on July 24 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Celsius Network LLC, Celsius Lending LLC,
Celsius KeyFi LLC, Alexander Mashinsky, Shlomi Leon, David Base,
and Alan Jeffrey Carr in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Celsius securities between February
9, 2018 and July 13, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Investors have until September 13, 2022 to apply to the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Celsius is a financial services company that generates revenue
through cryptocurrency trading, lending, and borrowing, the sale of
its unregistered securities, as well as engaging in proprietary
trading.
The price of CEL Tokens went from a high of $7.73 on June 3, 2021,
to a low of $0.28 just over a year later on June 12, 2021, in the
wake of the June Crisis and Celsius freezing its investors
accounts.
The complaint alleges that Defendants violated provisions of the
Exchange Act by carrying out a plan, scheme, and course of conduct
that Celsius intended to and did deceive retail investors and
thereby caused them to purchase Celsius Financial Products at
artificially inflated prices; endorsed false statements they knew
or recklessly should have known were materially misleading, and
made untrue statements of material fact and omitted to state
material facts necessary to make the statements made not
misleading.
The complaint further alleges that Celsius and its affiliates,
along with the Individual Defendants, also violated provisions of
the Securities Act by selling non-exempt securities without
registering it. The complaint alleges that Celsius and Individual
Defendants violated provisions of the Securities Act by also
participating in Celsius' failure to register the Celsius Financial
Products. The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated
provisions of the New Jersey Common Law by possessing the monetary
value of Celsius Financial Products of inflated value which
rightfully belongs to the Plaintiff and members of the Class.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Celsius shares and suffered
a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by
email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or
by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contacts:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
CENTERRA GROUP: 2nd Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Williams
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWN WILLIAMS, et al., v.
CENTERRA GROUP, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-04220-SAL (D.S.C.), the
Hon. Judge Sherri A. Lydon entered a second amended scheduling
order as follows:
-- Initial expert disclosures: February 28, 2023
-- Responsive expert disclosures: April 14, 2023
-- Fact discovery shall be January 18, 2023
completed no later than:
-- Expert discovery shall be June 1, 2023
completed no later than:
-- The Plaintiffs shall file January 25, 2023
their motion for class
certification no later than:
-- The Defendants shall file March 23, 2023
their response in opposition
to class certification
no later than:
-- All dispositive motions shall July 17, 2023
be filed on or before:
-- Mediation shall be completed February 6, 2023
in this case on or before:
Centerra is the world's leading international Government solutions
group, specializing in business processes in sectors where security
and safety risks are considered a strategic threat.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Biinti at no extra charge.[CC]
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Hicks Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Charter
Communications, Inc., et al. The case is styled as David K. Hicks,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Charter Communications, Inc. doing business as: Spectrum, John Does
1-10, Case No. 3:22-cv-00195-MJN-PBS (S.D. Ohio, July 21, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Charter Communications, Inc. -- http://corporate.charter.com/-- is
an American telecommunications and mass media company with services
branded as Spectrum.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Lawrence Hilton, Esq.
HILTON PARKER LLC
7544 Slate Ridge Blvd.
Reynoldsburg, OH 43068
Phone: (513) 519-1031
Email: jhilton@hiltonparker.com
CHENMED LLC: Golden Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANN GOLDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHENMED, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 153647225
(Fla. 13th Jud. Cir. Ct., July 19, 2022) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations
of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has been engaging in
telephonic sales calls to consumer in an attempt to promote its
goods and services. The Plaintiff claims that she received a
telephonic sales call from the Defendant to her telephone number
ending in 7634 on or after July 1, 2021 without her prior express
written consent. The Defendant allegedly used an automated system
in sending its telephonic sales calls for the selection or dialing
of telephone numbers or the playing of a recorded message when a
connection is completed. In addition, the Defendant has caused
similar telephonic sales calls to be sent to other individuals
without obtaining their prior express written consent to receive
such calls, says the suit.
Consequently, the Defendant's unsolicited telephonic sales calls
have caused harm to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
individuals. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks to recover statutory damages
from the Defendant for herself and all other similarly situated
individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks an injunction requiring the
Defendant to cease all telephonic sales calls made without express
written consent, as well as an award of reasonable attorney's fees
and court costs, and other relief as the Court deems necessary.
ChenMed, LLC provides healthcare. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq.
KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A.
2110 West Platt Street
Tampa, FL 33606
Tel: (813) 422-7782
Fax: (813) 422-7783
E-mail: ben@theKRfirm.com
CHICAGO, IL: Williams Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City Of Chicago, et
al. The case is styled as Michael Williams, Lucy Parsons Labs,
Daniel Ortiz, on behalf of themselves and a class of
similarly-situated people v. City Of Chicago, David O'Neal Brown,
in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Chicago Police
Department, Nicholas Evangelides, Dale Potter, Jr., Michael
Kociolek, Scott Reiff, Brian Roney, Juan Perez, Mark LaPadula,
Scott Brownley, Joseph Merkel, Carol Maresso, Nestor De Jesus,
Salvatore Aloisio, Robert Costello, Michael Dougherty, David
Magana, Eduardo Almanza, Harsimran Powar, Michael Matias, Arthur
Harb, Mark Flechsig, in their individual capacities, Case No.
1:22-cv-03773 (N.D. Ill., July 21, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights
Act.
Chicago -- https://www.chicago.gov/ -- on Lake Michigan in
Illinois, is among the largest cities in the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Matthew Manes, Esq.
RODERICK & SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER
160 E. Grand Ave., 6th Floor
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: (312) 503-0012
Email: jonathan.manes@law.northwestern.edu
CHICK-FIL-A INC: Ortega's Breach & Unjust Enrichment Claims Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Ronald Ortega, Plaintiff, v. Chick-fil-A, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00845-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California issued an order:
a. granting Chick-fil-A's motion to dismiss the claims for
breach of contract and unjust enrichment; and
b. denying as moot its motion to strike the allegations in
support of a nationwide class.
Mr. Ortega alleges Chick-fil-A breached its agreement to charge a
flat delivery fee for online orders. On Chick-fil-A's mobile app
and website, customers can order food for delivery or pick-up. Mr.
Ortega used the app, but before he was able to place his order, the
checkout screen broke down the cost of his order. He claims the
price of his meal would have been 25 to 30 % cheaper, or about $5
less, if he had ordered in store or for pick-up. Accordingly, he
alleges Chick-fil-A's representation of "$3.99 delivery fee" was
false and misleading because the actual "delivery fee" -- the extra
charge for having food delivered as opposed to picking it up -- was
the $3.99 delivery fee plus the markup for delivery orders.
Mr. Ortega commenced the putative class action in state court,
alleging Chick-fil-A violated the California Unfair Competition
Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and False Advertising Law.
Chick-fil-A removed the case, invoking the Court's diversity
jurisdiction. Mr. Ortega sought and the Court granted leave to
amend. His complaint now includes claims for breach of contract and
unjust enrichment and pursues relief on behalf of a proposed
nationwide class.
Chick-fil-A now moves to dismiss Mr. Ortega's contract and unjust
enrichment claims and moves to strike the nationwide class
allegations. The Court submitted both motions without oral
argument.
Breach of Contract
Chick-fil-A first moves to dismiss Mr. Ortega's contract claim. The
elements of that claim are: (1) a valid contract, (2) the
Plaintiff's performance, (3) the Defendant's breach; and (4)
damages. It argues his allegations fall short of the first and
third elements.
Judge Mueller need not decide whether Mr. Ortega's allegations show
he had a contract with Chick-fil-A, because he does not
sufficiently allege Chick-fil-A breached any contract terms. He
also cites no contractual provision forbidding Chick-fil-A from
charging higher prices for food ordered in an app or online. For
similar reasons, he cannot rely on cases against the Defendants who
allegedly deceived them to pay more than the agreed-upon prices.
For the reasons above, Judge Mueller dismisses Mr. Ortega's claim
for breach of contract with leave to amend, if an amendment is
possible within the confines of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
11.
Unjust Enrichment
Chick-fil-A next moves to dismiss Mr. Ortega's unjust enrichment
claim. In California, unjust enrichment is not a separate cause of
action. A plaintiff may plead a claim for unjust enrichment
alleging a contract is void or rescinded as an alternative to a
breach of contract claim asserting the existence of an enforceable
agreement. But "there is no equitable reason for invoking
restitution when the plaintiff gets the exchange he expected."
There is also "no occasion for resort to unjust enrichment" if a
plaintiff can obtain relief under California's consumer protection
laws, including the UCL and CLRA, because restitution is available
under those statutes. Thus, Judge Mueller dismisses Mr. Ortega's
unjust enrichment claim, but with leave to amend if possible.
Nationwide Class Allegations
Chick-fil-A next moves to strike Mr. Ortega's nationwide class
allegations under Rule 12(f). The complaint appears to propose a
nationwide class for all of Mr. Ortega's five claims, including his
consumer protection claims. In his response to the motion to
strike, however, Mr. Ortega clarifies he is seeking to represent a
nationwide class only for his breach of contract and unjust
enrichment claims. Judge Mueller thus limits Mr. Ortega's
nationwide class allegation to these enrichment claims. Because
those claims are dismissed, the motion to strike his nationwide
class allegations is moot.
Any amendments to the complaint must be filed within 21 days of the
Order. In light of the Order, Judge Mueller vacates the Status
(Pretrial Scheduling) Conference set for July 28, 2022, and resets
it for Oct. 6, 2022 at 2:30 p.m. The parties will file a joint
status report 14 days prior to the conference.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 22, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3nae6w4m from Leagle.com.
CHICO'S FAS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Velazquez Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN VELAZQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHICO'S FAS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-06048-PAE (S.D.N.Y., July 15, 2022) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, www.chicos.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
CHICO'S FAS, INC. is an American women's clothing and accessories
retailer founded in 1983 on Sanibel Island, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
CHILO AND CHELA: Vasquez et al. Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
FELICITAS VASQUEZ, OLGA VILLEGAS, and SABINA GARCIA, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHILO AND
CHELA, INC., and MONICA SANCHEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03715
(N.D. Ill., July 18, 2022) bring this complaint against the
Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment
and Collection Act.
The Plaintiffs, who have worked for the Defendants preparing and
selling tamales, assert that the Defendants did not properly
compensate them for all hours they have worked. Although they
routinely worked more than 40 hours per week, they were not paid
overtime premiums at the applicable overtime rate in accordance
with the law. Instead of keeping track of hours they worked, the
Defendants paid them a flat rate based on the days they worked,
says the suit.
The Plaintiffs seek all unpaid wages, liquidated damages in an
amount equal to the amount of unpaid wages, reasonable attorneys'
fees and litigation costs, and other relief as the Court deems
appropriate and just.
Chilo and Chela, Inc. sells tamales. Monica Sanchez is an officer
and principal shareholder of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jorge Sanchez, Esq.
Baldemar Lopez, Esq.
LOPEZ & SANCHEZ LLP
77 W. Washington St., Suite 1313
Chicago, IL 60602
Tel: (312) 420-6784
CIRCLE MEDICAL: Arevalo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Circle Medical
Technologies, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Martin Arevalo, an
an individual on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Circle Medical Technologies, Inc., Does
1-100, Inclusive, Case No. CGC22600873 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., July 21, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Circle Medical -- https://www.circlemedical.com/ -- is a modern
clinic that offers quality, delightful primary care without a
membership fee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary Crosner, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Phone: (310) 496-5818
Fax: (310) 510-6429
Email: zach@crosnerlegal.com
CIRTON INC: Macal Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Cooks
--------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY MACAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CIRTON INC. d/b/a CONTE'S PIZZA and CIRO
BALDINO, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-04684 (D.N.J., July 21, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages and failure to timely pay wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law,
and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law and for fraudulent filing of
information returns.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook from January
2008 until May 22, 2021.
Cirton Inc., doing business as Conte's Pizza, is a restaurant owner
and operator, with its principal place of business located at 339
Witherspoon St., Princeton, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicole Grunfeld, Esq.
KATZ MELINGER PLLC
370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 460-0047
Facsimile: (212) 428-6811
E-mail: ndgrunfeld@katzmelinger.com
CITIBANK NA: Bjorklund Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Citibank, N.A., et
al. The case is styled as Emily Bjorklund, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. Rich Doss, Inc., Does 1 to 100,
Inclusive, Case No. CGC22600868 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty., July 21, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Citibank -- https://www.citi.com/ -- is the consumer division of
financial services multinational Citigroup.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa A. Huether, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638
Phone: 310-432-0000
Fax: 310-432-0001
Email: mhuether@lelawfirm.com
COINBASE GLOBAL: N.D. California Allows Arbitration in Alfia Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ADAM ALFIA, Plaintiff v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-08689-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S.
Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California grants Coinbase's motion to compel arbitration.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure
his Coinbase account. He alleges that an unauthorized purchase of
$50,000 in cryptocurrency was made from his Coinbase account and an
equivalent amount of money was deducted from his personal banking
account without his knowledge or approval. He asserts that because
of the Defendant's conduct, he has suffered significant economic
loss, worry, and stress. He alleges multiple causes of action,
including claims for breach of contract for violating Coinbase's
Privacy Policy, negligently securing his private information and
accounts, and misrepresenting the security and confidentiality of
his information.
The Defendant explains that to create his Coinbase account, the
Plaintiff had to click a "check box" next to the language "I
certify that I am 18 years of age or older, and I agree to the User
Agreement and Privacy Policy," with both agreements accessible via
hyperlink. It asserts that he assented to the hyperlinked User
Agreement in creating a Coinbase account on Dece. 18, 2017. The
2017 User Agreement included the arbitration provision.
The Plaintiff's assent was similar to a "clickwrap" agreement -- he
clicked a box stating that he agreed to the User Agreement, which
was hyperlinked for easy accessibility. He had clear notice of the
terms of the 2017 User Agreement and took physical action to
manifest his assent. The Plaintiff does not contest that he agreed
to the 2017 User Agreement at the time he created a Coinbase
account, and Judge Gilliam finds that there was a mutual
manifestation of assent to the 2017 User Agreement. Therefore, he
concludes that the parties entered into a binding arbitration
agreement.
The second question for the Court is whether the arbitration
agreement encompasses the dispute at issue. The scope of the
arbitration provision is broad -- it includes any disputes arising
under the 2017 User Agreement. The Plaintiff argues that the
arbitration provision does not apply to privacy-related claims
because the 2017 User Agreement and the Privacy Policy are separate
agreements. He contends that since the Privacy Policy does not have
an arbitration provision of its own, he cannot be forced to
arbitrate.
However, Judge Gilliam finds that the 2017 User Agreement
incorporates the Privacy Policy by reference. The Plaintiff admits
his claims relate to the Privacy Policy, which is part of the
"entire agreement" formed by the parties, further reinforcing the
conclusion that the arbitration agreement encompasses the dispute
at issue. The arbitration provision is not unconscionable and is
therefore enforceable. Under California law, an agreement is
enforceable unless it is both procedurally and substantively
unconscionable. Procedural and substantive unconscionability need
not be present in equal amounts.
Judge Gilliam finds a minimal degree of procedural
unconscionability arising from the adhesive nature of the 2017 User
Agreement. While the relative bargaining power between the parties
favors the Defendant and the 2017 User Agreement was presented on a
take-it-or-leave-it basis, he says nothing in the record suggests
that Coinbase was the Plaintiff's only option for cryptocurrency
services. And while the Plaintiff argues that Coinbase never called
the arbitration clause to his attention, the arbitration provision
in the 2017 User Agreement is clearly labeled "Arbitration; Waiver
of Class Action" in bold print. The terms of the arbitration
provision, unlike the majority of the contract, are also in bold
font. And the provision binds both parties to arbitrate designated
claims.
Judge Gilliam finds that the arbitration provision is not
substantively unconscionable and is therefore enforceable.
The action is stayed pending resolution of the arbitration. The
parties are directed to file a joint status report regarding the
status of the arbitration proceeding 120 days from the date of the
Order and every 120 days thereafter unless otherwise ordered. They
are also directed to jointly notify the Court within 48 hours of
the conclusion of the arbitration proceeding.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 22, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yezhpj33 from Leagle.com.
CONAGRA BRANDS: Securities Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------
Conagra Brands, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 21, 2022, that a
securities class action against its directors, and several of its
executive officers was dismissed on June 9, 2022.
On July 22, 2019, a stockholder derivative lawsuits captioned
"Opperman v. Connolly, et al." was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois alleging breaches of
fiduciary duty and mismanagement in connection with acquisition of
Pinnacle Foods Inc. In October 21, 2019, the company received an
additional demand from a stockholder under Delaware law to appoint
a special committee to investigate the conduct of certain officers
and directors in connection with the Pinnacle acquisition and the
company's public statements.
In March 9, 2020, the stockholder derivative lawsuit was
consolidated in a single Consolidated Derivative Action. On June 9,
2022, it was dismissed without prejudice by stipulation of the
parties.
Conagra Brands, Inc. is one of North America's leading branded food
companies.
CONAGRA BRANDS: Securities Suit Over Merger Deal Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Conagra Brands, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 21, 2022, that a
securities class action against its directors, and several of its
executive officers was dismissed on June 9, 2022.
On May 9, 2019, a stockholder filed a derivative action captioned
"Klein v. Arora, et al." in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois alleging breaches of fiduciary duty
and mismanagement in connection with the acquisition of Pinnacle
Foods Inc.
On March 9, 2020, the lawsuit was consolidated in a single
Consolidated Derivative Action. On June 9, 2022, it was dismissed
without prejudice by stipulation of the parties.
Conagra Brands, Inc. is one of North America's leading branded food
companies.
CONAGRA BRANDS: Securities Suit Over Merger Tossed
--------------------------------------------------
Conagra Brands, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 21, 2022, that a
securities class action against its directors, and several of its
executive officers was dismissed on May 9, 2022.
The lawsuit asserts that the company's officers made material
misstatements and omissions that caused the market to have an
unrealistically positive assessment of the company's financial
prospects in light of the acquisition of Pinnacle Foods Inc., thus
causing the company's securities to be overvalued prior to the
release of the company's consolidated financial results on December
20, 2018 for the second quarter of fiscal year 2019.
The first of these lawsuits, captioned "West Palm Beach
Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Conagra Brands, Inc., et al.," with
which subsequent lawsuits alleging similar facts have been
consolidated, was filed on February 22, 2019 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois. That consolidated
lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice on December 23, 2020 for
failure to state a claim. On January 22, 2021, the plaintiff filed
a notice of appeal of the trial court's decision to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On May 9, 2022, the appellate
court affirmed the dismissal, and the matter is now closed.
Conagra Brands, Inc. is one of North America's leading branded food
companies.
CONSUMER DIRECT: Miranda Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to W.D. Wash.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DEBORAH JOHNSON MIRANDA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. CONSUMER DIRECT CARE NETWORK
WASHINGTON, LLC, Case No. 22-2-09950-0 SEA, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King,
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
on July 21, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-01014 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay wages
owed and willful withholding of wages in violation of Washington
law.
Consumer Direct Care Network Washington, LLC is a provider of
in-home care assistance and customer service firm based in
Missoula, Montana. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Aaron D. Goldstein, Esq.
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
Columbia Center
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6100
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 903-8800
E-mail: goldstein.aaron@dorsey.com
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Kertzner Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc. The case is styled as Michal Kertzner,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Case No. 7:22-cv-06186 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 21, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Convergent -- https://www.convergentusa.com/outsourcing/ -- is one
of America's leading collections agencies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Thomas Yusko, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com
DAVE INC: Faces Lopez Suit Over Improper Business Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
KRYSTAL LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DAVE INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:22-cv-04160-SVK (N.D. Cal. July 1 5, 2022) seeks to correct the
Defendant's illegal conduct, to recover the fees the Defendant
extracted from the Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons,
to hold the Defendant accountable for misleading and unfair
business practices, and to prevent the Defendant from misleading
the general public about the cost of using its services.
According to the complaint, the Defendant operates the Dave app,
which claims to give consumers the opportunity to "Get paid up to 2
days early, build your credit history, and get up to $250 advances
without paying a fee." In reality, Defendant seeks to skirt
applicable financial, banking, and payday lending regulations
through a linguistic trick: calling the payments to use its service
"tips," "express fees," and a "subscription fee," instead of the
cost of borrowing. Semantics aside, Defendant is in the business of
loaning money for profit, says the suit.
DAVE INC. develops mobile software. The Company offers application
that helps users predict their expenses and avoid overdrafting
their checking accounts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth A. Safier, Esq.
Marie McCrary, Esq.
Hayley Reynolds, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 639-9090
DECKERS OUTDOOR: Hobbs Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Deckers Outdoor
Corporation. The case is styled as Alexandra Hobbs, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Deckers Outdoor
Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-06207 (S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Deckers Outdoor Corporation, doing business as Deckers Brands --
https://www.deckers.com/ -- is a global leader in designing,
marketing and distributing innovative footwear, apparel and
accessories developed for both everyday casual lifestyle use and
high performance activities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
DIGITAL TURBINE: Faces Kirshner Class Suit Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA KIRSHNER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. DIGITAL TURBINE, INC., WILLIAM STONE, and
BARRETT GARRISON, Case No. 1:22-cv-00731 (W.D. Tex., July 21, 2022)
is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased
or otherwise acquired Digital Turbine securities between February
26, 2021 and May 31, 2022, inclusive, pursuing claims against the
Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made
materially false and/or misleading, and failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that the Company's recent acquisitions, AdColony and Fyber, act as
agents in certain of their respective product lines, says the
suit.
On May 17, 2022, Digital Turbine issued a press release revealing
that it will "restate its financial statements for the interim
periods ended June 30, 2021, September 30, 2021, and December 31,
2021, following a review of the presentation of revenue net of
license fees and revenue share for the Company's recently acquired
businesses." In a SEC filing on Form 8-K made that same day,
Digital Turbine specified that the "recently acquired businesses"
at issue were AdColony and Fyber.
On this news, the Company's shares fell $1.93, or 7.1%, to close at
$25.28 per share on May 18, 2022, on unusually heavy trading
volume.
Then, on May 31, 2022, Digital Turbine issued a press release
announcing the Company's Q4 and fiscal year 2022 financial results,
in which the Company provided an earnings per share figure that
missed consensus estimates and a weak revenue forecast.
On this news, the Company's shares fell $5.75, or 22.61%, to close
at $19.68 per share on June 1, 2022, on unusually heavy trading
volume.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the suit added.
Digital Turbine is a software company that delivers products to
assist third parties in monetizing through the utilization of
mobile advertising. The Company completed its acquisitions of
AdColony Holdings AS and Fyber N.V. on April 29 and May 25, 2021,
respectively.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
12700 Park Central Drive, Suite 520
Dallas, TX 75251
Telephone: (972) 521-6868
Facsimile: (346) 214-7463
E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.co
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
PORTNOY LAW FIRM
1800 Century Park East, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA
Telephone: (310) 692-8883
E-mail: lesley@portnoylaw.com
DIRECT RECOVERY: Bogle Sues Over Unauthorized Debt Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT BOGLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DIRECT RECOVERY SERVICES, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 5:22-cv-01272 (C.D. Cal., July 20, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant used false
representations or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect
a debt from the Plaintiff. The Defendant is neither licensed to do
business in California, nor has the Defendant filed an application
to conduct business in California. Thus, the Defendant did not have
legal standing to collect an alleged debt from the Plaintiff. As a
result of the Defendant's unfair, deceptive, false, misleading, and
oppressive conduct in connection with its debt collection
activities, the Plaintiff suffered invasion of privacy, mental
anguish, anxiousness, stress, fear, lost sleep and felt feelings of
despair, says the suit.
Direct Recovery Services, LLC is a national collection agency, with
a principal place of business located at 115 Waterfront Dr., Two
Harbors, Minnesota. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
David J. McGlothlin, Esq.
Mona Amini, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
david@kazlg.com
mona@kazlg.com
DUNCAN BURCH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hernandez Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
YOANIA HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DUNCAN BURCH, INC. d/b/a CHICAS
LOCAS; STEVEN W. CRAFT; and EUGENE G. LECLAIRE, Defendant, Case No.
4:22-cv-02375 (S.D. Tex., July 15, 2022) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Hernandez was employed by the Defendants as waitress.
DUNCAN BURCH, INC. was founded in 1986. The Company's line of
business includes operating of bars, night clubs, and other
locations that sell alcoholic drinks. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James M. Dore, Esq.
JUSTICIA LABORAL LLC
6232 N. Pulaski Road, Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60646
Telephone: (773) 415-4898
Facsimile: jdore@justicialaboral.com
EMEREST HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Anderson Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
MONIKA ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EMEREST HEALTH OF MISSOURI, LLC; EMEREST
HEALTH CDS OF MISSOURI, LLC; EMEREST HOME CARE OF CONNECTICUT LLC;
EMEREST HEALTH, LLC; EMEREST HEALTH OF MINNESOTA LLC; EMEREST
HEALTH POPULATION MANAGEMENT LLC; EMEREST HEALTH IPA, LLC; EMEREST
CERTIFIED HOME HEALTH CARE OF NEW YORK, LLC; EMEREST CAREGIVER
RESOURCES OF NY, LLC; and EMEREST HEALTH, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 4:22-cv-00452-BP (W.D. Mo., July 15, 2022) is an action against
the Defendants for unpaid wages, overtime pay, liquidated damages,
attorney's fees and costs.
Plaintiff Anderson was employed by the Defendants as personal care
assistant/aide.
EMEREST HEALTH OF MISSOURI, LLC provide home care and specialized
health care services with the highest quality care in mind. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip M. Murphy II, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PHILLIP M. MURPHY, II
4717 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (913) 661-2900
Facsimile: (913) 312-5841
Email: phillip@phillipmurphylaw.com
- and -
Michael Hodgson, Esq.
THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC
3609 SW Pryor Rd.
Lee's Summit, Missouri 64082
Telephone: (816) 600-0117
Facsimile: mike@elgkc.com
EPOCH TIMES ASSOCIATION: Roberts Files Suit in S.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Epoch Times
Association, Inc. The case is styled as Amy Roberts, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Epoch Times
Association, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-02862-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio, July
19, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
The Epoch Times is a far-right international multi-language
newspaper and media company affiliated with the Falun Gong new
religious movemen.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
EQUIFAX INC: Data Breach Suit Settled
-------------------------------------
Equifax Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 21, 2022, that a consumer
settlement became effective on January 11, 2022 with regards to a
2017 cybersecurity incident following a criminal attack on its
systems that involved the theft of certain personally identifiable
information of U.S., Canadian and U.K. consumers.
Following the 2017 cybersecurity incident, hundreds of class
actions and other lawsuits were filed typically alleging harm from
the incident and seeking various remedies, including monetary and
injunctive relief. In July 19, 2019 and July 22, 2019, Equifax
entered into multiple agreements that resolve case captioned "In
re: Equifax, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation," MDL
No. 2800 and the investigations of the FTC, the CFPB, the Attorneys
General of 48 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico and
the NYDFS. The Consumer Settlement became effective on January 11,
2022.
Equifax collects, organizes and manages various types of financial,
demographic, employment, criminal history and marketing
information. Its products and services enable businesses to make
credit and service decisions, manage their portfolio risk, automate
or outsource certain payroll-related, tax and human resources
business processes, and develop marketing strategies concerning
consumers and commercial enterprises.
EXCELL COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Martinez Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL MARTINEZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXCELL COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-04206 (E.D.N.Y., July 18, 2022) is a
class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violations of the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a fiber optic
installation technician since in or about March 2022.
According to the complaint, the Defendant allegedly failed to
properly pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and
former manual workers their wages within seven calendar days after
the end of the week in which these wages were earned. Instead, they
were paid on a bi-weekly basis. As a result, the Plaintiff and
Class members have suffered an underpayment of wages each pay
period because the Defendant failed to timely pay their wages on a
weekly basis, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages from the Defendant for
himself and all other similarly situated manual workers, as well as
reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs, and other relief
as the Court deems just and proper.
Excell Communications, Inc. is a project management firm engaged in
the installation of network infrastructure for the wireless, fiber
and utility industries in the State of New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Tel: (631) 257-5588
E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com
FEDERAL SAVINGS: Clotz Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY CLOTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-03755 (N.D. Ill., July 20, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of making
unsolicited telemarketing calls to promote its goods and services.
The Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers did not provide
prior express written consent to receive calls from the Defendant.
The Plaintiff's and Class members' telephone numbers are listed on
the National Do Not Call Registry, says the suit.
The Federal Savings Bank is a federally chartered bank,
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (508) 221-1510
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
FLAGSTAR BANK: Faces Cousino Suit Over Cybersecurity Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALEXIS COUSINO; and GEORGE COUSINO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB,
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-11619-VAR-KGA (E.D. Mich., July 15,
2022) is a class action on behalf of the over 1.5 million
individuals whose sensitive personal identifying information was
compromised in a cybersecurity breach of Flagstar, which was
announced on or about June 17, 2022 (the "Flagstar Breach").
According to the complaint, on December 2021, the Defendant, a
technology company that collects and stores patient data from
hospitals across the country, discovered that cybercriminals had
stolen the highly sensitive personal and medical information
belonging to over 1.1 million patients ("Data Breach"), and then
misrepresented how the Data Breach happened when it notified
patients about the breach six months later.
Cybercriminals could bypass and breach the Defendant's security
systems because it does not adhere to industry-standard
cybersecurity policies, state and federal law, or its own data
security policies, which promise to use "reasonable efforts" to
protect sensitive information.
As a result, the Defendant left millions of patients' highly
sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health
information an unguarded target for theft and misuse, the suit
says.
FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB operates as a full-service bank. The Bank
accepts deposits, makes loans and provides other services for the
public which includes personal banking, online transaction, and
debit and credit card services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 West University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
Email: epm@millerlawpc.com
ssa@millerlawpc.com
- and -
Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
Melissa L. Troutner, Esq.
Ethan J. Barlieb, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
Email: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
mtroutner@ktmc.com
ebarlieb@ktmc.com
- and -
Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
Ryan P. McDevitt, Esq.
Sydney Read, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
Email: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com
sread@kellerrohrback.com
FORD MOTOR: Barnes Consumer Suit Moved From D. Del. to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case MARGARET BARNES, ERIC SENKYRIK, MICHAEL HOGAN, and SHARON
JACKON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 1:22-cv-00823, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on July 21,
2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-05070-AB-PVC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of express
warranty, breach of written and implied warranties under the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Tennessee
Consumer Protection Act, Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act,
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and Nebraska
Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant failed to disclose to
consumers, including the Plaintiffs, about the transmission defect
of its 2017-2019 Ford Fiesta and 2017-2018 Ford Focus vehicles,
says the suit.
Ford Motor Company is an automobile manufacturer, headquartered in
Dearborn, Michigan. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Russell D. Paul, Esq.
Abigail Gertner, Esq.
Amey J. Park, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: rpaul@bm.net
agertner@bm.net
apark@bm.net
- and –
Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
Laura E. Goolsby, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
E-mail: Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
Laura.Goolsby@capstonelawyers.com
FORUM INVESTORS: Bannerman Sues Over Misleading Proxy Statement
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT BANNERMAN and RANDOLPH SLIPHER, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MARSHALL KIEV, RICHARD
KATZMAN, STEVEN BERNS, JEFFREY NACHBOR, JASON LUO, JAMES TAYLOR,
BENJAMIN WU, HAILIANG HU, KEV ADJEMIAN, JUSTIN PRANN, FORUM
INVESTORS III LLC, and FORUM CAPITAL MANAGEMENT III LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2022-0630-KSJM (Del. Ch., July 19, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty.
According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to the Plaintiffs and the Class by prioritizing their own
personal, financial, and/or reputational interests and approving
the merger between Electric Last Mile Solutions Inc. and Electric
Last Mile, Inc., which was unfair to public Forum III stockholders.
Moreover, the Defendants breached their duty of candor by issuing a
false and misleading proxy statement to persuade stockholders to
approve the merger. As a result of the Defendants'
misrepresentations, the Plaintiffs and the Class were harmed by not
exercising their redemption rights prior to the merger, says the
suit.
Forum Investors III LLC is a limited liability company in
Delaware.
Forum Capital Management III LLC is a limited liability company in
Delaware. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen E. Jenkins, Esq.
Richard D. Heins, Esq.
Tiffany Geyer Lydon, Esq.
ASHBY & GEDDES
500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor
P.O. Box 1150
Wilmington, DE 19899
Telephone: (302) 654-1888
- and –
Donald J. Enright, Esq.
Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
Brian D. Stewart, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 524-4290
FOX REHABILITATION: Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply in Conner Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN A. CONNER DPM,
P.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. FOX REHABILITATION SERVICES, P.C., Case No. 2:21-cv-01580-MMB
(E.D. Pa.), the Defendant moves the Court, pursuant to Local Rule
7.1 and Rule C.2 of this Court's Pretrial and Trial Procedures, for
leave to file sur-reply in further opposition to Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification.
Fox Rehabilitation Services PC provides rehabilitation services.
The Company offers physical, occupational, and speech therapy
services.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 15, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zxZz8e at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Matthew A. Lipman, Esq.
McELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP
1617 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1500
Philadelphia, PA 19103-1815
Telephone: (215) 557-2900
Facsimile: (215) 557-2990
E-mail: mlipman@mdmc-law.com
- and -
Ryan D. Watstein, Esq.
Alex D. Terepka, Esq.
KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP
171 17th Street NW, Suite 1550
Atlanta, Georgia 30363
Telephone: (404) 400-7300
Facsimile: (404) 400-7333
E-mail: rwatstein@kcozlaw.com
aterepka@kcozlaw.com
- and -
Kristapor Vartanian, Esq.
KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2225
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 493-3980
E-mail: kvartanian@kcozlaw.com
GAMECHANGER305 LLC: Underpays Nightclub Employees, Branda Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIANNA BRANDA, BRITANY LOYA, DARRELL FLETCHER, ERIN RIVERA, MABER
ENCARNACION, ANABELLE GARCIA, MICHAEL HAWKINS, and OLUWATOBI
ADEDEJI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. GAMECHANGER305, LLC and GARY OLMSTEAD, Defendants,
Case No. 153669981 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 11th Jud. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty.,
July 20, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid
minimum wages and overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and for retaliation and breach of agreement.
The Plaintiffs worked at the Defendants' nightclub called GC Sobe.
Gamechanger305, LLC is an owner and operator of a nightclub in
Miami-Dade County, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence McGuinness, Esq.
MG LEGAL GROUP
3126 Center St.
Coconut Grove, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 448-9557
Facsimile: (305) 448-9559
E-mail: ljm@ljmpalaw.com
scheduling_ljmpa@comcast.net
GENERAL STORE: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against General Store, LLC.
The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. General Store, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-06130-MKV (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
General Store -- https://shop-generalstore.com/ -- features a
carefully curated mix of clothing, household items, books, jewelry
and other small treasures from local California artisans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail
GIFT CRATES: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gift Crates, LLC. The
case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Gift Crates, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-06131
(S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Gift Crates -- https://www.giftcrates.com/ -- sells awesome gifts
for men packed in wooden crates that you open with the included
crowbar.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail
GRACE PHARMACY: Faces Etminan Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, FARNAZ ETMINAN, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GRACE PHARMACY SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Florida
Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 6:22-cv-01266 (M.D.
Fla., July 19, 2022) is brought by the Plaintiff as a collective
action against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime
compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt and an
hourly paid pharmacy clerk working as COVID-19 Test Specialist for
its pharmacy, Grace Community Pharmacy in Orlando, Florida, from on
or about June 2, 2022 until her separation from employment on June
30, 2022.
The Plaintiff claims that throughout her employment with the
Defendant, she worked more than 40 hours per week. However, the
Defendant paid only straight time and was not paid for all hours
she has worked. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant failed to
pay her overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times
her regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek, says the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff further alleges that there are at least 30 other
current and former employees of the Defendant who were paid only
straight time despite working more than 40 hours, and who were not
paid for their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the
applicable overtime rate in accordance with the law.
Grace Pharmacy Solutions, LLC operates a pharmacy which provides a
wide range of medical and healthcare essentials. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert S. Norell, Esq.
ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
300 N.W. 70th Avenue, Suite 305
Plantation, FL 33317
Tel: (954) 617-6017
Fax: (954) 617-6018
E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com
HOLADOCTOR INC: Faces Nichols Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
TERRI LEE NICHOLS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOLADOCTOR, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-22204-KMW (S.D. Fla., July 18, 2022) brings this
complaint as a class action to enforce the consumer-privacy
provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant of violations of the TCPA by
making unsolicited telemarketing calls to her and other similarly
situated individuals in an attempt to promote its services.
Accordingly, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff to her phone
number 757-xxx-3765, which she has registered on the Do Not Call
Registry on March 30, 2022. The Plaintiff asserts that the
Defendant has used automated systems in making telemarketing calls
from Florida. During the first three calls, the Defendant
identified itself as calling about Medicare coverage and inquired
if the Plaintiff was interested. The Plaintiff terminated the calls
because she was not interested, the Plaintiff says.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant's unsolicited telephonic
sales calls have harmed her and other similarly situated
individuals in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of
privacy. Thus, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff seeks redress for these
injuries.
Holadoctor, Inc. offers health insurance services for GoHealth, an
insurance marketplace company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 S. Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Tel: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
rachel@kaufmanpa.com
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Bendorfs Sue Over Unsafe, Defective Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brian and Sara Bendorf, on behalf of themselves and and all others
similarly situated v. KIA America, Inc.; Hyundai Motor America; and
Hyundai Kia America, Case No. 4:22-cv-00465-RK (W.D. Mo., July 21,
2022) is a class action claim arising from a defect in the
Defendants' vehicles which make them easy to steal, unsafe, and
worth less than they should be, if they did not have the defect.
According to the complaint, the Defendants did not disclose this
defect, which is a material fact, and a fact that a reasonable
person would rely on when purchasing a vehicle. During the relevant
class period, the Defendants sold these Defective Vehicles at
multiple locations throughout the state of Missouri and the United
States, says the suit.
Plaintiffs Brian and Sara Bendorf are residents and citizens of the
state of Missouri. They bring this action on their own behalf and
as a representative of a class of persons who purchased a Defective
Vehicle that was manufactured, produced, distributed, and/or sold
by the Defendants, seeking to recover damages for violations of the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, among other claims, for
economic and injunctive relief against Defendants which
manufactured, tested, distributed, promoted and sold the Defective
Vehicles.
Hyundai Motor America manufactures and retails automobiles.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan M. Soper, Esq.
Kenneth B. McClain, Esq.
Paul D. Anderson, Esq.
Chelsea M. Pierce, Esq.
Jonathan M. Soper, Esq.
HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON & McCLAIN, P.C.
221 W. Lexington, Suite 400
Independence, MO 64050
Telephone: (816) 836-5050
Facsimile: (816) 836-8966
E-mail: kbm@hfmlegal.com
pda@hfmlegal.com
cmp@hfmlegal.com
jms@hfmlegal.com
IMPAX LAB: Ct. Approves $33M Settlement in Fleming Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREG FLEMING, et al., v.
IMPAX LABORATORIES INC., et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-06557-HSG (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order
granting Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of class
action settlement and allocation and for enhancement awards and
attorneys' fees and expenses.
The Court approves the Settlement Amount of $33,000,000. The Court
also approves (1) Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for an award of
attorneys' fees in the amount of $9,900,000, plus interest; (2)
Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for payment of costs incurred in the
amount of $176,501.78, plus interest; and (3) Lead Plaintiff's
$9,462,50 enhancement award and Class Representative's $1,176.10
enhancement award.
The parties and Claims Administrator are directed to implement this
Final Order and the SASS in accordance with the terms of the SASS.
The parties are further directed to file a short 24 stipulated
final judgment of two pages or less within 7 days from the date of
this Order. The judgment need not, and should not, repeat the
analysis in this Order.
Lead Plaintiff New York Hotel Trades Council asserts violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. section
78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 against Impax Laboratories Inc., George
Wilkinson, Larry Hsu, Bryan Reasons, and Carole Ben-Maimon. The
Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint with leave
to amend, after which Lead Plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint asserting the same claims. On August 12, 2019, the Court
dismissed the SAC with prejudice, and Lead Plaintiff appealed.
The Court held a hearing on the motion on March 31, 2022, and, at
the Court's request, the Plaintiffs' counsel submitted supplemental
declarations on April 1, 2022.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OBRUtG at no extra charge.[CC]
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Faces Antitrust Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 22, 2022, that a class action complaint
was filed against the company in the Northern District of
California Court alleging anti-trust allegations relating to the
service and repair of certain instruments manufactured by the
Company.
A complaint by Larkin Community Hospital was filed on May 20, 2021.
It has been consolidated and now captioned on the Larkin docket as
"In Re: da Vinci Surgical Robot Antitrust Litigation." A
consolidated amended class action complaint has been filed on
behalf of each plaintiff named in said case.
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets the
"da Vinci" Surgical System and the "Ion" endoluminal system. The
company's products and related services enable physicians and
healthcare providers to improve the quality of and access to
minimally invasive care. The systems consist of a surgeon console
or consoles, a patient-side cart, a high-performance vision system,
and proprietary instruments and accessories.
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit in CA Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 22, 2022, that a class action complaint
was filed against the company in the Northern District of
California Court alleging anti-trust allegations relating to the
service and repair of certain instruments manufactured by the
Company.
A complaint by Franciscan Alliance, Inc. was filed in July 6, 2021.
The Court has consolidated said cases, which is now captioned as
"In Re: da Vinci Surgical Robot Antitrust Litigation."
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets the
"da Vinci" Surgical System and the "Ion" endoluminal system. The
company's products and related services enable physicians and
healthcare providers to improve the quality of and access to
minimally invasive care. The systems consist of a surgeon console
or consoles, a patient-side cart, a high-performance vision system,
and proprietary instruments and accessories.
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Kaleida Health Dismissed as Party in Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 22, 2022, that a class action complaint
was filed against the company in the Northern District of
California Court alleging anti-trust allegations relating to the
service and repair of certain instruments manufactured by the
company.
The Court has consolidated the Franciscan Alliance, Inc. and King
County Public Hospital District No. 1 and Kaleida Health cases with
the Larkin Community Hospital case, which is now captioned on the
Larkin docket as "In Re: da Vinci Surgical Robot Antitrust
Litigation." A Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint has been
filed on behalf of each plaintiff named in the earlier-filed cases.
On January 14, 2022, Kaleida Health voluntarily dismissed itself as
a party to this case.
IT'S A NEW 10: Faces Class Action Over "Miracle" Hair Shampoo
-------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that in Thomas v. It's A
New 10, LLC and It's A 10 Haircare, LLC, a proposed class action
alleges the It's A 10 Potion 10 "miracle" hair repair shampoo and
conditioner products are incapable of repairing hair as
advertised.
According to the 36-page lawsuit, the It's A 10 Potion 10 miracle
hair repair products do not repair hair at all, "instantly or
otherwise," and reasonable consumers have been misled by defendant
It's A 10 Haircare's marketing into believing that the products can
strengthen or rebuild hair.
Be sure to scroll down to see which It's A 10 haircare products are
mentioned in the lawsuit.
"Defendant's uniform advertising and marketing of the Hair Repair
Products is designed with the goal of enticing consumers to
purchase the Hair Repair Products over other competing haircare
products based on Defendant's bold promise to repair broken and/or
damaged hair," the complaint alleges.
More specifically, the case claims It's A 10 Haircare has targeted
its advertising and marketing to a particular segment of women
nationwide who are concerned about hair breakage.
"Unfortunately for the millions of consumers who want to repair
their damaged hair, the Hair Repair Products cannot deliver the
promised result," the suit says.
According to the filing, the It's A 10 Potion 10 shampoo and
conditioner products contain no ingredients that are capable of
repairing damaged hair. The suit stresses that because hair is
already a collection of "the remnants of dead cells," it is beyond
repair once damaged and certainly cannot be remedied with in-home
treatments. To truly mend hair, the lawsuit relays, the "linkages"
between the keratin proteins must be altered chemically, which
cannot be achieved through over-the-counter shampoos and
conditioners.
"These treatments are expensive and must be done in professional
settings under controlled conditions to receive a satisfactory
result," the suit reads. "Even under these strict conditions,
repair to an original state is still not possible."
Even worse, the case says, the It's A 10 haircare products require
frequent use, essentially "trap[ping] the consumer into an endless
cycle of repeated purchase of the same deceptively marketed
product."
At most, according to the complaint, the product can create only
the "temporary illusion" that a user's hair has been repaired.
Although the products can and often do add material to the hair
fiber, often as a coating on the outside of the hair, this only
alters the look and feel of a user's hair temporarily and requires
frequent re-treatment to "obtain the same illusion."
"Defendant's promises, like its customers' hair, remain broken,"
the case reads.
The specific It's A 10 products mentioned in the lawsuit include
the following:
* It's A 10 Potion 10 Miracle Instant Repair Leave-In
Conditioner;
* It's A 10 Potion 10 Miracle Instant Repair Daily Conditioner;
* It's A 10 Potion 10 Miracle Repair Daily Shampoo;
* It's A 10 Potion 10 Miracle Repair Hair Mask Deep Conditioner;
and
* It's A 10 Potion 10 Miracle Instant Repair Leave-In
Conditioner.
The lawsuit looks to cover all United States residents who bought
any of the affected products within the fullest period allowed by
law. [GN]
J. CREW GROUP: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against J. Crew Group, LLC.
The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. J. Crew Group, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-04217 (E.D.N.Y., July 18, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
J.Crew Group, Inc. -- https://www.jcrew.com/ -- is an American
multi-brand, multi-channel, specialty retailer offering an
assortment of women's, men's, and children's apparel and
accessories, including swimwear, outerwear, lounge-wear, bags,
sweaters, denim, dresses, suiting, jewelry, and shoes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
JAMES PERSE ENTERPRISES: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against James Perse
Enterprises, Inc. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. James Perse
Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04220-EK-RML (E.D.N.Y., July
18, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
James Perse -- https://www.jamesperse.com/ -- is an apparel &
fashion company offering apparel for men, women, and home fashion
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
JELD-WEN INC: Faulk Consumer Suit Removed to D. Alaska
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DAVID G. FAULK and BONNIE J. FAULK, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JELD-WEN, INC.
d/b/a POZZI WINDOW COMPANY; SPENARD BUILDERS SUPPLY, LLC; and
RODERICK C. WENDT, Case No. 3AN-22-06536CI, was removed from the
Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District at
Anchorage, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska on
July 21, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Alaska assigned Case No.
3:22-cv-00171-JMK to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of contract and
express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability,
breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose,
violation of Alaska Unlawful Trade Practices Act, unjust
enrichment, breach of the implied covenant to act in good faith and
fair dealing, and premised on fraud and misrepresentation.
Jeld-Wen, Inc., doing business as Pozzi Window Company, is a
manufacturing company, with its headquarters in Charlotte, North
Carolina.
Spenard Builders Supply, LLC is a provider of building products,
headquartered in Anchorage, Alaska. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jennifer M. Coughlin, Esq.
LANDYE BENNETT BLUMSTEIN LLP
701 West 8th Avenue, Suite 1100
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907) 276-5152
Facsimile: (907) 276-8433
E-mail: jenniferc@lbblawyers.com
JENNY YOO COLLECTION: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jenny Yoo Collection,
Inc. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Jenny Yoo Collection, Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-04221 (E.D.N.Y., July 18, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Jenny Yoo Collection -- https://www.jennyyoo.com/ -- offers modern
dresses for the chic bride, bridesmaid, wedding guest, and flower
girl.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
JERRY INSURANCE: Faces Hopper Suit Over Telemarketing Campaigns
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON HOOPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JERRY INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-04232-NC
(N.D. Cal., July 21, 2022) alleges that Defendant utilizes its
website to harvest consumer telephone numbers that it then utilizes
for telemarketing campaigns advertising its insurance services.
The Defendant promises that "Jerry won't spam you with unwanted
calls[,]" and that it requires consumers' telephone numbers to
"confirm your identify and provide you custom quotes." See
www.getjerry.com/signup/phone. This claim is false, and after
acquiring Plaintiff's contact information -- and after being
notified by the Plaintiff that she was not interested in
Defendant's services -- the Defendant spammed Plaintiff's cellular
telephone with daily text messages over the course of two weeks,
says the suit.
The Plaintiff therefore brings this putative class action under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive
relief to halt the Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted
in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption
of the daily life of thousands of individuals, the Plaintiff
asserts.
The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff
and members of the Class, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A
1925 Century Park E., No. 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 438-5355
E-mail: Scott@Edelsberglaw.com
JILCO INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jilco, Inc. The case
is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly situated persons v. Jilco, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-06110 (S.D.N.Y., July 18, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Jilco, Inc. -- https://jilcoinc.com/ -- is a PennDOT Prequalified
DBE Subcontractor providing protective and aesthetic concrete
coatings.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
JPMORGAN CHASE: Santander Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled FERNEY PINTO SANTANDER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV18737, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the
County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on July 21, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-05065 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 overtime, failure to pay all wages
and minimum wages, failure to provide compliant meal periods,
failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements, failure to
provide sick pay at the regular rate, failure to provide vacation
pay at the regular rate, failure to provide COVID-19 supplemental
paid leave at the regular rate, failure to timely pay wages during
employment, waiting time penalties, failure to reimburse business
expenses, and unfair business practices.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA is an American multinational investment
bank and financial services holding company, headquartered in New
York, New York. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Carrie A. Gonell, Esq.
Alexander L. Grodan, Esq.
Joseph A. Govea, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
Telephone: (714) 830-0600
Facsimile: (714) 830-0700
E-mail: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com
alexander.grodan@morganlewis.com
joseph.govea@morganlewis.com
KENNETH COMPANY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Juarez Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ISIDRO FLORES JUAREZ, on behalf of himself and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown v. THE KENNETH COMPANY, an
Illinois Corporation and KENNETH MALONEY, individually, Case No.
1:22-cv-03779 (N.D. Ill., July 21, 2022) is an action brought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Portal-to-Portal Act, the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Prevailing Wage Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff performed work on state
public works projects that involved construction work in parks,
public schools and in other public areas that were subject to
Illinois prevailing wages. The prevailing wage in 2017 for laborers
working in DuPage, Cook, Lake and Will Counties was $68.17,
meanwhile Plaintiff was paid $15.00 per hour. The prevailing wage
in 2018 for laborers working in DuPage, Cook, Lake and Will
Counties was $70.19, meanwhile Plaintiff was paid $16.00 per hour.
The prevailing wage in 2019 for laborers working in DuPage, Cook,
Lake and Will Counties was $72.32, meanwhile Plaintiff was paid
$16.00 per hour. The prevailing wage in 2020 for laborers working
in DuPage, Cook, Lake and Will Counties was $72.32, meanwhile
Plaintiff was paid $16.00 per hour. The prevailing wage in 2021 for
laborers working in DuPage, Cook, Lake and Will Counties was
$75.61, meanwhile Plaintiff was paid $16.00 per hour, the suit
asserts.
The Defendant owns and operates a landscaping business located at
16W064 Jeans Rd, Lemont, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John W. Billhorn, Esq.
Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
BILLHORN LAW FIRM
53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 853-1450
KIWIKO INC: Raslavich Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ANNA RASLAVICH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KIWICO, INC., Defendant, Case No.
153487495 (Fla. 13th Jud. Cir. Ct., July 18, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's alleged violations of the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action alleging that
the Defendant engages in telephonic sales calls to consumers,
without obtaining prior express written consent from them. On or
after July 1, 2021, the Plaintiff has received the Defendant's
telephonic sales call to her telephone number in an attempt to
promote its goods and services. The Defendant allegedly made the
calls by utilizing an automated system for the selection or dialing
of telephone numbers, says the Plaintiff.
The complaint further asserts that the Defendant's unsolicited
telephonic sales calls have aggrieved the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated individuals and thus, each are entitled to
recover damages, costs, and attorney's fees from the Defendant as
well as an injunction against future calls.
KiwiCo, Inc. develops engaging hands-on STEAM projects and
activities to spark curiosity and creativity in kids.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq.
KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A.
2110 West Platt Street
Tampa, FL 33606
Tel: (813) 422-7782
Fax: (813) 422-7783
E-mail: ben@theKRfirm.com
LA MER TECHNOLOGY: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against La Mer Technology
Inc. The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. La Mer Technology Inc. doing
business as: Creme De La Mer, Case No. 1:22-cv-06136-JPC (S.D.N.Y.,
July 19, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
La Mer Technology Inc. doing business as: Creme De La Mer --
https://www.cremedelamer.com/ -- provides skin care and cosmetic
products. The Company produces face treatment, body treatment, and
skin color treatment products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
LEMON TREE: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lemon Tree
Development, LLC. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Lemon Tree
Development, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04214-RPK-RLM (E.D.N.Y., July
18, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Lemon Tree -- https://lemontree.com/ -- offers a full range of
professional salon services - including cutting and styling,
blowouts, smoothing and color services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Johnson Suit Moved From M.D. to S.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled THOMAS JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Case No.
2:22-cv-00420, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on July 21, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 9:22-cv-81066-AMC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay the
Plaintiff and similarly situated field technicians their earned
wages and overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Level 3 Communications, LLC is a telecommunications company, with
its principal place of business in Colorado. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 224-0431
Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
lcabassa@wfclaw.com
aheystek@wfclaw.com
gnichols@wfclaw.com
LIME ROCK: Colton Sues Over Unpaid Statutory Interest to Oil Owners
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GREGG B. COLTON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CONTINENTAL RESOURCES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 6:22-cv-00208-JAR (E.D. Okla., July 19, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Oklahoma's Production
Revenue Standards Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to pay mineral owners,
including the Plaintiff, statutory interest on untimely, or late,
payments derived from the sale of oil or gas produced from wells
located in Oklahoma. At various times since May 24, 2017,
Continental has made royalty payments to the Plaintiff and Class
members more than six months after the date of the first sale, and
later than the last day of the second succeeding month after the
end of the month within which such production is sold. The
Plaintiff and Class members seek to recover damages who have
received late payments from Continental which have not included the
statutory interest as required by the law, says the suit.
Continental Resources, Inc. is an operator of oil and gas wells,
with its principal place of business located at 20 N. Broadway,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Hicks, Esq.
Trevor R. Henson, Esq.
BARROW AND GRIMM, PC
110 W. Seventh St., Ste. 900
Tulsa, OK 74119
Telephone: (918) 584-1600
E-mail: jhicks@barrowgrimm.com
- and –
George A. Barton, Esq.
Seth K. Jones, Esq.
BARTON AND BURROWS, LLC
5201 Johnson Drive, Ste. 110
Mission, KS 66205
Telephone: (913) 563-6250
E-mail: George@bartonburrows.com
Seth@bartonburrows.com
LIME ROCK: Fails to Properly Pay Mineral Owners, Colton Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
GREGG B. COLTON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIME ROCK RESOURCES GP V, L.P., LIME ROCK
RESOURCES III-A GP, LLC, LIME ROCK RESOURCES III-A, L.P., LIME ROCK
RESOURCES IV-A GP, LLC, LIME ROCK RESOURCES IV-A, L.P., LIME ROCK
RESOURCES OPERATING COMPANY, INC., and LIME ROCK RESOURCES V-A,
L.P., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00123-CRH (D.N.D., July 19,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
North Dakota Century Code.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to pay mineral owners,
including the Plaintiff, statutory interest on untimely, or late,
payments derived from the sale of oil or gas produced from wells
located in North Dakota. At various times since July 15, 2016, Lime
Rock has made royalty payments to the Plaintiff and Class members
more than 150 days after oil or gas subject to the Class members'
mineral interests has been marketed by Lime Rock, without paying
the 18 percent per annum interest on such late payments, as
required under NDCC. The Plaintiff and Class members seek to
recover damages who have received late payments from Lime Rock,
says the suit.
Lime Rock Resources GP V, L.P. is an operator of oil and gas wells,
with its principal place of business located at 274 Riverside
Avenue, FL 3, Westport, Connecticut.
Lime Rock Resources III-A GP, LLC is an operator of oil and gas
wells, with its principal place of business located at 274
Riverside Avenue, FL 3, Westport, Connecticut.
Lime Rock Resources III-A, L.P. is an operator of oil and gas
wells, with its principal place of business located at 1111 Bagby
St., Ste. 4600, Houston, Texas.
Lime Rock Resources IV-A GP, LLC is an operator of oil and gas
wells, with its principal place of business located at 274
Riverside Avenue, FL 3, Westport, Connecticut.
Lime Rock Resources IV-A, L.P. is an operator of oil and gas wells,
with its principal place of business located at 1111 Bagby St.,
Ste. 4600, Houston, Texas.
Lime Rock Resources Operating Company, Inc. is an operator of oil
and gas wells, with its principal place of business located at 1111
Bagby St., Ste. 4600, Houston, Texas.
Lime Rock Resources V-A, L.P. is an operator of oil and gas wells,
with its principal place of business located at 1111 Bagby St.,
Ste. 4600, Houston, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George A. Barton, Esq.
Stacy A. Burrows, Esq.
BARTON AND BURROWS, LLC
5201 Johnson Drive, Ste. 110
Mission, KS 66205
Telephone: (913) 563-6250
E-mail: George@bartonburrows.com
Stacy@bartonburrows.com
LING LTD: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ling, Ltd. The case
is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Ling, Ltd., Case No. 1:22-cv-04215
(E.D.N.Y., July 18, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ling, Ltd. -- https://www.lingskincare.com/ -- offers and skin care
tips from the skin care guru, Ling Chan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
LOTTE HOTEL: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lotte Hotel New York
Palace, LLC. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Lotte Hotel New York
Palace, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04216 (E.D.N.Y., July 18, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Lotte New York Palace -- https://www.lottenypalace.com/ -- is
the first five-star hotel in NYC's history offering ultra-luxurious
amenities, distinctive events spaces, and opulent suites.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
LOWE'S HOME: Bartholomew Can't Compel All Privilege Log Documents
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DIANE BARTHOLOMEW, MICHAEL SHERRY, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOWE'S
HOME CENTERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-695-JLB-KCD (M.D.
Fla.), Magistrate Judge Kyle C. Dudek of the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, denies the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel All Lowe's Privilege Log Documents or
For In Camera Review.
The lawsuit is an employment dispute traveling as a class action.
Plaintiffs Bartholomew and Sherry are sales associates at Lowes.
When they started, their compensation included commissions. In
2012, Lowes ceased paying commissions and created a hybrid pay
structure where associates received an "allowance" based on prior
sales. Fast forward another several years and Lowes ended the
allowance program too. That left Plaintiffs receiving a straight
hourly wage. They then brought the class action suit, claiming
cessation of the allowance program is age discrimination and unjust
enrichment.
The case has been contentious from the beginning. The parties have
fought about the sufficiency of the complaint, whether to stay
discovery, Lowes' affirmative defenses, class certification, and
whether Lowes has properly designated documents under the parties'
confidentiality agreement. That all leads to the present discovery
dispute about Lowes' privilege log.
The discovery started in April 2020 when Lowes disclosed its first
batch of documents. This production was apparently not complete --
Lowes withheld several categories of documents awaiting a
confidentiality agreement. Once the Plaintiffs agreed to a
protective order, Lowes resumed discovery production. Over several
months, Lowes disclosed thousands of documents and emails about its
decision to change the associate pay structure.
In October 2020 Lowes served its first privilege log. It contained
about 200 entries marked "Attorney-Client Privilege." The
Plaintiffs objected to the log, claiming it was not specific enough
to vet the privilege assertion. The discovery process worked as it
should, and after some back-and-forth, Lowes agreed to prepare a
new privilege log. The resulting document, with 181 entries, added
new fields to help the Plaintiffs identify how the documents were
privileged.
The Plaintiffs again objected. And again the discovery process
envisioned by the Federal Rules worked. After several phone calls,
Lowes produced a third privilege log -- the document now in
dispute. A few additional details are important. The third
privilege log contains only 103 documents. Doing some quick lawyer
math, that means Lowes agreed to disclose around 80 documents (or
at least parts of them) previously withheld as privileged. The
Plaintiffs have attached several of those documents to their motion
to compel. They mainly consist of internal emails among Lowes'
management.
The Plaintiffs received Lowes' third privilege log in April 2022 --
for those keeping track, that's two years after the first
production. Things speed up from there. The parties conferred
throughout April, but Lowes declined to keep revising the privilege
log. The instant motion followed a month later. The Plaintiffs seek
"to compel production of all entries on Lowes' third privilege log,
or, alternatively, request the Court's in camera review."
Lowes is withholding documents under the attorney-client privilege.
The ultimate touchstone for application of the privilege is whether
the communication reveals advice from an attorney. If one of the
primary purposes of the communication is to convey legal advice,
then the attorney-client privilege generally attaches. The party
seeking shelter under the attorney-client privilege must prove it
applies. To accomplish this task without revealing the protected
information, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow for a
privilege log. To look behind a privilege log, or strike it
altogether as the Plaintiffs seek, there must be some showing that
an issue with the privilege claim exists.
The Plaintiffs press several arguments. Judge Dudek starts with
their broadest: "Lowes has not met its burden." The only question
to decide is whether the Plaintiffs shown enough to doubt the
privilege log. There must be a factual basis adequate to support a
good faith belief by a reasonable person that in camera review of
the materials may reveal that the privilege was improperly
asserted.
To meet their burden, the Plaintiffs insist that Lowes concealed
discoverable documents "in its privilege log." Their argument stems
from Lowes identifying several emails on its second privilege log
that were removed from the third version and produced. According to
them, "this belated disclosure, by itself, is an independently
sufficient reason for the Court to grant the instant motion." Judge
Dudek disagrees, saying Lowes' revision of its privilege log is
evidence of its good faith efforts to ensure that its privilege log
is accurate and correct.
Moving on, the Plaintiffs emphasize that many documents on the
privilege log are communications between non-attorneys. And where
an attorney is included, the communications often lack a
"confidential" designation. These discrepancies, according to the
Plaintiffs, also undermine the privilege. Yet again, Judge Dudek is
unconvinced. He says, the attorney-client privilege covers
communications between non-lawyers. And it is not unusual to see
non-attorney communications on a corporate privilege log. Since the
decision-making power of a corporation is often shared, the
circulation of privileged communications among several employees
(including non-lawyers) is unavoidable.
The Plaintiffs' argument about the lack of confidentiality markings
likewise falls flat. Judge Dudek holds that documents need not be
marked "confidential" for the attorney-client privilege to attach.
What matters is how the documents were shared. The attorney-client
privilege applies to legal "communications between corporate
employees who have a need to know in the scope of their corporate
responsibilities." The Plaintiffs offer nothing beyond speculation
to suggest that the materials on Lowes' privilege log were
disclosed to anyone outside those with a need to know. And
speculation is not enough.
The Plaintiffs' final effort to upend the privilege log is based on
waiver. They claim that Lowes waived any privilege by "asserting
the reasonable-factor-other-than-age defense." Judge Dudek holds
that the Plaintiffs ask too much of the implied waiver doctrine.
Lowes' RFOA defense does not put its attorney-client communications
"at issue" in the sense required. The Plaintiffs can discover "who
knew what and when" through other means such as deposition
testimony.
Judge Dudek concludes that the relief the Plaintiffs seeks -- in
camera review or full disclosure of the privilege log -- is strong
medicine. Either path ends with the Court invading the
confidentiality of communications that Lowes has certified are
privileged under the penalty of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Thee
confidentiality of attorney-client communications is an interest
traditionally deemed worthy of maximum legal protection. The facts
are not enough for the Court to strip Lowes of this legal
protection.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 22, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/54zpcn25 from Leagle.com.
MADISON AVENUE: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Madison Avenue
Advisors. The case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Madison Avenue
Advisors, Case No. 1:22-cv-06123 (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Madison Avenue Advisors, LLC --
https://www.madisonavenueadvisors.com/ -- is a financial
organization in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (917) 796-7437
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com
MARS INC: Faces Class Action Over Toxins in Skittles Candy
----------------------------------------------------------
Denise Craig, writing for Nexstar, writing for reports a California
lawsuit recently put Mars, Inc. in the hot seat, claiming one of
its candies contained toxins that are unsafe to eat.
The class action suit filed earlier this month accuses the candy
manufacturer of including "heightened levels" of titanium dioxide,
or TiO2, in its Skittles candy. The petitioner pointed to the
European Union phasing out the use of titanium dioxide with a full
ban going into place next month; however, Skittles aren't the only
popular American food containing ingredients banned or limited in
other countries.
Here are just a few American snacks you won't find in other
countries:
Mountain Dew & Fresca
Americans who "do the Dew" might be surprised to learn the product
contains brominated vegetable oil. BVO is banned in Japan and the
European Union because it contains bromine, the element found in
brominated flame retardants, which can build up in the body and
potentially lead to memory loss as well as skin and nerve problems.
The grapefruit-flavored soda, Fresca, also contains the
ingredient.
Little Debbie Swiss Rolls
Products in the European Union containing Yellow 5 and Red 40 carry
warnings that they cause adverse effects in children, but you won't
find that warning on a box of Little Debbie Swiss Rolls in the US.
Norway and Austria have banned the snack cakes outright.
Several Breakfast Cereals
Popular breakfast cereals including Frosted Flakes, Honey Bunches
of Oats, and Rice Krispies contain BHT. Used as a flavor enhancer,
BHT has long been studied for its potential carcinogenic
properties. While the evidence is inconclusive, BHT is banned in
Japan and the European Union. Other cereals, such as Lucky Charms,
use Yellow 5, Yellow 6 and Red 40, despite being known to cause
itching and hives for some.
Stove Top stuffing
Kraft Stove Top stuffing might make weeknight dinners easier, but
it also contains the same BHT found in American breakfast cereals,
as well as BHA, which at high doses, causes cancer in rats, mice
and hamsters. Both preservatives are banned in the United Kingdom,
Japan and several European countries.
Ritz Crackers & Coffee-mate
Trans fats were officially banned in the U.S. in 2018; however,
some trans fats such as partially hydrogenated soybean and
cottonseed oils can still be found in popular products such as Ritz
Crackers and Coffee-mate creamers. These ingredients are also
banned in Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Iceland, Norway and
Denmark.
Drumstick frozen desserts
Drumstick uses carrageenan, derived from seaweed, for texture in
its ice cream. Carrageenan can affect the human digestive system
which has led to its limited use in the European Union. [GN]
MDL 3030: Six Anti-Trust Suits Consolidated in N.D. Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE: DEERE & COMPANY REPAIR SERVICES ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL
No. 3030, Chairperson Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation, has entered an order consolidating
three cases from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois and one each from Northern District of Alabama, Western
District of Oklahoma and the Eastern District of Tennessee, all to
the Northern District of Illinois and, with the consent of that
court, assigned to Judge Iain D. Johnston for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Defendant Deere & Company moved to centralize this litigation in
the Northern District of Illinois or, alternatively, the Central
District of Illinois. All responding plaintiffs, including
plaintiffs in four potential tag-along actions, support
centralization, but the parties disagree as to the appropriate
transferee forum.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, the
panel said that these actions share factual issues arising from
allegations that, through various anticompetitive practices, Deere
has monopolized the market for repair and maintenance services for
Deere agricultural equipment equipped with engine control units by
restricting access to necessary repair-related software and
diagnostic tools. The actions assert substantially identical claims
under the Sherman Act, along with claims of unjust enrichment or
promissory estoppel, and seek identical relief. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings, particularly with respect to class certification, and
conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the
judiciary.
The panel concluded that the Northern District of Illinois is the
appropriate transferee district for pretrial proceedings in this
litigation since majority of the parties support centralization in
this district, and it offers a geographically central and readily
accessible forum for this nationwide litigation. Deere has also
represented that relevant witnesses and documents will be found at
its headquarters in Moline, Illinois, which is reasonably nearby,
note the panel.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 1, 2022 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3Q2dkBp
MDL 3031: Three Direct Purchaser Actions Transferred to D. Minn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE: DIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFF BEEF ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL
No. 3031, Chairperson Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation, has entered an order transferring one
case each from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut, Southern District of Florida and Northern District of
New York, all to the District of Minnesota and, with the consent of
that court, assigned to Judge John R. Tunheim for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Plaintiffs in the three actions moved to centralize this litigation
in the District of Minnesota. The three actions on the motion are
individual direct purchaser actions alleging a price fixing
conspiracy among leading American beef producers. Movants seek an
MDL consisting of only individual direct purchaser actions. The
panel agrees that this is the appropriate transferee district for
this litigation as this is a readily accessible district.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3S6jkLr
MDL 3032: 7 Rodent Infestation Cases Consolidated in W.D. Tenn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the rodent infestation case at the Family Dollar Distribution
Center in West Memphis, Arkansas captioned IN RE: FAMILY DOLLAR
STORES, INC., PEST INFESTATION LITIGATION, MDL No. 3032,
Chairperson Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, has entered an order consolidating one
case each from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Alabama, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western District of
Louisiana, Southern District of Mississippi, Western District of
Missouri, Western District of Tennessee and the Eastern District of
Virginia, all to the Western District of Tennessee and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to Judge Sheryl H. Lipman for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
The panel concluded that the Western District of Tennessee is an
appropriate transferee district for this litigation as Tennessee is
one of the six states affected by the infestation, and the Western
District is near the West Memphis, Arkansas Distribution Center at
the center of this litigation, where witnesses and other relevant
evidence likely are located. Plaintiffs in the majority of actions
support centralization in this district, and it is the second
choice of the Family Dollar defendants.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 2, 2022 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3JmCSaf
MDL 3033: Panel Denies Centralization of 3 Cases to E.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned "In re: Senior Health Insurance Company of
Pennsylvania Rehabilitation Plan Litigation," MDL No. 3033,
Chairperson Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, has entered an order denying the transfer
of three actions pending in the Southern District of Iowa, the
District of New Jersey and the District of North Dakota to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Defendants Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania (SHIP),
Michael Humphreys, Acting Insurance Commissioner for the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Statutory Rehabilitator of SHIP
and Patrick Cantilo, Special Deputy Rehabilitator of SHIP requested
the centralization move.
The panel concluded that centralization is not necessary for the
convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation. These actions involve the
enforcement of a rehabilitation plan for SHIP that was approved by
the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court in 2021. Plaintiffs, who are
state insurance commissioners and regulatory agencies, seek to
enjoin defendants from implementing the rehabilitation plan as to
policyholders in their respective states without first obtaining
approval from the state insurance regulator of any rate or benefit
changes. The actions undoubtedly are similar and share some factual
questions. But where, as here, "only a minimal number of actions
are involved, the proponent of centralization bears a heavier
burden to demonstrate that centralization is appropriate."
Defendants have not satisfied their burden to show that the
benefits of centralization outweigh the disruption to the pending
actions and inconvenience that would be imposed on the parties and
witnesses. The panel contends that centralization appears
premature. Plaintiffs in each action have moved to remand those
actions to state court. One of the actions initially listed on the
motion already has been remanded.
The panel said that a reasonable prospect exists that this
litigation could, in relatively short order, lose its multidistrict
character or be remanded in its entirety. Setting aside the pending
remand motions, resolution of these actions likely will hinge on
legal questions and that there is no factual dispute as to the
conduct of the proceedings in the Commonwealth Court or the terms
of the rehabilitation plan. These actions thus primarily present a
legal question--whether defendants must obtain approval for rate
and benefit changes from the insurance regulators of the states
where they seek to implement the rehabilitation plan.
Defendants contend that these actions will entail dueling actuarial
experts with respect to how implementation of the rehabilitation
plan versus partial implementation will affect policyholders and
the viability of SHIP. Whether the rehabilitation plan is
reasonable, though, does not appear central to the dispute
regarding which state regulators have the final say as to
implementation of the rehabilitation plan. And, to the extent these
actions present common factual questions, alternatives to
centralization are available to minimize any duplication in
pretrial proceedings. The small number of involved courts and
counsel here should facilitate informal coordination of any
overlapping discovery, notes the Panel.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 1, 2022 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/3vreoad
MDL 3034: 7 Neo Wireless Suits Consolidated in E.D. Mich.
---------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district litigation captioned IN RE: NEO WIRELESS,
LLC, PATENT LITIGATION, MDL No. 3035, Chairperson Karen K. Caldwell
of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, has entered
an order transferring three cases from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas and one each from the Western
District of Missouri, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern District
of Tennessee and the Middle District of Tennessee to the Eastern
District of Michigan and assigned to Terrence G. Berg for inclusion
in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Neo Wireless LLC moved to centralize this litigation in the Eastern
District of Texas. The actions in this litigation involve six
patents owned by Neo in the field of wireless communication
systems. Neo alleges in all actions that the patents share common
inventors and a common assignment history from Neocific, Inc. The
patents are alleged to stem from a set of patent families
describing improvements in wireless systems that have become
relevant to the operation of 4G/LTE and 5G/New Radio cellular
networks and compatible devices in the U.S. All accused infringers
in these seven actions are automaker groups who are alleged to
implement cellular communications technology into their vehicles,
such as remote lock and unlock, remote start and remote start
scheduling, parked vehicle location, remote fuel level checks,
automatic collision notification, roadside assistance, and Wi-Fi
hotspot. Neo alleges that because the patents all relate to
fundamental aspects of LTE/4G and 5G/NR networks, the patents read
directly onto LTE or 4G/5G technical standards. As a result, by
complying with these standards, each defendant allegedly infringes
the asserted patents. All actions thus can be expected to share
factual questions concerning such matters as the technology
underlying the patents, prior art, claim construction, and/or
issues of infringement involving the patents. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel,
and the judiciary.
Opposing defendants principally argued that centralization in the
Eastern District of Texas would be inconvenient. They also argued
that the litigation is not advanced enough to determine whether
there are sufficient common factual questions to warrant
centralization, cooperation among the parties is a preferable
alternative to centralization, and plaintiffs are engaging in forum
shopping. Though it is true that these cases are in their earliest
stages, the panel has observed already that the patents and claims
asserted in these actions overlap completely. While there may be
variations in the specific wireless features used in defendants'
vehicles, all defendants are in the same industry with similar
allegedly infringing products, and all are alleged to have
infringed the same patents merely by implementing LTE or 4G/5G
standards. The panel held that infringement allegations concerning
the implementation of certain industry standards weigh in favor of
centralization. Moreover, the common early procedural posture among
the actions will facilitate their efficient coordination.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2022 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3Q1k02G
MDL 3035: Five Case Consolidated in W.D. Tenn.
----------------------------------------------
In case captioned "In Re: AME Church Employee Retirement Fund
Litigation," MDL No. 3035, Chairperson Karen K. Caldwell of the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, has entered an
order centralizing two cases from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee and one each from the Middle District
of Florida, District of Maryland and the Eastern District of
Virginia to the Western District of Tennessee and assigned to S.
Thomas Anderson for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.
All responding parties support centralization, but disagree on the
transferee district. Plaintiffs in the District of Maryland action
request centralization in the District of Maryland, plaintiffs in
the other three actions on the motion and one potential tag-along
action support the motion to centralize these actions in the
Western District of Tennessee. Responding defendants African
Methodist Episcopal Church (AME Church), Reverend Dr. Jerome V.
Harris, Newport Group, Inc. and Symetra Financial Corporation also
support centralization in the Western District of Tennessee.
The panel concluded that the Western District of Tennessee is an
appropriate transferee district for this litigation. The AME Church
Department of Retirement Services has its principal place of
business in this district, and its former director during the
relevant time period allegedly resides there. Thus, common evidence
likely will be located there. Two actions on the motion are pending
in the Western District of Tennessee, and nearly all responding
parties support centralization in this district. AME Church is
located in the adjacent district, in Nashville, Tennessee and is
expected to be the subject of common discovery.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 2, 2022 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3Q8JCe9
MEDICAL REVIEW: Co-Lead & Liaison Counsel Named in White and Purvis
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, SHANE WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDICAL REVIEW INSTITUTE OF
AMERICA, LLC, Defendant. KAREN PURVIS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDICAL REVIEW
INSTITUTE OF AMERICA, LLC, Defendant. AHMED AMER, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDICAL
REVIEW INSTITUTE OF AMERICA, LLC, Defendant. JOEL THORNTON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. MEDICAL REVIEW INSTITUTE OF AMERICA, LLC, Defendant.
PATRICIA A. DEAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDICAL REVIEW INSTITUTE OF
AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Consolidated Case No. 2:22cv00082-DAK-DAO,
Case Nos. 2:22cv0099, 2:22cv0132, 2:22cv0181, 2:22cv0226 (D. Utah),
Judge Dale A. Kimball of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Utah issued an order:
(1) granting in part and denying in part the Motion to
Consolidate Cases and Motion to Appoint Interim Co-Lead
Counsel filed by Plaintiffs Karen Purvis and Patricia A.
Dean; and
(2) denying the Motion to Appoint Interim Co-Lead Class
Counsel and Liaison Counsel Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3)
filed by Plaintiffs Shane White, Ahmed Amer, and Joel
Thornton.
The Purvis Plaintiffs and the White Plaintiffs agree that the five
related actions should be consolidated into the first-filed action,
White v. Medical Review Institute of America, LLC, 2:22cv00082
DAK-DAO. Judge Kimball finds that the parties have established good
cause for the consolidation of the related cases pending in this
district. He says, these cases arise from the same nucleus of
common facts, are brought against a common Defendant -- Medical
Review Institute of America -- and raise many of the same questions
of law. Consolidation will provide for complete resolution in one
proceeding and avoid unnecessary duplication of work and the risk
of inconsistent adjudications, thereby promoting the interests of
judicial economy and convenience with no prejudice to the parties
and the putative class.
Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) and
Local Rule DUCivR 42-1(a), the Motion to Consolidate is granted,
and the following cases are consolidated into the instant case:
Karen Purvis v. Medical Review Institute of America, LLC,
2:22cv00009; Ahmed Amer v. v. Medical Review Institute of America,
LLC, 2:22cv00132; Joel Thornton v. Medical Review Institute of
America, LLC, 2:22cv00181; and Patricia A. Dean v. Medical Review
Institute of America, LLC, 2:22cv00226.
All filings made in the Related Action are deemed to have been made
in the case without needing to refile the documents. All future
papers filed in the Consolidated Action will be filed under Case
No. 2:22cv00082 DAK-DAO and will bear the following caption: THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH IN RE MEDICAL REVIEW
INSTITUTE OF AMERICA, LLC, DATA BREACH LITIGATION Lead Case No.
2:22cv0082-DAK-DAO Judge Dale A. Kimball Magistrate Judge Daphne A.
Oberg This Document Relates to: _____
The White Plaintiffs request that the Court appoint (i) Gary M.
Klinger of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC; and (ii)
William B. Federman of Federman & Sherwood as Interim Co-Lead
Counsel; along with (iii) Charles H. Thronson of Parsons Behle &
Latimer as Interim Liaison Counsel.
On the other hand, the Purvis Plaintiffs seek appointment of (i)
Ben Barnow of Barnow and Associates, P.C.; (ii) Timothy G. Blood of
Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP; and (iii) Gary E. Mason of Mason LLP
as Interim Co-Lead Counsel; along with (iv) Jennifer Fraser Parrish
of Magleby Cataxinos & Greenwood, PC as Interim Liaison Counsel.
Based on the briefing of these motions, along with the attached
exhibits, it appears that both sets of proposed interim co-lead
counsel and liaison counsel satisfy the four factors that Judge
Kimball must consider. The White Attorneys were the first to file
in this District. Additionally, another factor weighing in favor of
appointing the White Attorneys is that they have filed the majority
of the pending Related Cases. Accordingly, having considered the
relevant factors, Judge Kimball finds that appointing the White
Attorneys to manage this litigation would best serve the interests
of the proposed class.
Accordingly, he appoints Gary Klinger (Milberg Coleman Bryson
Phillips Grossman, PLLC) and William B. Federman (Federman &
Sherwood), as the Interim Co-Lead Counsel, and Charles H. Thronson
(Parsons Behle & Latimer) as the Liaison Counsel for all
Plaintiffs. The nterim Co-Lead Counsel must assume responsibility
for the duties during all phases of the litigation, including but
not limited to:
a) Coordinating the work of preparing and presenting all of
the Plaintiffs' claims and otherwise coordinating all proceedings,
including organizing and supervising the efforts of their counsel
in a manner to ensure that their pretrial preparation is conducted
effectively, efficiently, expeditiously, and economically;
b) Delegating work responsibilities and monitoring the
activities of all the Plaintiffs' counsel in a manner to promote
the orderly and efficient conduct of the litigation and to avoid
unnecessary duplication and expense; and
c) Calling meetings of the Plaintiffs' counsel for any
appropriate purpose, including coordinating responses to questions
of other parties or of the court, and initiating proposals,
suggestions, schedules, and any other appropriate matters.
Judge Kimball appoints Charles H. Thronson (Parsons Behle &
Latimer) as the Interim Liaison Counsel for all Plaintiffs. The
Interim Liaison Counsel is responsible for performing the duties
and responsibilities described in the Manual for Complex Litigation
(4th) Section 21.221 (2004), including facilitating and expediting
communications with and among Plaintiffs' counsel and fulfilling
such other duties as requested by the Court or the Interim Lead
Counsel.
Judge Kimball also orders the following:
a) Interim Liaison Counsel is designated as the counsel for
all Plaintiffs in all cases upon whom others must serve all
notices, orders, pleadings, motions, discovery, and memoranda.
b) Interim Liaison Counsel is authorized to: (a) receive
orders, notices, correspondence, and telephone calls from the court
and the clerk of the court on Plaintiffs' behalf; (b) prepare and
transmit copies of such orders and notices on Plaintiffs' behalf;
and (c) receive orders and notices from the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, if any.
c) Interim Liaison Counsel will maintain complete files with
copies of all documents served and make such files available to all
Plaintiffs' counsel on request.
d) Interim Liaison Counsel must maintain and make available to
all counsel and the court an up-to-date service list.
e) Interim Liaison Counsel will assume other responsibilities
as may be deemed appropriate by the Interim Lead Counsel or as
ordered by the Court.
Any discussions of a settlement of the litigation will be conducted
by the Interim Co-Lead Counsel and any counsel designated by
former. In advance of each status conference, the Interim Co-Lead
Counsel and the Defendant's counsel will meet and confer regarding
the agenda for the conference. Unless otherwise ordered, their
counsel will file a joint notice setting out the proposed agenda
and the parties' joint and/or respective positions no later than
five calendar days prior to each status conference.
Judge Kimball's Order applies to all actions included in the
consolidated matters and all subsequently consolidated actions. The
Interim Co-Lead Counsel must serve a copy of the Order and all
future orders promptly on the counsel for the Plaintiffs in each
related action not yet consolidated in the proceeding to the extent
that it is aware of any such action(s) and on all attorneys for the
Plaintiffs whose cases have been so consolidated but who have not
yet registered for ECF.
The initial deadlines for the Consolidated Action are as follows:
a) The Plaintiffs will file a Consolidated Complaint no later
than 30 days following entry of the Order;
b) The Defendant will file an answer or otherwise respond to
the Consolidated Complaint within 30 days of the filing of the
Consolidated Complaint;
c) The Plaintiffs will file an opposition memorandum to any
motion to dismiss or similar motion filed in response to the
Consolidated Complaint within 30 days of any such motion;
d) The Defendant will file a reply in support of any motion to
dismiss or similar motion within 14 days of the Plaintiffs'
opposition memorandum; and
e) The Defendant need not file a response to the Complaints in
Purvis, Amer, Thornton, or Dean, and any orders related to
scheduling previously entered in White, Purvis, Amer, Thornton, or
Dean are vacated.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 22, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3ffa6bd3 from Leagle.com.
METRO MAILING SERVICE: Perez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Metro Mailing Service
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Daniel Perez, and on behalf of
all other similarly situated employees v. Metro Mailing Service
Inc., Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2022-00323567-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.
Ct., Sacramento Cty., July 18, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Metro Mailing Service -- https://www.callmms.com/ -- provides
complete mailing services for all classes and types of
mailings.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Galen T. Shimoda, Esq.
SHIMODA LAW CORP.
9401 E Stockton Blvd., Ste. 120
Elk Grove, CA 95624-5050
Phone: 916-525-0716
Fax: 916-760-3733
Email: attorney@shimodalaw.com
MICHAEL STOCKBRIDGE: Stockbridge Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael Stockbridge, Xavier Castro,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, and as aggrieved employees pursuant to the
Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) v. Skywest Airlines, Inc.,
Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV13789 was removed
from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on July 19, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-04935-DMG-JC to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Labor/Mgmnt.
Relations.
SkyWest Airlines -- https://www.skywest.com/ -- is an American
regional airline headquartered in St. George, Utah, United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew Roland Bainer, Esq.
BAINER LAW FIRM
1999 Harrison Street Suite 1800
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 922-1802
Email: mbainer@bainerlawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Amanda Whitney Molinari, Esq.
Amanda C. Sommerfeld, Esq.
JONES DAY
555 South Flower Street 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 489-3939
Fax: (213) 243-2539
Email: amolinari@jonesday.com
asommerfeld@jonesday.com
- and -
Patricia T. Stambelos
STAMBELOS LAW OFFICE
543 Country Club Drive Suite B209
Simi Valley, CA 93065
Phone: (805) 578-3474
Fax: (895) 994-0199
MICHIGAN: Court Dismisses Simpson-Vlach v. MDE Without Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Judith E. Levy of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, dismisses the case, Rita
C. Simpson-Vlach, et al., Plaintiffs v. Michigan Department of
Education, et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-11532 (E.D. Mich.),
without prejudice.
The Defendants include a state educational agency, local
educational agencies ("LEA"), and individuals affiliated with these
agencies who are being sued in their official capacities.
Plaintiffs Rita C. Simpson-Vlach, Alan Simpson-Vlach, Kathy Bishop,
and Christopher Place, who are residents of Ann Arbor, Michigan,
are parents of children with disabilities, who bring the action
"individually and on behalf of their children," with disabilities:
A.S., M.S., C.P., and H.P. They filed the complaint on June 30,
2021. On Jan. 27, 2022, the Court held a hearing by video
conference and heard oral argument.
The Defendants are the Michigan Department of Education ("MDE"),
the Ann Arbor Public Schools ("AAPS" or "District"), the Washtenaw
Intermediate School District ("WISD"), Jeanice Swift (the
Superintendent of the AAPS), Marianne Fidishin (the Executive
Director of Student Intervention and Support Services for the
AAPS), Scott Menzel (the former Interim Superintendent of the
WISD), Naomi Norman (the current Interim Superintendent of the
WISD), and Michael F. Rice (the State Superintendent for the MDE).
They divide themselves into three groups: (1) the State Defendants,
which consist of the MDE and Rice; (2) the AAPS Defendants, which
consist of the AAPS, Swift, and Fidishin; and (3) the WISD
Defendants, which consist of the WISD, Menzel, and Norman. Each
group of Defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants
violated their rights when the AAPS closed in March 20202 due to
the COVID-19 public health crisis and improperly switched from
providing in-person instruction and services to providing virtual
instruction and services. Plaintiffs allege violations of various
state and federal laws, including the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, 20 U.S.C. Section 1400, et seq.
With respect to the four student Plaintiffs, the complaint alleges
that on March 16, 2020, AAPS ceased all in-person education due to
the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result of closure of AAPS schools, AAPS
altered A.S.'s, M.S.'s, C.P.'s, and H.P.'s IEPs for the 2019-2020
school year to complete virtual instruction and services without
any prior written notice and/or the proper participation of
parents. The alterations and concomitant placement of A.S., M.S.,
C.P., and H.P. at home receiving virtual instruction and services
was procedurally defective because AAPS: (i) altered their IEPs to
complete virtual instruction without prior written notice or any
written notice; (ii) altered their IEPs without the meaningful
participation of their parents; (iii) failed to reconvene an IEP
meeting at a time that was mutually agreeable with parents prior
to, or even soon after, changing their placement from in-person
instruction and services to home placement with virtual instruction
and services; and (iv) failed to ensure that they could access a
free and appropriate public education on the same level as their
non-disabled peers.
During the 2019-2020 school year, from March 16, 2020 through June
12, 2020, A.S., M.S., C.P., and H.P. attended school at home with
virtual instruction and services. During the 2020-2021 school year,
A.S., M.S., and C.P. attended school at home with virtual
instruction and/or services until May of 2021 when AAPS offered a
hybrid option, while H.P. attended school at home receiving virtual
instruction and services until January of 2021 when her mother
placed her in a private school.
In other words, the Plaintiffs allege that the AAPS unilaterally
changed the location and mechanism of the delivery of instruction
and related services from at school/in person to at home/virtual
during the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 school years. They believe this
change altered the student Plaintiffs' IEPs and educational
placements and affected their access to a FAPE.
The Plaintiffs' complaint contains eight counts. In Count 1, they
allege that the WISD, AAPS, and MDE committed four "systemic
violations" of the IDEA. In Count 2, they allege that the
"Defendants" violated Rules 300.324 and 300.518 of the Michigan
Administrative Rules for Special Education ("MARSE"). In Count 3,
the Plaintiffs allege that the AAPS (and possibly the MDE) violated
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. In Count 4, they allege that
the AAPS (and possibly the MDE) violated Title II of the Americans
with Disabilities Act. In Count 5, the Plaintiffs allege that the
AAPS (and possibly the MDE) violated the Michigan Persons with
Disabilities Civil Rights Act. In Count 6, they assert a claim
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against "Defendants," alleging a
Fourteenth Amendment equal protection violation. In Count 7, they
allege that the individual Defendants (Swift, Fidishin, Menzel,
Norman, and Rice) violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act. In Count 8, they assert a RICO conspiracy claim
against the individual Defendants. The Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants' actions caused them to suffer "damages, including
regressions in skills and loss of competencies regarding the goals
and objectives outlined in their IEPs."
The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief. They also
seek fees, costs, and expenses (including attorney fees). In the
complaint's "Prayer for Relief," they ask that the Court:
1. asserts jurisdiction over the matter;
2. certifies the action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2);
3. issues a declaratory judgment that the class members'
pendency placement is in-person instruction and services;
4. issues a declaratory judgment that AAPS and other similarly
situated LEAs' unilateral change of placement of the Plaintiffs
from in-person instruction and services to virtual instruction and
services violated the procedural safeguards of IDEA and
discriminated against the Plaintiffs under IDEA, MARSE, Section
504, the ADA, the PWDCRA and Section 1983;
5. issues a declaratory judgment that the MDE failed to
monitor and provide proper oversight and resources to AAPS and
other similarly situated LEAs during the COVID-19 pandemic as
required under IDEA and MARSE;
6. orders the MDE, WISD, AAPS and other similarly situated
LEAs to comply with the procedural safeguards guaranteed by IDEA
for the 2021-2022 school year for the class members unless the U.S.
Department of Education issues IDEA waivers;
7. assigns a Special Monitor to: a) oversee the completion of
Independent Education Evaluations for all the class members to
determine regressions and loss of competencies due to the
unilateral changes to their IEPs and placements, and reconvene IEP
Team meetings within thirty days of the completion of the IEEs; b)
make expert recommendations to the Court regarding compensatory
education or pendency payments for the class members to address any
regressions and/or loss of competencies; c) ensure the expert
recommendations are included in writing in the class members' IEP
documents;
8. requires the MDE and its LEAs to comply with IDEA, MARSE,
the ADA, Section 504, the PWDCRA and Section 1983 in the event of
any future school closures for which the U.S. DOE does not issue
IDEA waivers;
9. assigns a RICO Special Monitor to: a) oversee the
completion of an independent audit of the Defendants' expenditures
of their IDEA Part B Funds from March of 2020 to the present; b)
oversee the Defendants' expenditures of their IDEA Part B Funds for
the 2021-2022 school year to ensure the Defendants spend IDEA Part
B Funds for instruction and/or services for students with
disabilities under IDEA; c) ensure any IDEA Part B Funds that the
Defendants spent on items other than instruction and/or services
for students with disabilities under IDEA from March of 2020
through the present are reimbursed to a monitored account to be
spent only upon review and approval by the RICO Special Monitor;
10. declares the Plaintiffs to be the substantially prevailing
party (for purposes of IDEA's fee shifting provision);
11. grants leave to the Plaintiffs to submit a statutory fee
application;
12. directs the Defendants to pay for the costs and expenses
for maintaining the action, including reasonable attorneys' fees;
13. awards attorneys' fees pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act,
the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 1988 and the
Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act;
14. retains jurisdiction over this action until such time as
this Court is satisfied that the systemic violations of the laws
and regulations complained of herein have been rectified; and
15. grants such other or further relief that the Court may
deem just and proper.
During the Jan. 27, 2022 hearing, the Plaintiffs' counsel informed
the Court that the Plaintiffs are no longer pursuing Count 8. In a
document filed on Feb. 17, 2022, the Plaintiffs provided the
following information regarding the status of each count:
1. Count I: The IDEA cause of action remains as to the
systemic violations for named Plaintiffs and both the systemic and
FAPE violations for putative class members. The Plaintiffs continue
to seek prospective, injunctive relief to prevent further systemic
violations.
2. Count II: The Plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss the MARSE
Cause of Action in Count II as to State Defendants only.
3. Count III: The Plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss the Section
504 claim in Count III as to all Defendants.
4. Count IV: The cause of action under the ADA remains as to
the disparate impact of the COVID school closings.
5. Count V: The Plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss the PWDCRA
claim under Count V as to State Defendants only.
6. Count VI: The Plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss the Section
1983 claim in Count VI as to all Defendants.
7. Count VII: The Plaintiffs continue to seek prospective,
injunctive relief for RICO violations outlined in Count VII.
8. Count VIII: The Plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss Count VIII
as to all Defendants.
Thus, the remaining counts are Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 (but the
claims in Counts 2 and 5 are no longer asserted against the State
Defendants).
The complaint states that the parent Plaintiffs "filed
administrative due process complaints against the Defendants but
did not exhaust their administrative due process remedies under 20
U.S.C. Section 1415(i)(2), on behalf of A.S., M.S., C.P., and H.P.,
because their claims fall within the exceptions specified by law."
The MDE received Plaintiffs' four proposed due process complaints
on Aug. 6, 2021.
On Jan. 11, 2022, the parties filed a joint update in the case
regarding the outcome of the administrative proceedings. The
parties indicate in their filing that on Aug. 9, 2021, the
Plaintiffs filed four due process complaints with the State of
Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules against the
Ann Arbor Public Schools (AAPS): In the Matter of R.S.V. obo M.S.V.
v. Ann Arbor Public Schools, Docket No. 21-017885; In the Matter of
R.S.V. obo A.S.V. v. Ann Arbor Public Schools, Docket No.
21-017893; In the Matter of K.B. obo H.P. v. Ann Arbor Public
Schools, Docket No. 21-017895; and In the Matter of K.B. obo C.P.
v. Ann Arbor Public Schools, Docket No. 21-017897. In November
2021, the Plaintiffs and AAPS entered into Release and Settlement
Agreements in each of these matters.
Pursuant to these Release and Settlement Agreements, Administrative
Law Judge Michael J. St. John entered Orders of Dismissal
dismissing each matter with prejudice in November 2021. All four
Agreements state: "The Parents and the District voluntarily enter
into this Agreement to resolve the disputes alleged in the Due
Process Complaint regarding the Student's right to a FAPE under
IDEA." Three of the Agreements address the provision of
compensatory services. Out of these three Agreements, two of them
also provide that the AAPS will pay a certain sum to the parents
"as unrestricted funds for the benefit of the Student" and "to
compensate Parents for out-of-pocket costs they have incurred for
the Student's tutoring during the period when the Student was
participating in virtual instruction." The fourth Agreement
provides that the AAPS will pay $3,500 to the parents "as
unrestricted funds for the benefit of the Student" and "to
compensate Parents for tuition expenses incurred by the Parents as
a result of the Student's enrollment in private school."
In his November 2021 orders dismissing with prejudice the four
administrative matters identified, Administrative Law Judge St.
John notes that the parties "requested that the hearing in each
matter be dismissed." The order issued in each matter states that
the dismissal is with prejudice and the file in the matter is
closed.
Article III Standing
The AAPS Defendants argue that H.P.'s claims should be dismissed
because H.P. does not have standing to bring a claim for
compensatory services given that she is "no longer enrolled in the
District." They indicate that since January 2021, H.P. has been
"attending the Daycroft Montessori School, a private program
located within the Dexter Community School District." In their
response to the AAPS Defendants' motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs
argue that "H.P. has standing to pursue compensatory services for
the AAPS Defendants' violation of IDEA procedural safeguards." They
reference a United States Supreme Court case called Sch. Comm. of
Town of Burlington, Mass. v. Dep't of Educ. of Mass., 471 U.S. 359,
367 (1985), and a Second Circuit case called Ventura de Paulino v.
N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., 959 F.3d 519, 531 (2d Cir. 2020), cert.
denied, 141 S.Ct. 1075 (2021), reh'g denied, 141 S.Ct. 1530
(2021).
But the Plaintiffs do not explain how these cases apply. From what
Judge Levy can tell from her own review of the cases, neither case
addresses the issue of standing. The AAPS Defendants indicate that
the Plaintiffs filed an amended due process complaint (at the
administrative level) on Sept. 21, 2021 that "sought tuition
reimbursement rather than the remedies set forth in HP's original
due process complaint." They say no leave to amend has been sought.
Judge Levy agrees with the AAPS Defendants. The Plaintiffs have not
requested permission to amend the complaint in the case to seek
tuition reimbursement.
In their filings, the Plaintiffs and the AAPS Defendants do not
address the requirements for standing under Article III. In
Kanuszewski, 927 F.3d at 405 (citing Nikolao v. Lyon, 875 F.3d 310,
315 (6th Cir. 2017)), because standing doctrine comes from Article
III's case-or-controversy requirement, it is jurisdictional and
must be addressed as a threshold matter. In light of this guidance
from the Sixth Circuit, Judge Levy considers whether the Plaintiffs
-- not just student Plaintiff H.P. -- have standing to pursue their
remaining claims and the relief they seek as to each claim.
Count 1
The Plaintiffs state in Count 1 that the Defendants' actions have
caused their damages, including regressions in skills and loss of
competencies regarding the goals and objectives outlined in their
IEPs. They seek relief under the IDEA that includes "injunctive
relief declaring that the class members' pendency placement is
in-person instruction and requiring the MDE and its LEAs to comply
with IDEA in the event of any future school closures for which the
U.S. DOE does not issue IDEA waivers."
Judge Levy opines that the Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue a
claim for declaratory or injunctive relief in Count 1 because they
do not allege ongoing or future harm. There is no indication in
their complaint that the alleged IDEA violations or the regressions
in skills and loss of competencies are an actual or continuing
harm, and they do not allege that they face a "substantial risk" of
future harm. Because the Plaintiffs allege past harm in Count 1,
they do not have standing to pursue declaratory or injunctive
relief with respect to their IDEA claim in this count.
Count 2
In Count 2, titled "Violation of MARSE Section 300.324," the
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to provide them
procedural safeguards upon the termination of in-person instruction
in March of 2020. They say, the Defendants' actions caused them to
suffer damages, including regressions in skills and loss of
competencies regarding the goals and objectives outlined in their
IEPs. They indicate in Count 2 that they seek various forms of
declaratory and injunctive relief.
Judge Levy finds that the Plaintiffs do not have standing to pursue
declaratory or injunctive relief with respect to their MARSE claim
in Count 2. They have alleged an injury, however, they cannot seek
prospective relief because they do not allege a real or immediate
threat that the Defendants will repeat the alleged violation." The
Plaintiffs also cannot seek prospective relief because they do not
allege an ongoing or continuing harm. Because the injury alleged in
Count 2 took place in the past (i.e., "upon the termination of
in-person instruction in March of 2020", the Plaintiffs do not have
standing to seek declaratory or injunctive relief as to their MARSE
claim in Count 2.
Count 4
In Count 4, the Plaintiffs allege that the AAPS (and possibly the
MDE) violated Title II of the ADA because the MDE and its LEAs are
public entities forbidden to discriminate based on disability. They
allege in Count 6 (their now-voluntarily-dismissed equal protection
claim brought under Section 1983) that the "Defendants' closure of
schools in March of 2020 resulted in a disparate impact on them due
to their disabilities in violation of the ADA."
Judge Levy holds that the Plaintiffs do not specify an injury in
Count 4. Nor do they specify the relief they seek in this count. To
the extent their allegation of "harm as set forth above" intends to
reference their prior allegation that they suffered "regressions in
skills and loss of competencies regarding the goals and objectives
outlined in their IEPs," this allegation of harm does not give them
standing to pursue declaratory or injunctive relief for their ADA
claim in Count 4 for the reasons discussed. To the extent the
Plaintiffs' reference to "harm as set forth above" intends to
reference their allegations of discrimination or disparate impact
resulting from a violation of the ADA, those allegations do not
give them standing to pursue declaratory or injunctive relief as to
their claim in Count 4 either because the allegations of
discrimination and disparate impact relate to the AAPS's closure in
March 2020, which took place over two years ago. The Plaintiffs
make no allegation of ongoing or future harm in Count 4, so they
lack standing to pursue declaratory or injunctive relief as to
their ADA claim in that count.
Count 5
In Count 5, the Plaintiffs allege that the AAPS (and possibly the
MDE) violated the PWDCRA because under the PWDCRA, "the MDE and its
LEAs" are "educational institutions" that are prohibited from
discriminating against people with disabilities. They state that
"as a proximate cause of these violations of the Michigan Persons
with Disabilities Act, they have suffered harm.
Judge Levy opines that the Plaintiffs do not clearly allege an
injury or the relief they seek as to their PWDCRA claim. Their
injury in Count 5 is potentially them suffering unlawful
discrimination under the PWDCRA, as well as the regressions in
skills and loss of competencies alleged in their previous counts.
These injuries (assuming the Plaintiffs intended to allege them) do
not give them standing to seek the declaratory and injunctive
relief they request in the complaint. The Plaintiffs state that the
PWDCRA violation took place in March 2020, and the regressions in
skills and loss of competencies from the prior two school years are
not alleged to be an actual or future harm. Therefore, they do not
have standing to pursue declaratory or injunctive relief as to
their PWDCRA claim in Count 5.
Count 7
In Count 7, the Plaintiffs allege a RICO violation against the
Individual Defendants. They state that their RICO claim arises from
a scheme by individual defendants Swift, Fidishin, Menzel, Norman
and Rice, in their official capacities, to fraudulently use their
enterprises -- AAPS, WISD and MDE respectively -- to defraud
plaintiffs, the beneficiaries of IDEA Part B funds, of millions of
dollars by making false assurances that the MDE and its LEAs
complied with IDEA during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Judge Levy finds that the Plaintiffs do not include factual
allegations in the complaint that indicate that the individual
Defendants had any involvement in the spending of IDEA Part B funds
or in the alleged deprivation of their rights under the IDEA.
Because they do not establish a direct or indirect connection
between their injuries and the individual Defendants' predicate
acts, the Plaintiffs do not show that their injuries "flow" from
the individual Defendants' challenged conduct. Therefore, they have
not met their burden of showing that the causation requirement for
standing is met.
Even if the Plaintiffs had established causation, Judge Levy holds
that a favorable decision on the Plaintiffs' RICO claim in Count 7
would entitle them to relief that "affects the behavior of" the
individual Defendants toward them. The Plaintiffs do not seek
relief in the complaint that would alter the behavior of these
Defendants and redress their injuries that are alleged in Count 7.
Because the Plaintiffs do not show that their injuries in Count 7
are redressable by a favorable decision that will "remove the
harm," they do not satisfy the third requirement for standing as to
their RICO claim. Accordingly, they fail to properly allege Article
III standing with respect to their RICO claim in Count 7.
Dismissal Without Prejudice
Given that the Plaintiffs do not establish that they have standing
as to the remaining counts in the case (Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7),
Judge Levy dismisses the case without prejudice for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. The Defendants' motions to dismiss and the
Plaintiffs' motion for an automatic and preliminary injunction are
denied a moot.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 22, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p98fh34 from Leagle.com.
MICHIGAN: Court Junks Cardello-Smith Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DERRICK LEE CARDELLO-SMITH
v. THE MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, EXECUTIVE POLICY
TEAM/COMMITTEE OF THE MDOC, ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT TEAM/DIVISION
OF THE MDOC, OFFICE OF LEGAL AFFAIRS-MDOC, OFFICE OF PRISONER
AFFAIRS-MDOC, ALL WARDENS OF THE MDOC, HEIDI WASHINGTON, DIRECTOR
OF THE MDOC, OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL-MICHIGAN,
DANA NESSELL, MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, MDOC'S POST-LITIGATION
CRITIQUE TEAM, AND MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL'S POST-LITIGATION
CRITIQUE TEAM/REPRESENTATIVE, Case No. 2:22-cv-10520-GAD-KGA (E.D.
Mich.), the Hon. Judge Gershwin A. Drain entered an order that:
-- the Plaintiff's request for class certification is denied,
and his complaint is summarily dismissed; and
-- the Plaintiff's request for a preliminary review of the
complaint is denied as moot. The Court also certifies that
an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good
faith.
The Michigan Department of Corrections oversees prisons and the
parole and probation population in the state of Michigan, United
States.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 14, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3z4kQVA at no extra charge.[CC]
MIDLAND CREDIT: Bianco Files FDCPA Suit in D. Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Anthony Bianco, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-11174-DJC (D. Mass, July 20,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/ -- is
an American debt buyer and debt collection company headquartered in
San Diego, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott H. Bernstein, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT H. BERNSTEIN, LLC
103 Eisenhower Parkway, Ste. 300
Roseland, NJ 07068
Phone: (203) 246-2887
Email: scott@scottbernsteinlaw.com
MILKBREAD LLC: Conner Files ADA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Angela Roi Inc. The
case is styled as Mary Conner, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Milkbread, LLC, K&J Management, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00321-RJC-DCK
(W.D.N.C., July 20, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Milkbread, LLC -- https://www.milkbread.com/ -- is a casual all-day
restaurant serving milkbread donuts, coffee, crispy chicken,
natural wines.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sanjay R. Gohil, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SANJAY R. GOHIL, PLLC
2435 Plantation Center Drive, Suite 200
Matthews, NC 28105
Phone: (704) 814-0729
Fax: (704) 814-0730
Email: srg@gohillaw.com
MISSFRESH LIMITED: Kessler Topaz Announces Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com)
informs investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed against Missfresh Limited ("Missfresh") (NASDAQ: MF). The
action charges Missfresh with violations of the federal securities
laws, including omissions and fraudulent misrepresentations
relating to the company's business, operations, and prospects. As a
result of Missfresh's materially misleading statements and
omissions to the public, Missfresh investors have suffered
significant losses.
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: SEPTEMBER 12, 2022
CLASS PERIOD: PURSUANT AND/OR TRACEABLE TO MISSFRESH'S JUNE 2021
IPO THROUGH JULY 12, 2022
CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS:
James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Toll Free (844) 887-9500 or
Email at info@ktmc.com
Kessler Topaz is one of the world's foremost advocates in
protecting the public against corporate fraud and other wrongdoing.
Our securities fraud litigators are regularly recognized as leaders
in the field individually and our firm is both feared and respected
among the defense bar and the insurance bar. We are proud to have
recovered billions of dollars for our clients and the classes of
shareholders we represent.
MISSFRESH'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT
In June 2021, Missfresh conducted its initial public offering
(IPO), selling 21 million American Depository Shares ("ADSs") at
$13.00 per ADS.
On April 29, 2022, after trading hours, Missfresh filed a
Notification of Late Filing on a Form 12b-25, which announced that
Missfresh "will not be able to file its Annual Report on Form 20-F
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 … by the prescribed
filing deadline of April 30, 2022." Missfresh explained that "[t]he
independent Audit Committee of [Missfresh]'s board of directors,
with the assistance of professional advisors, is in the process of
conducting an internal review of certain matters, including those
relating to transactions between [Missfresh] and certain
third-party enterprises." Following this news, Missfresh ADSs fell
13% to close at $0.448 per ADS on May 2, 2021, the next trading
day.
Then, on May 24, 2022, after trading hours, Missfresh issued a
press release entitled "Missfresh Announces Receipt of Nasdaq
Notification Regarding Late Filing of Form 20-F" announcing "that
it received a notification letter dated May 19, 2022 . . . from the
Listing Qualifications Department of The Nasdaq Stock Market Inc.
("Nasdaq"), indicating that [Missfresh] is not in compliance with
the requirements for continued listing." Following this news,
Missfresh ADSs fell 9% over the next two trading days to close at
$0.167 per ADS on May 26, 2021.
Finally, on July 1, 2022, Missfresh issued a press release entitled
"Missfresh Announces the Substantial Completion of the Audit
Committee-Led Independent Internal Review." In the press release,
Missfresh disclosed that "certain revenue associated with these
reporting periods in 2021 may have been inaccurately recorded in
[Missfresh]'s financial statements." As of the date the complaint
was filed, Missfresh ADSs closed at $0.389 per ADS, well below
Missfresh's IPO price of $13.00 per ADS.
WHAT CAN I DO?
Missfresh investors may, no later than September 12, 2022 seek to
be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class
through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages Missfresh investors who have
suffered significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire
more information.
WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF?
A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff
is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the
largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of
the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel
to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys,
if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability
to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether
or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.
ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country and around the
world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence
and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and
other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common
goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from
fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and
fiduciaries. The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com.
Contact:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(484) 270-1453
info@ktmc.com [GN]
MMS GROUP: Torres Files Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MMS Group LLC. The
case is styled as Elewood Torres, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. MMS Group LLC doing business as: MMS
Group, Housing Development Fund Corporation, TUC Management
Company, Inc., New York Society For The Deaf, New York State
Division of Housing and Community Renewal, New York City Housing
Preservation and Development, NYSD Forsyth Housing Development Fund
Company, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06142-PGG (S.D.N.Y., July 19,
2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Civil Rights: Accommodations for
Housing Discrimination.
MMS Group -- https://mmsgroup.com/ -- and its Family of Companies
has dedicated itself to quality Property Management for more than
40 years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mordy Yankovich, Esq.
LIEB AT LAW, P.C.
308 West Main Street, Ste. 100
Smithtown, NY 11787
Phone: (631) 878-4455
Fax: (631) 878-4460
Email: mordy@liebatlaw.com
MRS BPO: Sussman Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO, LLC. The
case is styled as Sharon Sussman also known as: Sharon Ohayon,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MRS
BPO, LLC doing business as: MRS ASSOCIATES, Case No.
1:22-cv-04660-RMB-SAK (D.N.J., July 20, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
MRS -- http://www.mrsbpo.com/-- is a full service accounts
receivable management (ARM) firm with a unique combination of
experience, technology, and compliance management processes
powering industry-leading debt recovery solutions that enhance
brand and reputation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Thomas Yusko, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com
MULBERRY AND GRAND: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mulberry And Grand,
Inc. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Mulberry
And Grand, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04185-DG-MMH (E.D.N.Y., July 18,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Mulberry and Grand -- https://mureandgrand.com/ -- is a NY-based
boutique offering a unique selection of jewelry, accessories,
clothing, gifts & more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
MVP EVENT PRODUCTIONS: Youngblood Suit Removed to N.D. Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Phoenix Youngblood, Khrystal Pollard,
Christopher Drake, on behalf of themselves and all persons
similarly situated v. MVP Event Productions, LLC doing business as:
MVP Event Staffing, Delaware North Companies Travel Hospitality
Services, Inc., Case No. CJ-22-01887 was removed from the Tulsa
County Dist Ct, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma on July 19, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-00315-CVE-SH to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act for Equal Pay Act.
MVP Event Productions, LLC doing business as MVP Event Staffing --
https://mvpeventstaffing.com/ -- is the nation's premier provider
of food and beverage staff for large-scale events.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steven R Hickman, Esq.
FRASIER FRASIER & HICKMAN
1700 Sw Blvd. #100
Tulsa, OK 74107
Phone: (918) 584-4724
Fax: (918) 583-5637
Email: frasier@tulsa.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Malinda S Matlock, Esq.
Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, PLLC
1001 NW 63rd St, Ste 280
Oklahoma City, OK 73116
Phone: (918) 582-1173
Email: mmatlock@rhodesokla.com
- and -
Michael Joseph DePonte
JACKSON LEWIS PC (DALLAS)
500 N AKARD STE 2500
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: (214) 520-2400
Fax: (214) 520-2008
Email: michael.deponte@jacksonlewis.com
NETGAIN TECHNOLOGY: Xiong Files Suit in D. Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Netgain Technology,
LLC. The case is styled as Yolanda Xiong, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Netgain Technology, LLC, Case No.
0:22-cv-01826-ECT-LIB (D. Minn., July 20, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
Netgain -- https://www.netgainit.com/ -- provides managed cloud and
IT services to mid-market firms in the Healthcare, Accounting, and
Legal industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brittany N. Resch, Esq.
Raina Borrelli, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson St., Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: (608) 237-1775
Fax: (608) 509-4423
Email: brittanyr@turkestrauss.com
raina@turkestrauss.com
NEW SOUTH WALES: Hundreds of People Join Class Action v. NSW Police
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Perrie, writing for Lad Bible, reports that hundreds of
people have joined a class action lawsuit against NSW Police over
strip searches conducted at music festivals.
It's a common sight in Australia to have cops roaming the entrance
of a music festival.
Sometimes they'll have drug dogs trying to sniff any illicit
substances you might have and if the pooch indicates a scent, then
you could have to undergo a strip search.
However, a legal fight is afoot in the hopes of reprimanding the
NSW Police force for their 'invasive' practices.
Redfern Legal Centre and law firm Slater and Gordon have filed the
motion with the NSW Supreme Court.
The lawsuit argues police 'carried out unlawful acts including
assault, battery and false imprisonment against festival goers'
while looking for drugs.
Redfern Legal Centre solicitor Samantha Lee said (via the ABC):
"The legislation still allows for a child as young as 10 to be
strip searched in New South Wales without a parent present.
"It still provides no clarification around cavity searches and
squatting and coughing.
"It still allows police to strip search without a support person
present. So we want to see not just internal policy changes, but
some really significant changes to the law."
She added: "There is a level of embarrassment and shame, some of
them don't even tell their parents because they were strip searched
for suspicion of drug use and so they hang on to this really deep
harm and emotion for a very long time.
"Every other government profession has strong child-protection
policies, I see absolutely no reason why this practise (strip
searching) is not removed from the NSW Police force."
An investigation into the police presence at music festivals in the
state found they can actually do more harm than good.
The 2019 inquiry concluded that if there are loads of uniformed
officers at the entrance of an event, along with drug detection
dogs, it can cause festival goers to undertake 'panic ingesting' or
'dangerous preloading'.
The former relates to how some people will take all their drugs
before they go in to avoid detection, which can overload a person's
body and cause an overdose.
According to the ABC, the NSW Police Force won't be commenting on
the class action lawsuit.
Drug dog accuracy has been questioned in the past, with one study
suggesting the margin of error with using these animals is as high
as 63 per cent. [GN]
NEW YORK: Sughrim, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN SUGHRIM, et al., v.
STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-07977-RA-SDA
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
certifying a class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, and for such other and further relief as is just
and proper.
New York is a state in the northeastern U.S., known for New York
City and towering Niagara Falls. NYC’s island of Manhattan is
home to the Empire State Building, Times Square and Central Park.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 15, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PB8dYV at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua S. Moskovitz,Esq.
Ronald E. Cook, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSHUA MOSKOVITZ, P.C.
392 Central Avenue, No. 7803
Jersey City, NJ 07307
- and -
Jonathan C. Moore, Esq.
Luna Droubi, Esq.
Deema Azizi, Esq.
Jeffrey F. Kinkle, Esq.
BELDOCK LEVINE & HOFFMAN LLP
99 Park Avenue, PH/26 th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 490-0400
The Defendant is represented by:
William R. Lunsford, Esq.
John M. Hintz, Esq.
Kenneth Steely, Esq.
Melissa Kay Marler, Esq.
Matthew Reeves, Esq.
MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC
655 Gallatin Street
Huntsville, AL 35801
E-mail: blunsford@maynardcooper.com
jhintz@maynardcooper.com
ksteely@maynardcooper.com
mmarler@maynardcooper.com
mreeves@maynardcooper.com
NISSAN MOTOR: Class Action Suit Over Exploding Sunroofs Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Nissan
exploding sunroof lawsuit has been certified as a class action, but
only for customers in specific states.
The sunroof class action lawsuit alleges the panoramic sunroofs
explode because of the way they are designed, which allegedly makes
the glass prone to shattering under normal driving conditions.
A Nissan driver and occupants report it sounds like a shotgun when
the sunroofs explode, causing serious and dangerous distractions to
drivers.
The Nissan customers who sued allege occupants are covered with
shards of glass after the sunroofs explode, placing people in even
more danger from falling glass.
According to the Nissan class action lawsuit, replacing a sunroof
can easily cost $1,000 and Nissan typically refuses to cover the
damage and replacement.
The Nissan exploding sunroof class action lawsuit includes these
vehicles.
2009-2014 and 2016-2020 Nissan Maxima
2014-2020 Nissan Rogue
2013-2020 Nissan Pathfinder
2009-2020 Nissan Murano
2013 Infiniti JX35
2014-2020 Infiniti QX60
The plaintiffs allege the vehicles can be covered by their
warranties but Nissan still refuses to compensate owners for
sunroof replacements.
Nissan argues the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
has set regulatory standards that dictate how strong sunroof glass
must be and how small the pieces must be when they break.
Additionally, the automaker also asserts its panoramic sunroofs are
the just like other vehicle sunroofs in the industry.
According to Nissan, there have been multiple NHTSA investigations
into tempered sunroof glass and none have found that panoramic
sunroofs similar to Nissan's were dangerous. Nissan also contends
only about 0.15% of its sunroofs shatter in all its models.
Nissan also told the judge it's typical for automakers to deny
glass breakage claims because glass usually isn't covered by
vehicle warranties.
Nissan Exploding Sunroof Class Action Lawsuit Certified
The plaintiffs brought suit against Nissan under California, New
York, Colorado, Florida and Illinois law because Nissan allegedly
violated consumer protection statutes by failing to disclose the
alleged sunroof defect.
And the plaintiffs claim Nissan violated implied warranties of
merchantability because the alleged sunroof defect rendered the
vehicles unfit for ordinary use.
Judge William H. Orrick partly granted Nissan's motion for summary
judgment to the extent the plaintiffs seek restitution or unjust
enrichment for purchases of used cars from anyone other than
Nissan.
But according to the judge, "there are genuine disputes of material
fact about the existence of this alleged defect, whether it would
be material to reasonable consumers, whether they would rely on it
if it had been properly disclosed, and the handful of other
challenges Nissan makes."
Judge Orrick ruled the motion to certify the exploding sunroof
class action lawsuit is granted for California, New York, Colorado
and Florida.
However, certification of the Illinois class and the plaintiffs'
untimely request for certification of an injunctive relief class
were denied.
The Nissan exploding sunroof lawsuit was filed by these customers.
Sherida Johnson -- California
Linda Spry -- Colorado
Lisa Sullivan -- Florida
April Ahrens -- Illinois
Chad Loury -- California
Subrina Seenarain -- New York
The Nissan exploding sunroof lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California - Sherida Johnson, et
al., v. Nissan North America, Inc.
The plaintiff is represented by Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC, and Greg
Coleman Law PC. [GN]
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Pascal, et al., Seek to Certify Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRISTIAN PASCAL; MARIA
MENGONI LEISA JOHNSON; EBONY JONES; PATRICK MCMORROW; TINISHA
MILLER; ELIZABETH RODRIGUEZ LEMAR TAYLOR; JUDI MOORE; BARBARA
MORAS; and ROBERT CARNEVALE, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No.
8:20-cv-00492-JLS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs move the Court
for an order certifying the putative classes of 1) a California
Warranty Class, and 2) a Consumer Protection Class with sub-classes
for i) California, ii) New Jersey, and iii) New York residents:
The Court should certify under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23,
the following groups as classes:
a. All California residents who purchased or leased a 2013-
2018 Nissan Altima sedan who allege claims for breach of
express and implied warranty under California law.
Plaintiffs Cristian Pascal and Maria Mengoni should be
appointed as class representatives for this class (the
"California Warranty Class").
b. All persons who purchased or leased a 2013-2018 Nissan
Altima sedan 21 in California, New York, or New Jersey,
divided into the following three subclasses:
i. A California UCL/CLRA subclass (the "California
Consumer Protection Class") of purchasers and
lessees of any 2013-2018 Nissan Altima sedan who
purchased or leased the Class Vehicle in California.
Plaintiffs Cristian Pascal, Maria Mengoni, Patrick
McMorrow, and Tinisha Miller should be appointed as
class representatives for the California Consumer
Class because they meet all requirements under Rule
23(a). This subclass asserts claims under the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); California
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); and common law
fraud/omission.
ii. A New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act subclass (the "New
Jersey Consumer Class") of purchasers and lessees of
any 2013-2018 Nissan Altima sedan who purchased or
leased the Class Vehicle in New Jersey. Plaintiff
Barbara Moras should be appointed as the class
representative for this class (the "New Jersey
Class") because she meets all requirements under
Rule 23(a). This subclass asserts claims under the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
iii. A New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350
subclass (the "New York Consumer Class") of
purchasers and lessees of any 2013-2018 Nissan
Altima sedan who purchased or leased the Class
Vehicle in New York. Plaintiff Robert Carnevale
should be appointed as the class representative for
this class (the "New York Class") because he meets
all requirements under Rule 23(a). This subclass
asserts claims under New York General Business Law
sectiin 21 349 and New York General Business Law
section 350.
The Plaintiffs seek to certify the above-listed classes and
sub-classes pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)
and 23(b)(2).
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify classes dated July 15,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OCOk2r
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd A. Walburg, Esq.
Benjamin L. Bailey, Esq.
Eric B. Snyder, Esq.
Jonathan D. Boggs, Esq.
Katherine E. Charonko, Esq.
Christopher D. Smith, Esq.
Benjamin J. Hogan, Esq.
Elizabeth L. Stryker, Esq.
Isabella A. Anderson, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 660
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 272-8000
Facsimile: (510) 463-0291
E-mail: twalburg@baileyglasser.com
bbailey@baileyglasser.com
esnyder@baileyglasser.com
jboggs@baileyglasser.com
kcharonko@baileyglasser.com
csmith@baileyglasser.com
bhogan@baileyglasser.com
estryker@baileyglasser.com
ianderson@baileyglasser.om
- and -
C. Brooks Cutter, Esq.
John R. Parker, Jr., Esq.
CUTTER LAW P.C.
401 Watt Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95864
Telephone: (916) 290-9400
E-mail: bcutter@cutterlaw.com
jparker@cutterlaw.com
- and -
David C. Wright, Esq.
Steven A. Haskins, Esq.
Mark I. Richards, Esq.
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
3281 Guasti Road, Suite 100
Ontario, CA 91761
Telephone: (909) 557-1250
Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
E-mail: dcw@mccunewright.com
sah@mccunewright.com
mir@@mccunewright.com
- and -
Donald H. Slavik, Esq.
SLAVIK LAW FIRM, LLC
2955 Village Drive, Suite 16
Steamboat Springs, CO 80487
Telephone: (970) 457-1011
Facsimile: (267) 878-7697
E-mail: dslavik@slavik.us
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Putative Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as In re Nissan North
America, Inc. Litigation, Case No. 3:19-cv-00843 (M.D. Tenn.), the
Plaintiffs move the Court for an Order:
1. certifying the putative classes listed below pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), (b)(3) and (c)(4);
2. appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives; and
3. appointing Bailey Glasser LLP, Beasley, Allen, Crow,
Methvin, aPortis & Miles, P.C., Branstetter, Stranch &
Jennings PLLC, Bursor & Fisher, P.A, and Dicello Levitt &
Gutzler LLC as joint class counsel.
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify the following state classes
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3):
-- California: All current owners or lessees of a Class
Vehicle that was purchased or leased in the State of
California. Plaintiffs move for appointment of Angelene
Hoeffken as the class representative of the California
Class.
The California Class seeks certification of the following
causes of action: (1) breach of implied warranty under the
Song-Beverly Act; (2) breach of express warranty; (3)
unjust enrichment; (4) violations of the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (5) violations of the Unfair
Competition Law; (6) fraudulent omission.
-- Connecticut: All current owners or lessees of a Class
Vehicle that was purchased or leased in the State of
Connecticut.
The Plaintiffs move for appointment of Lakeita Kemp as the
class representative of the Connecticut Class. The
Connecticut Class seeks certification of the following
causes of action: (1) breach of implied warranty; (2)
breach of express warranty; and (3) unjust enrichment; (4)
fraudulent omission.
-- Florida: All current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle
that was purchased or leased in the State of Florida.
Plaintiffs move for appointment of Courtney Johnson and
Morela Jova as class representatives of the Florida Class.
The Florida Class seeks certification of the following
causes of action: (1) breach of implied warranty; (2)
breach of express warranty; (3) unjust enrichment; (4)
violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act; (5) fraudulent omission.
-- Illinois: All current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle
that was purchased or leased in the State of Illinois.
Plaintiffs move for appointment of Todd Burrows as the
class representative of the Illinois Class.
The Illinois Class seeks certification of the following
causes of action: (1) breach of implied warranty; (2)
breach of express warranty; (3) unjust enrichment; (4)
violations of Illinois' Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Businesses Practices Act; (5) fraudulent omission.
-- Massachusetts: All current owners or lessees of a Class
Vehicle that was purchased or leased in the State of
Massachusetts. Plaintiffs move for appointment of David
Turner as the class representative of the Massachusetts
Class.
The Massachusetts Class seeks certification of the
following causes of action: (1) breach of implied
warranty; (2) breach of express warranty; (3) unjust
enrichment; (4) violations of the Massachusetts Regulation
of Business Practice for Consumer Protection Act; (5)
fraudulent omission.
-- Missouri: All current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle
that was purchased or leased in the State of Missouri.
Plaintiffs move for appointment of Scott and Jane Reeves
as the class representatives of the Missouri Class. The
Missouri Class seeks certification of the following causes
of action: (1) breach of express warranty; (2) unjust
enrichment; (3) violations of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act; (4) fraudulent omission.
-- New York: All current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle
that was purchased or leased in the State of New York.
Plaintiffs move for appointment of Nancy Housell as the
class representative of the New York Class.
The New York Class seeks certification of the following
causes of action: (1) breach of implied warranty; (2)
unjust enrichment; (3) violations of New York's General
Business Law, sections 349 and 350; (4) fraudulent
omission.
-- Ohio: All current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle
that was purchased or leased in the State of Ohio.
Plaintiffs move for appointment of Michelle Bereda as the
class representative of the Ohio Class.
The Ohio Class seeks certification of the following causes
of action: (1) breach of express warranty; (2) unjust
enrichment; (3) violations of Ohio's Consumer Sales
Practices Act; (4) fraudulent omission.
-- Pennsylvania: All current owners or lessees of a Class
Vehicle that was purchased or leased in the State of
Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs move for appointment of Jeff
Olkowski as the class representative of the Pennsylvania
Class.
The Pennsylvania Class seeks certification of the
following causes of action: (1) breach of implied
warranty; (2) breach of express warranty; (3) unjust
enrichment; (4) violations of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law; (5) fraudulent
omission.
-- Texas: All current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle
that was purchased or leased in the State of Texas.
The Plaintiffs move for appointment of Vaughn Kerkorian as
the class representative of the Texas Class. The Texas
Class seeks certification of the following causes of
action: (1) unjust enrichment; and; (2) fraudulent
omission.
Nissan North America Inc. operates in the automotive industry. The
Company designs, develops, and manufactures Nissan vehicles.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 15, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Q0pzi2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com
beng@bsjfirm.com
- and -
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
E-mail: fklorczyck@bursor.com
ltfisher@bursor.com
jsmith@bursor.com
- and -
W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq.
J. Mitch Williams, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS
& MILES, P.C.
272 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com
clay.barnett@beasleyallen.com
mitch.williams@beasleyallen.com
- and -
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
John E. Tangren, Esq.
Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT & GUTZLER LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dlcfirm.com
jtangren@dlcfirm.com
dferri@dlcfirm.com
- and -
Benjamin L. Bailey, Esq.
Jonathan D. Boggs, Esq.
Michael L. Murphy, Esq.
BAILEY GLASSER LLP
209 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 345-6555
E-mail: bbailey@baileyglasser.com
jboggs@baileyglasser.com
mmurphy@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Daniel A. Schlanger, Esq.
SCHLANGER LAW GROUP, LLP
9 East 40th Street, Suite 1300
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 250-6114
E-mail: dschlanger@consumerprotection.net
NORDIC ENERGY: Perrong Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ANDREW PERRONG, individually and on behalf of a class of
all persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORDIC
ENERGY SERVICES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-03728 (N.D. Ill.,
July 19, 2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that in an attempt to generate of its
electric services, the Defendant made unsolicited telemarketing
calls to his residential telephone number that is listed on the
National Do Not Call Registry. Despite the fact that the Plaintiff
previously sued the Defendant for the same violations, the
Defendant continued making unsolicited telemarketing calls to his
telephone number without obtaining his prior express written
consent to receive such calls, the Plaintiff asserts.
Accordingly, telemarketing calls typically used technology that is
capable of generating thousands of similar calls per day. Thus, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals who
received the Defendant's unsolicited telemarketing calls, the
Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action to seek
injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendant and/or its affiliates,
agents, and/or other persons or entities acting on the Defendant's
behalf from making calls, excepts for emergency purposes, to any
residential number listed on the National Do Not Call Registry in
the future. The Plaintiff also seeks an award of damages for
himself and all other similarly situated individuals, and other
relief as the Court deems necessary, just, and proper.
Nordic Energy Services, LLC provides energy services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented:
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Tel: (508) 221-1510
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
NORTH ATLANTIC: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Kucharczyk Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN KUCHARCZYK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NORTH ATLANTIC TRUCKING, INC. and NICHOLAS
MERCOLINO, Defendants, Case No. 22-0407 (Mass. Commw. Ct., July 19,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay
proper wages and misclassification in violation of Massachusetts
Wage Law, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a delivery driver from
March 2021 to March 2022.
North Atlantic Trucking, Inc. is a transportation services company
based in Springfield, Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James W. Simpson, Jr., Esq.
100 Concord Street, Suite 3b
Framingham, MA 01702
Telephone: (508) 872-0002
E-mail: jwsimpson11@verizon.net
- and –
Adam J. Shafran, Esq.
RUDOLPH & FRIEDMANN, LLP
92 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 723-7700
E-mail: ashafran@RFLawyers.com
NUTS 'N MORE: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nuts 'N More LLC. The
case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Nuts 'N
More LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04188 (E.D.N.Y., July 18, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Nuts 'N More -- https://nuts-n-more.com/ -- is a supplier of peanut
butter, almond butter, hazelnut spreads, protein snack packs, and
PB powders..[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
OMNI HOTELS: Fails to Pay Wages for All Time Worked, Aquino Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CARMEN AQUINO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. OMNI HOTELS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No.
22STCV23672 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 21, 2022), sues
over Defendants' alleged consistent policy of failing to pay wages
for all time worked, including overtime wages, as a result of
requiring the Plaintiff and non-exempt employees in the State of
California to wait in line for COVID-19 temperature checks prior to
the start of their shift and not compensating them for this time,
as well as not compensating Plaintiff and non-exempt employees in
the State of California for donning and doffing required work
uniforms, pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004,
California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff and all other aggrieved employees are employed by or
formerly employed by the defendant and any of its respective
subsidiaries or affiliated companies within the State of
California.
Omni Hotels is an American privately held, international luxury
hotel company based in Dallas, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Nourmand, Esq.
James A. De Sario, Esq.
THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
8822 West Olympic Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 553-3600
Facsimile: (310) 553-3603
OSCAR HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over IPO Financial Disclosures
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paige Minemyer of Fierce Healthcare reports that an Oscar Health
shareholder has hit the insurer with a proposed class-action suit,
alleging it obfuscated the impact of COVID-19 on its finances ahead
of its initial public offering.
Oscar went public in March 2021, bringing in $1.4 billion in its
stock listing. It has historically struggled to turn a profit and
set a goal of reaching profitability in 2023.
In the suit filed in July in New York district court, shareholder
Lorin Carpenter said key information about its performance during
the pandemic was omitted from Oscar's filings before the IPO. For
one, the registration statement failed to disclose that the
company's testing and treatment costs related to COVID-19 were
growing.
In addition, Oscar did not tell prospective shareholders that it
was on track to feel negative impacts from the extended special
enrollment period under the pandemic, according to the lawsuit.
"As a result of defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the company's
securities, plaintiff and other class members have suffered
significant losses and damages," according to the suit.
Carpenter believes thousands of shareholders could join the class
if the lawsuit moves forward.
Oscar Health had not responded to a request for comment as of
publication time.
The suit names top executives at Oscar as well as financial
underwriters as defendants. [GN]
OUTSET MEDICAL: Robbins LLP Reminds Investors of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP reminds investors that a
shareholder filed a class action on behalf of investors who
purchased Outset Medical, Inc. (NASDAQ: OM) common stock between
September 15, 2020 and June 13, 2022, for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Outset Medical is a medical
technology company focused on kidney dialysis, the primary
treatment for acute and chronic kidney failure. The Company's
flagship product is the Tablo Hemodialysis System.
If you would like more information about Outset Medical, Inc.'s
misconduct, click https://robbinsllp.com/outset-medical-inc-bw/
What is this Case About: Outset Medical, Inc. (OM) Misled Investors
Regarding Tablo's Use and FDA Approval
According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
touted that Tablo can "serve as a dialysis clinic on wheels" that
has been "cleared by the [U.S.] Food and Drug Administration [(the
"FDA)] for use in the hospital, clinic or home setting." Indeed,
Outset Medical sought to differentiate itself by highlighting its
focus on the "home setting" and contended it was "well-positioned"
to "help accelerate th[e] shift to home-based hemodialysis
therapy."
While the FDA approved Tablo for sale, its use for the in-home
setting was subject to additional studies and approvals. During the
class period, defendants assured investors that it was conducting
the studies "in accordance with the FDA approved protocol," which
required an appropriate demonstration of "real-world" human testing
given that the device would be used at home by non-professionals.
Seizing on positive prospects for sales of Tablo, the Company
completed two secondary stock offerings and raised more than $570
million in proceeds for the benefit of the Company and its private
equity backers.
However, shareholders were unaware that Outset Medical made
significant changes to Tablo for use in the home setting, which
made it likely that the FDA would order the Company to cease all
marketing and selling of Tablo for use in the home pending
additional applications and approvals and prevented the Company
from conducting the requisite testing.
On May 4, 2022, Outset Medical announced disappointing results for
the first quarter of 2022, which analysts attributed to, among
other things, the untested nature of Tablo in the home setting. In
response, the price of Outset Medical common stock declined more
than 40% over the next three trading days, to close at $23.06 on
May 9, 2022.
Then, on June 13, 2022, Outset Medical announced the FDA had forced
the Company to hold all shipments of Tablo for use in the home
until Tablo received proper regulatory clearance. Outset Medical
made two astonishing admissions – the "ship hold" had been in
place for weeks before investors were provided with this
information and the Company was "suspending our prior full-year and
long-term guidance." On this news, the Company's stock fell an
additional 34%, to close at $13.46 per share on June 14, 2022.
Next Steps: If you acquired Outset Medical, Inc. (OM) common stock
between September 15, 2020 and June 13, 2022, you have until
September 6, 2022, to ask the court to appoint you lead plaintiff
for the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do
not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
Contact:
Aaron Dumas
(800) 350-6003
adumas@robbinsllp.com
Shareholder Information Form
A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys
and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action against
Outset Medical, Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when
corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch
today. [GN]
OUTSET MEDICAL: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of September 6 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Outset Medical, Inc. (NASDAQ: OM)
between September 15, 2020 and June 13, 2022, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"), of the important September 6, 2022 lead
plaintiff deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Outset Medical securities during the
Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of
any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee
arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Outset Medical class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6976 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 6, 2022.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually
handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that
refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the
cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class
action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was
Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of
securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds
of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm
secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner
Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar.
Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and
Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) defendants had "continuously
made improvements and updates to Tablo over time since its original
clearance" that required an additional 510(k) application; (2) as a
result, Outset Medical could not conduct a human factors study on a
cleared device in accordance with FDA protocols; (3) Outset
Medical's inability to conduct the human factors study subjected
Outset Medical to the likelihood of the FDA imposing a "shipment
hold" and marketing suspension, leaving the Company unable to sell
Tablo for home use; and (4) as a result, defendants' positive
statements about Outset Medical's business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
To join the Outset Medical class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6976 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
PACIFIC DECORATIVE: Williams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacific Decorative
Concrete, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Steven Williams, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pacific Decorative
Concrete, Inc., Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2022-00323649-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July 19, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Pacific Decorative Concrete, Inc. (PDCI) --
https://www.pacificdecorative.com/ -- is a leading polished
concrete and epoxy flooring contractor licensed and registered in
all Western States, including Hawaii.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
8484 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243
Phone: (310) 438-5555
Fax: (310) 300-1705
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
PEABODY ENERGY: Oregon Public Employees Seek to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE PEABODY ENERGY CORP. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-08024-PKC (S.D.N.Y.), the Lead
Plaintiff Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund moves the Court
for entry of an order as follows:
1. certifying this action as a class action pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), on
behalf of the following class:
"All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired the publicly traded common stock of Peabody
Energy Corporation during the period from September 22,
2018 through September 28, 2018, inclusive, and were
damaged thereby;"
Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendants; (ii) members
of the immediate family of any Defendant who is an
individual; (iii) any person who was an officer or
director of Peabody during the Class Period; (iv) any
firm, trust, corporation, or other entity in which any
the Defendant has or had a controlling interest; (v)
Peabody’s employee retirement and benefit plan(s) and
their participants or beneficiaries, to the extent they
made purchases through such plan(s); and (vi) the legal
representatives, affiliates, heirs, successors-in-
interest, or assigns of any such excluded person."
2. Appointing Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund as
Class Representative; and
3. Appointing Labaton Sucharow LLP as Class Counsel.
Peabody Energy is a coal mining and energy company headquartered in
St. Louis, Missouri. Its primary business consists of the mining,
sale, and distribution of coal, which is purchased for use in
electricity generation and steelmaking.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 15, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cKW9WH at no extra
charge.[CC]
Counsel for the Lead Plaintiff Oregon Public Employees Retirement
Fund and the Proposed Class, are:
Christine M. Fox, Esq.
Carol C. Villegas, Esq.
Mark Willis, Esq.
James M. Fee, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW, LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
E-mail: cfox@labaton.com
cvillegas@labaton.com
mwillis@labaton.com
jfee@labaton.com
PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Felipe Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to D. Nev.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHRISTIAN A. FELIPE, individually as administrator
of the CHRISTIAN A. FELIPE CONTRIBUTORY IRA, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. PLAYSTUDIOS, INC.; ANDREW
PASCAL; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-02164,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nevada on July 20, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Nevada assigned Case No.
2:22-cv-01159-RFB-NJK to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of Sections
10(b), 20(a), and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Sections 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making materially
false and misleading statements about Playstudios' business,
financial projections, and prospects in order to trade Playstudios'
securities at artificially inflated prices between June 22, 2021
and March 1, 2022.
Playstudios, Inc. is a developer and publisher of free-to-play
casual games for mobile and social platforms, headquartered in Las
Vegas, Nevada. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
Krysta Kauble Pachman, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
Telephone: (310) 789-3100
Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
kpachman@susmangodfrey.com
- and –
Robert A. Curtis, Esq.
Kevin D. Gamarnik, Esq.
Aaron L. Arndt, Esq.
Jordan A. Liebman, Esq.
FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP
15 West Carrillo Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 962-9495
Facsimile: (805) 962-0722
E-mail: rcurtis@foleybezek.com
kgamarnik@foleybezek.com
aarndt@foleybezek.com
liebman@foleybezek.com
PORTSMOUTH REDEVELOPMENT: Fails to Pay Security Officers' Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARK CARMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. PORTSMOUTH REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY, Case
No. 2:22-cv-00313-MSD-RJK (E.D. Va., July 21, 2022) is a collective
action alleging Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Virginia Overtime Wage Act.
The Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, costs, and a reasonable attorneys' fee, as a
result of Defendant's policy and practice of failing to pay
Plaintiff sufficient wages under the FLSA and the VOWA within the
applicable statutory limitations period.
The Plaintiff and other Security Officers were paid the same hourly
rate for all hours worked, including hours worked over 40 in a
week. In other words, the Defendant did not pay Plaintiff and other
Security Officers an overtime premium for hours worked over 40 in a
week, says the Plaintiff.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Krista Sheets, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: krista@sanfordlawfirm.com
PRINCE GEORGE'S: Frazier Sues Over Unlawful Pretrial Detention
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT FRAZIER; ANIBAL HERNANDEZ; D.P., a minor, by and through his
next friend and guardian K.P.; CHRISTOPHER BUTLER; MIRAMBA
WILLIAMS; DONNELL DAVIS; LESLIE SHARP; ELMER LAGUAN-SALINAS; and
ADRIENNE WORTHINGTON, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND;
CORENNE LABBE, in her official capacity as Director of the Prince
George's County Department of Corrections; JEFFREY LOGAN, in his
official capacity as Division Chief of the Prince George's County
Population Management Division; KENNETH GRAY, in his official
capacity as Section Chief of the Prince George's County Community
Supervision Section; TANYA LAW, in her official capacity as Unit
Chief of the Prince George's County Monitoring Services Unit; and
LAKEECIA ALLEN, BRYON BEREANO, JOHN BIELEC, SCOTT CARRINGTON, ADA
CLARK-EDWARDS, STACEY COBB SMITH, BRIAN DENTON, ROBERT HEFFRON JR.,
DONNAKA LEWIS, GREGORY POWELL, and CATHY SERRETTE, in their
personal capacities and official capacities as District and Circuit
Court Judges for the District and Circuit Courts of Maryland for
Prince George's County, Defendants, Case No. 8:22-cv-01768-PX (D.
Md., July 19, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of Maryland Constitution and Fourteenth Amendment Right
to Substantive Due Process and Right to Procedural Due Process.
According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the Plaintiffs'
fundamental right to pretrial liberty by subjecting them to
pretrial detention without the substantive findings required by the
Constitution. The Judge Defendants issue pretrial referrals knowing
that the Plaintiffs will be detained at length while the Pretrial
Division processes the referral, or indefinitely if the Division
refuses to release. They do so having necessarily found that the
Plaintiffs may be released by granting the Division authority to
release without further judicial involvement. The County Defendants
detain the Plaintiffs while they delay processing pretrial
referrals, and refuse to release the Plaintiffs, despite no
judicial finding justifying detention, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs and the Class seek an injunction requiring the
Defendants to adopt constitutionally sufficient policies and
practices. They also seek a declaration that the Defendants
policies and practices violated their rights under the Fourteenth
Amendment and they seek compensation from the County for every day
of unconstitutional detention that they have suffered, the suit
added.
Prince George's County is a municipal corporation formed under the
laws of Maryland. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Edward Williams, Esq.
Matthew Martens, Esq.
Thomas Bredar, Esq.
Ellen Connell, Esq.
Donna Farag, Esq.
Ayana Williams, Esq.
Sonika Data, Esq.
Yoseph Desta, Esq.
Britany Riley-Swanbeck, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
1875 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202)663-6487
E-mail: ed.williams@wilmerhale.com
matthew.martens@wilmerhale.com
- and –
Robert Boone, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERINGHALE AND DORR LLP
7 World Trade Center
250 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212)230-8800
E-mail: robert.boone@wilmerhale.com
- and –
Timothy Perla, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERINGHALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617)526-6000
E-mail: timothy.perla@wilmerhale.com
- and –
Ellora Thadaney Israni, Esq.
Ryan Downer, Esq.
Jeremy D. Cutting, Esq.
CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
1601 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20009
Telephone: (202)894-6132
E-mail: ellora@civilrightscorps.org
- and –
Seth Wayne, Esq.
INSTITUTE FOR CONSTITUTIONALADVOCACY AND PROTECTION
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER
600 New Jersey Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202)662-9042
E-mail: sw1098@georgetown.edu
PROFESSIONAL FINANCE: Schroeder Files Suit in D. Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Finance
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Christopher Schroeder,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Professional Finance Company, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01776-NYW (D.
Colo., July 18, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Professional Finance Company (PFC USA) -- https://www.pfcusa.com/
-- is a full-service accounts receivable management company located
in Greeley, Colorado.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD, LLP
412 H Street NE, Suite 302
Washington, DC 20002
Phone: (202) 470-3520
Fax: (202) 800-2730
Email: jrathod@classlawdc.com
PRYOR INVESTMENTS: Fails to Pay Drivers Legally Mandated Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Castaneda, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated v. Pryor Investments, L.L.C., Bradley C. Pryor, Robert C.
Pryor, Doe Corporations 1-10, and John Doe 1-10, Case No.
2:22-cv-04111-NKL (W.D. Mo., July 21, 2022) seeks relief based on
the Defendants' willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Kansas Wage Payment Act.
The Defendants own and operate several Papa John's stores in Kansas
and at least one store in Iowa. The Plaintiff seeks to represent
the delivery drivers who work, or have worked, at the the
Defendants' stores during the applicable limitations periods.
According to the complaint, the Defendants repeatedly and willfully
violated the FLSA and the KWPA by failing to adequately reimburse
their delivery drivers for their delivery-related expenses, thereby
failing to pay delivery drivers the legally mandated minimum wages
for all hours worked.
All delivery drivers at the Defendants' stores, including the
Plaintiff, have been subject to the same or similar employment
policies and practices, says the suit.
Pryor Investments, L.L.C. is a franchisee of Papa John's
International, Inc.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Potashnick, Esq.
WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
St. Louis, MO 63141
Telephone: (314) 997-9150
Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com
- and -
Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
Samuel D. Elswick, Jr., Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
www.billerkimble.com
8044 Montgomery Rd., Ste. 515
Cincinnati, OH 45236
Telephone: (513) 452-3568
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
akimble@billerkimble.com
selswick@billerkimble.com
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Aids Facebook to Collect Personal Info
---------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA COLE and BEATRICE ROCHE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-at-00550 (E.D. Cal., July 19, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for violation of the California
Invasion of Privacy Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant aided, agreed with, and
conspired with Facebook to track and intercept internet
communications sent and received by the Plaintiffs and similarly
situated individuals while using the Defendant's websites
www.questdiagnostics.com and www.myquest.questdiagnostics.com. They
intercepted these communications through the Facebook Tracking
Pixel without authorization and consent from the Plaintiffs and
Class members. The Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered loss
by reason of these violations, including, but not limited to,
violations of their rights of privacy and loss of value in their
personally identifiable information (PII).
Quest Diagnostics, Inc. is a provider of diagnostic information
services, with its principal place of business in Secaucus, New
Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 22, 2022, that numerous putative class
action lawsuits were filed against the company related to the
Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc./American Medical
Collection Agency (AMCA) data security incident. The cases were
consolidated. In January 2020, the company moved to dismiss the
consolidated complaint, and the motion to dismiss was granted in
part and denied in part.
On June 3, 2019, the company reported that AMCA had informed the
company and Optum360 LLC that an unauthorized user had access to
AMCA's system between August 1, 2018 and March 30, 2019. Optum360
provides revenue management services to the company, and AMCA
provided debt collection services to Optum360. AMCA first informed
the company of the AMCA Data Security Incident on May 14, 2019.
AMCA's affected system included financial information (e.g., credit
card numbers and bank account information), medical information and
other personal information (e.g., social security numbers). Neither
Optum360's nor the company's systems or databases were involved in
the incident. AMCA also informed the company that information
pertaining to other laboratories' customers was also affected.
Following announcement of the AMCA Data Security Incident, AMCA
sought protection under the U.S. bankruptcy laws. The bankruptcy
proceeding has been dismissed.
The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the
cases that were then still pending to, and consolidated them for
pre-trial proceedings in, the U.S. District Court for New Jersey.
In November 2019, the plaintiffs in the multidistrict proceeding
filed a consolidated putative class action complaint against the
Company and Optum360 that named additional individuals as
plaintiffs and that asserted a variety of common law and statutory
claims in connection with the AMCA Data Security Incident. In
January 2020, the company moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint, and the motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied
in part.
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated and its subsidiaries uses its
extensive database of clinical lab results to derive diagnostic
insights that reveal new avenues to identify and treat disease,
inspire healthy behaviors and improve healthcare management.
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Pensioners' Suit in New Jersey Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 22, 2022, that in 2020, two putative
class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for New
Jersey against the Company and other defendants with respect to the
company's 401(k) plan.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the fiduciaries of
the 401(k) plan breached their duties by failing to disclose the
expenses and risks of plan investment options, allowing
unreasonable administration expenses to be charged to plan
participants, and selecting and retaining high cost and poor
performing investments. In October 2020, the court consolidated the
two lawsuits under the caption "In re: Quest Diagnostics ERISA
Litigation" and plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.
In May 2021, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the
complaint.
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated and its subsidiaries uses its
extensive database of clinical lab results to derive diagnostic
insights that reveal new avenues to identify and treat disease,
inspire healthy behaviors and improve healthcare management.
RADIUS GLOBAL: Fonseca FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Reinerio E. Fonseca, on behalf of himself and
those similarly situated v. Radius Global Solutions LLC, John Does
1 to 10, Case No. ESX-L-03436-22 was removed from the Superior
Court Essex County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey on July 18, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-04632 to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Radius Global Solutions -- https://www.radiusgs.com/ -- is a
leading provider of accounts receivable, customer relations and
revenue cycle management solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Aaron Raphael Easley, Esq.
SESSIONS, ISRAEL& SHARTLE, LLC
3 Cross Creek Drive
Flemington, NJ 08822
Phone: (908) 237-1660
Fax: (908) 237-1663
Email: aeasley@sessions-law.biz
RAUSCH STURM: Stenner Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rausch Sturm LLP. The
case is styled as Debra Stenner, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Rausch Sturm LLP, Case No.
2:22-cv-00828-SCD (E.D. Wis., July 20, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Rausch Sturm -- https://www.rauschsturm.com/ -- is a law firm that
represents creditor issuers and creditors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
RECON OILFIELD: Seeks Extension to File Conditional Cert. Response
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KALEN KLEES, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. RECON OILFIELD SERVICES,
INC., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01895-JLG-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting a 21 day
extension to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional
Certification.
This is a wage and hour case. The Defendants provide blowout
preventer (BOP) and hydrostatic testing, among other things, for
oilfield companies in the state of Ohio. Plaintiff claims to have
worked for Defendants as a non-exempt employee from July 2018 until
April 2021.
The Plaintiff claims the Defendants did not pay him overtime
required under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff's
motion for conditional certification asks the Court to
conditionally certify, and send notice to, the following
collective:
"All current and former hourly non-exempt Ohio field workers
of the Defendants who had a wage deduction applied to their
pay in any workweek that they were paid for more than 40
hours during the three years preceding the filing of this
Motion and continuing through the final disposition of this
case."
The Plaintiff -- and all of the putative members of his proposed
FLSA collective -- are either already members, were already
members, or were eligible to join, another FLSA collective action
that is currently pending in this Court. On August 31, 2020, Cory
McDaniel filed an FLSA lawsuit against Defendants in this Court.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 13, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PwXfUu at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael B. Mattingly, Esq.
DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
255 East Fifth Street, Suite 1900
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 977-8200
Facsimile: (513) 977-8141
E-mail: michael.mattingly@dinsmore.com
REX SIGNATURE: Taylor Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rex Signature
Services, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Farrah Taylor, and all
others similarly situated v. Rex Signature Services, LLC doing
business as Rex Moore Group, Inc, Does 1-50, Construction
Innovations, LLC, Case No. 34-2022-00323843-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.
Ct., Sacramento Cty., July 20, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Rex Signature Services is a shared service company in which our
purpose is to be of service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: (949) 387-7200
Fax: (949) 387-6676
Email: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
RHONDA LINDQUIST: Redd's Bid to Proceed in Forma Pauperis OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIE ANTOINE REDD v.
RHONDA LINDQUIST; and J. GREGORY TOMICICH, the Hon. Judge Timothy
J. Cavan entered an order:
1. granting Redd's motion to proceed in forma pauperis;
2. denying Redd's motion for counsel;
3. reserving on the motion to certify class and related
motion for counsel; and
4. directing Redd to respond to the Order on or before
August 5, 2022.
The Court will address Redd's proposed class action in a later
order. At this time, he does not state a claim against Defendant
Lindquist on which relief may be granted. Under 42 U.S.C. section
1983, a plaintiff must allege facts supporting an inference that a
person acting under color of State law subjected him, or caused him
to be subjected, to a deprivation of his constitutional rights.
Redd does not allege facts showing that Lindquist personally played
any role in causing a violation of his constitutional rights. The
Office of the Public Defender was appointed to represent him at his
arraignment. An omnibus hearing was set for July 26, 2021. Counsel
appeared on Redd's behalf on July 2, 2021.
Redd does not allege facts showing that he could not have contacted
or consulted with counsel in the OPD between his
arraignment and his first attorney's notice of appearance on July
2, 2021. Nor does he show that he lost anything as a result.
Without such facts, he does not show he was deprived of anything,
the Court says.
On May 31, 2022, the Plaintiff Willie Antoine Redd submitted a
complaint alleging civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. section
1983. In June, he submitted a motion for the appointment of
counsel, two declarations, a proposed order to show cause, and, on
June 23, 2022, a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
On July 5, 2022, Redd filed a motion to certify a class,
supplemented his motion for counsel in light of that motion, and
filed an amended complaint.
Redd's two inmate trust account statements do not cover the full
six-month period prior to the filing of his complaint. They do,
however, adequately show that he is not able to pay the full filing
fee at this time. His motion will be granted. Because Redd is a
prisoner, he must pay the $350.00 filing fee in installments taken
from his inmate trust account and consisting of 20% of each month's
deposits into the account, provided the balance is at least
$10.00.
The Court will waive the initial partial filing fee, because it is
not clear Redd could pay it. The total fee and the rate of
withdrawal are established by Congress and cannot be altered by the
Court.
A copy of the dated July 14, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RXRjWd at no extra charge.[CC]
RICH DOSS: Haynes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rich Doss, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Damon Haynes, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Rich Doss, Inc., Does 1-100, Case No.
34-2022-00323987-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July
21, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Rich Doss -- http://www.dosstrucking.com/-- is a logistics
provider of load by road through fast flatbed service
solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
8484 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243
Phone: (310) 438-5555
Fax: (310) 300-1705
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
ROGERS COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Action Over Network Outage
-------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Hernandez, writing for Oicanadian, reports that barely two
days after the restoration of the major outage of Rogers networks,
the company is already the subject of a request for class action.
The motion was filed first thing this morning at the Montreal
courthouse by LPC Avocat. He is claiming $400 per Rogers, Fido or
Chatr customer who has not received the services for which he is
paying "on July 8 and/or July 9".
The law firm also wants "all people in Quebec" on the same two
dates who were unable to carry out transactions using Interac, for
example, to be compensated. The amount is not specified.
Rogers Communications said the outage was caused by a maintenance
update to its backbone network. Millions of Canadians were then
left without mobile service or internet. This disrupted the police,
courts, Service Canada, broadcasters and Interac technology, among
others.
The outage began on Friday, July 22, and ended on Saturday, July
23.
On Twitter, Rogers Communication promised automatic compensation to
its customers. But that wouldn't prevent a court from ordering the
company to pay punitive damages, argues the attorney in the case,
Joey Zukran. [GN]
SACRAMENTO, CA: Garza Bid for Class Certification Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ,
ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY
PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA, on behalf of
themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, v. CITY OF
SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOES 1
to 225, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
William B. Shubb entered an order denying the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification of:
"All persons present on May 30, 2020, and May 31, 2020, at
the demonstrations in downtown Sacramento, who were injured
by less-lethal impact weapons, referred to as "beanbag
rounds," "baton rounds," or "rubber bullets," fired by
Sacramento Police Department's officers and/or mutual aid
partners."
The Plaintiffs Daniel Garza, Joshua Ruiz, Elisabeth Crouchley,
Steven Passal, Russell Vreeland, Anthony Pires, John
Ruffner, and Jennifer Loret de Mola brought this putative class
action against the defendants alleging violations of
constitutional, statutory, and common law rights based on
Sacramento police and other law enforcement officers' use of
"less-lethal" impact weapons against them during protests on May 30
and 31, 2020.
Specifically, in the operative complaint, the plaintiffs assert
both individual and class-wide claims for:
(1) excessive force under the Fourth Amendment to the United
States Constitution;
(2) excessive force under the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution;
(3) retaliation under the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution;
(4) violation of equal protection 11 under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution,
(5) violation of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. section
701, et 13 seq.;
(6) violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42
14 U.S.C. section 12101, et seq.;
(7) excessive force under Article I, Section 13 of the
California Constitution;
(8) excessive force 16 under Article I, Section 7(a) of the
California Constitution;
(9) retaliation under the California Constitution;
(10) violation 18 of equal protection under the California
Constitution;
(11) violation of the Tom Bane Act, Cal. Civ. Code section
52.1;
(12) assault and battery;
(13) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and
(14) negligence.
On May 26, 2020, a white Minneapolis police officer killed George
Floyd, a black man, sparking nationwide protests. The Plaintiffs
were each present at these protests at varying times, at varying
locations in the city, and in varying capacities – as protesters,
as legal observers, or as bystanders.
Sacramento, capital of the U.S. state of California, lies at the
confluence of the Sacramento River and American River.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 14, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BfaHb6 at no extra charge.[CC]
SCHUETTE INC: Faces Alcione Suit Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation
------------------------------------------------------------------
ARMANDO ALCIONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SCHUETTE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-00393 (W.D. Wis., July 20, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for unpaid regular wages and overtime pay in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin's
Wage Payment and Collection Laws and for interference and
retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a laser operator in
Rothschild, Wisconsin from September 2018 until his termination on
July 14, 2022.
Schuette, Inc. is a metal fabrication company, with a principal
office address of 1604 Morrison Avenue, Rothschild, Wisconsin.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
SEALED AIR: UA LOCAL 13, et al., Seek to Certify Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as UA LOCAL 13 & EMPLOYERS
GROUP INSURANCE FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. SEALED AIR CORPORATION and WILLIAM G.
STIEHL, Case No. 1:19-cv-10161-LLS (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs UA
Local 13 Pension Fund, UA Local 13 & Employers Group Insurance
Fund, Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 267 Pension Fund, and Plumbers
and Steamfitters Local No. 7 Pension and Welfare Funds move the
Court for an Order:
1. certifying this action to proceed as a class action
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 23(a)
and (b)(3);
2. appointing them to serve as Class Representatives; and
3. appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP to serve as
Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g).
Sealed Air Corporation is a packaging company known for its brands:
Cryovac food packaging and Bubble Wrap cushioning packaging.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 15, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oy7M68 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
Robert M. Rothman, Esq.
Mark T. Millkey, Esq.
Robert D. Gerson, Esq.
Magdalene Economou, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
rrothman@rgrdlaw.com
mmillkey@rgrdlaw.com
rgerson@rgrdlaw.com
meconomou@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Michael J. Asher, Esq.
Jacqueline A. Kelly, Esq.
ASHERKELLY
25800 Northwestern Highway, Suite 1100
Southfield, MI 48075
Telephone: (248) 746-2710
Facsimile: (248) 747-2809
E-mail: masher@asherkellylaw.com
jkelly@asherkellylaw.com
- and -
Daniel R. Brice, Esq.
BLITMAN & KING LLP
4443 North Franklin Street
Syracuse, NY 13204-5412
Telephone: (315) 422-7111
Facsimile: (315) 471-2623
E-mail: dbrice@bklawyers.com
SECURITY PAVING: Uffelman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Security Paving
Company, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Kevin Uffelman, and all
others similarly situated v. Security Paving Company, Inc., a
California corporation, Does 1 to 50, Inclusive, Case No.
34-2022-00323560-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July
18, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Security Paving Company, Inc. -- http://securitypaving.com/-- is a
construction company based in Los Angeles, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, P.C.
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 310-975-1493
Fax: 310-300-1705
- and -
Joshua S. Falakassa, Esq.
FALAKASSA LAW, P.C.
1901 Avenue Of The Stars, Ste. 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6006
Phone: 818-456-6168
Email: josh@falakassalaw.com
SEKO WORLDWIDE: Faces Paisley Suit Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHAVOUY PAISLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SEKO WORLDWIDE LLC (DBA SEKO WORLDWIDE),
Defendant, Case No. 9:22-cv-04301 (E.D.N.Y., July 21, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
spread-of-hours premium, failure to provide a written notice,
failure to timely pay wages, and failure to furnish accurate wage
statements.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a clerk in New York from
February 2021 until August 2021 and later from May, 2022 until the
present.
Seko Worldwide LLC is a logistics company based in Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
SELECT EMPLOYMENT: Villanueva Seeks to Certify Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINA VILLANUEVA, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. SELECT
EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, INC., a corporation; CONCENTRA HEALTH
SERVICES, INC., a corporation; SELECT MEDICAL CORPORATION, a
corporation; and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No.
3:17-cv-06875-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying the case as a class action pursuant to
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3).
The plaintiff class consists of the following:
1. Overtime Regular Rate Class
"All current and former hourly non-exempt employees
employed by Defendant in California between October 26,
2013, and December 31, 2020, that the Defendant paid
overtime wages during pay periods which occurred during
the period the employees' earned a non-discretionary bonus
and/or incentive payments;"
2. Meal/Rest Regular Rate Class
"All current and former hourly non-exempt employees
employed by Defendant in California between October 26,
2013, and September 9, 2021, that earned any non-
discretionary bonus and/or incentive payments during a pay
period they received meal or rest break premium wages;"
3. On Premises Meal Break Class
"All current and former hourly non-exempt employees,
employed by Defendant in California between October 26,
2013, and December 31, 2017, whose timecards reflect at
least one meal period being taken on a workday they worked
over 5 hours in the workday;"
4. On Premises Rest Break Class
"All current and former hourly non-exempt employees
employed by Defendant in California between October 26,
2013, and November 19, 2019, and worked over 3.5 hours in
a workday.
5. Second Meal Break Class
"All current and former hourly non-exempt employees
employed by Defendant in California between October 26,
2013, through the date the court certifies the class that
worked at least one shift in excess of 10 hours in a
workday.
6. Third Rest Break Class
"All current and former hourly non-exempt employees
employed by Defendant in California between October 26,
2013, through the date the court certifies the class that
worked at least one shift in excess of 10 hours in a
workday;" and
7. Wage Statement Class
"All current and former hourly non-exempt employees
employed by the Defendant in California between October
26, 2016, and the date the court certifies the class that
fall within any of the classes described above.
In addition, Plaintiff requests that the Court appoint her as Class
Representative. Plaintiff also 21 request that the Court appoint
their counsel, Joseph Lavi, Jordan D. Bello, Vincent Granberry, and
Pooja 22 Virendra Patel of Lavi & Ebrahimian, LLP as Class
Counsel.
Select Employment Services is a locally-owned staffing company with
experience serving the Laredo and surrounding markets.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 15, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QeSTBx at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Jordan D. Bello, Esq.
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
Pooja Virendra Patel, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 432-0000
Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
jbello@lelawfirm.com
vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
ppatel@lelawfirm.com
SHAUM'S CASABLANCA: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Jones et al. Say
------------------------------------------------------------------
SIDNEY JONES and CRYSTAL WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. SHAUM'S
CASABLANCA d/b/a Lady Godivas/Casablanca, Defendant, Case No.
6:22-cv-02307-TMC (D.S.C., July 19, 2022) is a collective action
brought against the Defendant for its alleged willful and
intentional violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as exotic dancers at
the Defendant's Lady Godivas/Casablanca Club – Plaintiff Jones
was for the period of about 2016 through about May 2, 2022, while
Plaintiff Williams was for the period of about October 2019 through
about April 2022.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated exotic dancers were misclassified by the Defendant as
non-employee independent contractors. Throughout their employment
with the Defendant, they were not paid any wages or any other form
of compensation for hours they have worked in or at the Defendant's
Lady Godivas/Casablanca, wherein they were required by the
Defendant to perform private and semi-private dances under the
pricing guidelines, policies, procedures, and promotions set
exclusively by the Defendant. In addition, the Defendant required
them to pay a per-shift house fee or kickback of $20.00 to $40.00
or more for each shift worked, and to pay or assign a portion of
the tips they received from the Defendant's customers to
Defendant's managers, agents, assigns, and other non-dancer
employees and/or contractors, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs bring this complaint seeking to recover all unpaid
minimum wages; all tips and gratuities and other related monies
unlawfully taken; all deductions, kickbacks, fees, fines, and
assignments from wages taken and/or assigned by the Defendant
and/or the Defendant's management; statutory liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs; and other relief as may be necessary and
appropriate.
Shaum's Casablanca d/b/a Lady Godivas/Casablanca operates an adult
entertainment business establishment featuring exotic dancers.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeremy R. Summerlin, Esq.
HORTON LAW FIRM, P.A.
307 Pettigus Street
Greenville, SC 29601
Tel: (864) 233-4351
Fax: (864) 233-7142
E-mail: jsummerlin@hortonlawfirm.net
SMILEDIRECTCLUB: Court Won't Review Discovery Denial in Ciccio Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DR. JOSEPH CICCIO, et al., Plaintiffs v.
SMILEDIRECTCLUB, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00845
(M.D. Tenn.), Judge Aleta A. Trauger of the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, denies the
Defendants' first and second Motion for Review of Nondispositive
Magistrate Judge Order.
The Defendants seek review of the Magistrate Judge's determinations
regarding two sets of discovery requests.
SmileDirect sells plastic dental aligners as an alternative to
conventional orthodontics. The Plaintiffs are orthodontists and
orthodontic practices who allege that they have been harmed by
SmileDirect's use of deceptive marketing to entice potential
customers away from more traditional treatments. The parties are in
discovery, for which a Special Master has been appointed. That
discovery has been bifurcated into a stage focused on class
certification and a later stage focused on the merits, and the case
is currently in the first of those two stages.
The Defendants seek review of the Magistrate Judge's determinations
regarding two sets of discovery requests: (1) the Magistrate
Judge's decision not to require the Plaintiffs to produce certain
information regarding the geographic markets of their clinics; and
(2) the Magistrate Judge's decision to compel the production of
certain documents that the Defendants assert to be privileged. Each
of those decisions was considered in the first instance by the
Special Master, then, unsuccessfully challenged by the Defendants
before the Magistrate Judge. The Defendants now argue that both the
Special Master and Magistrate Judge erred.
Geographic Market Requests
The Defendants "respectfully request that the Court compel
responses to Interrogatory No. 6 (seeking zip codes of Entity
Plaintiffs' patients), Interrogatory No. 12 (asking Provider
Plaintiffs to identify the geographic boundaries of the consumer
market for their traditional orthodontic services), and to Request
for Production No. 34 (seeking documents that identify or describe
that same consumer market)."
In rejecting those requests, the Special Master found it unclear
how any of the requested information is relevant to the issue of
class certification. The Defendants appealed the conclusion to the
Magistrate Judge, who overruled their objections after finding no
abuse of discretion in the Special Master's ruling.
In keeping with their approach to the zip code issue before the
Magistrate Judge, the Defendants merely argue that allowing the
Plaintiffs avoid substantively responding to these three requests
is clearly erroneous and contrary to law. As the Magistrate Judge
noted, however, the most recent of those three
incorporated-by-reference filings merely "refers to and
incorporates" the earlier two for the purpose of extending their
arguments to Interrogatory No. 6.
Judge Trauger finds that the Defendants have not identified any
meaningful basis for reversing the Magistrate Judge's rulings
regarding geographic discovery. She does not doubt that issues of
geography bear on the Plaintiffs' claims and even on some aspects
of class certification. The fact that geographic markets matter to
their theory generally, however, does not mean that the particular
information requested was discoverable.
Interrogatory No. 12 and Request for Production No. 34 also appear
to have been formulated based on the unsupported assumption that
the Plaintiff clinics functioned with well-defined -- and
internally documented -- geographic markets, which does not appear
to be the case. Interrogatory No. 6's request for patient zip codes
is at least more tethered to actual information likely to be in the
Plaintiffs' possession, but, as the Magistrate Judge noted, it is
unclear why that information is necessary, particularly at the
class certification stage, given that the Defendants already have
the clinics' addresses and therefore can make any geography-based
arguments already. Judge Trauger accordingly won't reverse the
Magistrate Judge's decision to deny the requested geographic
discovery.
Privilege Claims
In the Defendants' second Motion for Review they ask the Court to
overturn the Magistrate Judge's Order requiring production of
documents reflecting "certain communications with the U.S. Food &
Drug Administration Third Party Review Group, Ian Kitching, MRC-X,
and Knoell USA." They concede that none of those people or entities
were attorneys representing SmileDirect. They argue, however, that
the nature of those parties' relationships to SmileDirect -- and in
particular SmileDirect's legal department -- entitle the underlying
communications to protection.
Judge Trauger shares the Magistrate Judge's assessment that
additional evidence about the general relationship between
SmileDirect and its consultants would be unlikely to negate the
conclusion reached by the in camera review of representative
communications themselves. The legal and business considerations at
issue in the FDA clearance process are so closely intertwined that
whether particular advice was directed at one or the other is
almost certainly better evaluated in light of the content of
representative documents, rather than parties' potentially
self-serving characterizations of the underlying relationships. If
a party had the power to confer "privileged status" on any
regulatory consultant simply by describing the consultant in the
right way internally, it would vitiate the distinction between
regulatory and legal advice altogether. Because the Defendants have
failed to identify any clear error by the Magistrate Judge in her
review of the Special Master's conclusions, Judge Trauger denies
the Defendants' motion.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 22, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mwurxbst from Leagle.com.
SOCLEAN INC: CPAP Cleaning Device Emits Ozone, Clark Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOCLEAN, INC., Defendant, Case No.
0:22-cv-02335-MGL (D.S.C., July 20, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranty of merchantability, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraud by
omission, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and
violation of South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising and marketing of its
continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) cleaning device. The
Defendant advertised that its device used activated oxygen and was
safe and healthy. However, the Defendant failed to disclose to
consumers that the device emits ozone. Had the Plaintiff and
similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not have
purchased the device or paid a premium for it, says the suit.
SoClean, Inc. is a manufacturer of cleaning devices, with its
principal place of business in Peterborough, New Hampshire. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harper Todd Segui, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
825 Lowcountry Blvd., Unit 101
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (900) 600-5000
Facsimile: (900) 600-5035
E-mail: hsegui@milberg.com
- and –
Ruth Anne French-Hodson, Esq.
Sarah T. Bradshaw, Esq.
SHARP LAW FIRM
4820 W. 75th St.
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Telephone: (913) 901-0505
E-mail: rafrenchhodson@midwest-law.com
sbradshaw@midwest-law.com
- and –
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
MASON LLP
5101 Wisconsin Ave., Suite 305
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 429.2290
E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
dperry@masonllp.com
- and –
Ronald Verdell Johnson, IV, Esq.
Russell L. Johnson, Esq.
DEAKLE-JOHNSON LAW FIRM, PLLC
P.O. Box 2072
Hattiesburg, MS 39403
Telephone: (601) 544-0631
E-mail: rljohnson@djlawms.com
rvjohsnon@djlawms.com
SOUTHCOAST HEALTH: Souza Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southcoast Health
System, Inc. The case is styled as Jonathan Souza, on his own
behalf and on behalf of All others similarly situated v. Southcoast
Health System, Inc., Case No. 2273CV00496 (Mass. Super. Ct.,
Bristol Cty., July 18, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Torts."
Southcoast Health -- https://www.southcoast.org/ -- is an
affiliation of three partner hospitals located in the southeastern
portion of Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan Patrick McLane, Esq.
MCLANE AND MCLANE, LLC
269 South Westfield
Feeding Hills, MA 01030
SPA'AH LLC: Wells Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spa'ah LLC. The case
is styled as Patty Wells, Chelbra Washington, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Benesys, Inc., R.
Michelle Christen, Case No. 4:22-cv-00664-BRW (E.D. Ark., July 19,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
THE SPA'AH -- https://thespaah.com/ -- offers many therapeutic
massages, professional esthetics, and spa services in a gender
neutral atmosphere.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher Wesley Burks, Esq.
Stewart Alexander Whaley, Esq.
WH LAW
1 Riverfront Place, Suite 745
North Little Rock, AR 72114
Phone: (501) 891-6000
Email: chris@whlawoffices.com
stewart@whlawoffices.com
STEMILT AG: Garcia Class Certification Bid Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GILBERTO GOMEZ GARCIA,
JONATHAN GOMEZ RIVERA, JOSE RODRIGUEZ LLERENAS, FRANCISCO MUNOZ
MEDRANO, SANDRO VARGAS LEYVA, ALEJANDRO CHAVEZ MONROY, and VICTOR
FRANCISCO PADILLA PLASCENCIA, as individuals and on behalf of all
other similarly situated persons, v. STEMILT AG SERVICES, LLC, Case
No. 2:20-cv-00254-TOR (E.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Thomas O. Rice
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
Plaintiff's Second Motion for Class Certification:
1. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), the Court hereby
certifies the following "FLCA Disclosure Class" in this
case:
a. All Mexican nationals employed by Stemilt Ag Services,
LLC in Washington, pursuant only to the second H-2A
contract from August 14, 2017 through November 15, 2017
who received disclosures in violation of RCW
19.30.110(2) and (7)(h).
2. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(B), the Court hereby
certifies the following claims, including all damages
related thereto:
a. The claim that the Defendant, as a farm labor
contractor, did not disclose to every person with whom
it dealt in the capacity of a farm labor contractor the
amount of its bond and the existence and amount of any
claims against the bond.
b. The claim that Defendant, as a farm labor contractor,
did not disclose, on a form prescribed by the director,
furnished to each worker, at the time of hiring,
recruiting, soliciting, or supplying, whichever occurs
first, a written statement in English and any other
language common to workers who are not fluent or
literate in English that contains a description of: The
name and address of the owner of all operations, or the
owner's agent, where the worker will be working as a
result of being recruited, solicited, supplied, or
employed by the Defendant.
3. Intervenor-Plaintiffs Jose Rodriguez Llerenas and
Francisco Munoz Medrano are appointed as Class
Representatives.
4. Columbia Legal Services and Keller Rohrback L.L.P. are
appointed as Class Counsel.
5. The Defendant shall have fourteen (14) days from service
of the proposed "Notice" to serve and file any objections
to the same.
This case concerns H-2A farm workers who were employed by Stemilt
in Washington. On August 20, 2021, the Court certified the
following FLCA class 8 claims raised under RCW 19.30.110(7):
"All Mexican nationals employed at 9 Stemilt Ag Services, LLC in
Washington, pursuant to both the 2017 H-2A contract from January
16, 2017 through August 11, 2017 and the H-2A contract from August
14, 2017 through November 14, 2017."
Following certification, the Court allowed a final amendment for an
FLCA claim relating to the August 2017 Clearance Order. The
operative Fourth Amended Complaint raises the following class
causes of action:
(1) "TVPA Class" for violations under 18 U.S.C. section
1589(a)(3)-(4), RCW 16 49.60.180(3), and 42 U.S.C.
section 1981;
(2) "Wait Time Class" for violation of RCW 49.52.050(2); and
(3) "FLCA Class" for violations under RCW 19.30.110(1), (2),
(5), (7).
On June 2, 2022, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' FLCA claim 20
under RCW 19.30.110(1).
Stemilt AG was founded in 2011. The company's line of business
includes providing farm management services.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 14, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oo4get at no extra charge.[CC]
STEPHEN NG: Ng Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stephen Ng. The case
is styled as Albert Ng and Danny Wong, both individually and
derivately on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
shareholders of Sunny Palace Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Sunny Palace v.
Stephen Ng, as trustee of the Ng Family Irrevocable Trust, Case No.
520884/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., July 21, 2022).
Stephen Ng Financial Group -- https://www.stephenngfg.com/ -- are
professionals who specialize in financial planning and other
important milestones.[BN]
The nature of suit and the professionals are not stated in the
doc.
STUPP BROS: Class Status Deadlines Extended in Stoklosa Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNA STOKLOSA,
Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
STUPP BROS., INC. d/b/a STUPP, Case No. 3:21-cv-00162-SDD-SDJ (M.D.
La.), the Hon. Judge Shelly D. Dick entered an order granting the
the joint motion to extend the deadline to issue class and other
deadlines for another 60 days.
-- The Plaintiff to file a Motion for Conditional Class
Certification of Collective Action and for Notice to
Prospective Class Members by September 8, 2022.
Stupp Bros. is a privately-owned company focused on providing
infrastructure development in the United States as well as serving
the St. Louis market through a successful community bank,
continually ranked among the top Missouri banks for safety and
soundness.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cM7N3H at no extra charge.[CC]
SUNFLOW INC: Hobbs Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunflow, Inc. The
case is styled as Alexandra Hobbs, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Sunflow, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-06208 (S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sunflow -- https://getsunflow.com/ -- is a beach brand designing
products that transform every beach outing into a luxurious and
indulgent retreat.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
SWEETIE BOY: Munn Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages for Auto Pilots
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TYNIKA MUNN and BEAU OARE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SWEETIE BOY TRANSPORTATION, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00512-REP (E.D. Va., July 21, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendant for its failure to compensate
the Plaintiffs and similarly situated workers overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Virginia Overtime Wage Act, and
the Virginia Minimum Wage Act.
Plaintiffs Munn and Oare worked for the Defendant as auto pilots
from January 2022 until May 2022 and from October 2021 until April
2022, respectively.
Sweetie Boy Transportation, LLC is a transportation services
company, headquartered in Ashland, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Krista Sheets, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy., Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: krista@sanfordlawfirm.com
T-MOBILE: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $350 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dan Avery, writing for CNET, reports that almost a year after a
cybersecurity breach that exposed sensitive information from
millions of current, past and prospective customers, T-Mobile has
agreed to a $350 million settlement. If approved, the deal will be
the second-largest data-breach settlement in US history, after
Equifax's agreement to pay $700 million in 2019.
The mobile carrier has not acknowledged any wrongdoing but, in a
statement shared with CNET, said it was "pleased to have resolved
this consumer class action filing."
"Customers are first in everything we do and protecting their
information is a top priority," T-Mobile added. "Like every
company, we are not immune to these criminal attacks."
In addition to paying affected customers, T-Mobile will invest $150
million in improving its data security, according to SEC filings.
Here's what you need to know about the T-Mobile data-breach
settlement, including who's eligible for a payout, how much they
could get and when the money might arrive.
For more on class-action suits, find out if you qualify for a
payout from Facebook's $90 million settlement or the $45 million
settlement from Roundup weedkiller.
What happened in the T-Mobile data-breach case?
On August 15, 2021, T-Mobile reported a cyberattack had led to the
theft of millions of people's personal information, including.
names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's
license details and other sensitive information, including unique
codes that identified individual phones.
Exactly how many people were hacked and how they were impacted is
unclear: According to court filings, approximately 76.6 million
people had their data exposed, but T-Mobile has claimed only about
850,000 people's names, addresses and PINs were "compromised."
An individual selling the information on the dark web for 6 bitcoin
(approximately $277,000 at the time) told Vice they had data
relating to over 100 million people, all compiled from T-Mobile
servers.
John Binns, a 21-year-old living in Turkey, eventually took
responsibility for the cyberattack, the fifth such attack that has
hit T-Mobile since 2015.
"I was panicking because I had access to something big," Binns told
The Wall Street Journal. "Their security is awful."
The July 24 settlement, filed in the US District Court for the
Western District of Missouri, merges at least 44 class action suits
that claimed T-Mobile was lax with its cybersecurity and failed to
protect personal information.
How do I find out if I qualify for a payment from the T-Mobile
settlement?
T-Mobile has not released the full details of its payment plan.
Typically class members -- in this case, people who were T-Mobile
customers in August 2021 -- are notified they are eligible by mail.
(Full disclosure: This reporter was a T-Mobile customer at that
time.)
Customers are then given 90 days to submit claim forms or request
to opt out of the settlement and reserve the right to pursue their
own separate legal claims, according to court papers.
It could be several months before individuals find out if they will
receive money from the settlement, TechCrunch reported.
How much money could I receive from the T-Moble settlement?
Class members could receive cash payments of $25, Reuters reported,
or $100 for California residents.
It could also be substantially less, depending on how many people
respond. In addition to paying out claims, the $350 million has to
go toward settling legal fees and administrative costs. The
plaintiffs' lawyers may charge up to 30% of the settlement,
according to court filings.
Separately, some people could receive as much as $25,000 to cover
losses they suffered as a direct result of the breach.
T-Mobile is also offering two free years of McAfee's ID Theft
Protection Service to anyone who believes they may have been a
victim.
When will I receive a payment from the T-Mobile settlement?
Qualified class members likely won't see any money until at least
2023.
T-Mobile has 30 days to provide the court with a list of class
members, along with their phone numbers and mailing and email
addresses, "to the extent available."
Once eligible parties are notified, claims can be submitted. Legal
fees are deducted and the remaining money is divvied up among class
members who sent back claims. That could take months.
In addition, the $350 million payout has only received preliminary
approval. It still requires final sign-off from a judge, which
T-Mobile said would come by December at the earliest.
What is T-Mobile doing to protect against future security
breaches?
T-Mobile has "doubled-down" on fighting hackers, the company said
in its July 22 statement, by boosting employee training,
collaborating with industry experts like Mandiant and Accenture on
new protocols and creating a cybersecurity office that reports
directly to the company's chief executive officer, Mike Sievert.
Security journalist Brian Krebs reported in April 2022 that
T-Mobile was a victim of the hacking group Lapsus$.
The hackers accessed employee accounts and attempted to find
T-Mobile accounts associated with the Department of Defense and
FBI, TechCruch reported. They were thwarted by secondary
authentication checks. [GN]
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Cert Briefing Extended to August 9
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ford. et al., v. Takeda
Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-10090 (D.
Mass.), the Hon. Judge William G. Young entered an order granting
joint motion for extension of time to August 9, 2022 regarding
class certification briefing.
The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) involving employee benefits.
Takeda provides pharmaceutical services.[CC]
TAMPA FLORIDA: Faces Timber Suit Over Failure to Secure Trailers
----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMBER PRODUCTS TRUCKING, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAMPA FLORIDA KENWORTH, a CMS
TRUCKING COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 153792812 (Fla. Cir. Ct.,
13th Jud. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., July 21, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence and bailment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to store the
Plaintiff's and Class members' trailers in a safe location. The
Defendant owed the Plaintiff and similarly situated equipment
owners a duty to properly keep their trailers. As a result of the
Defendant's negligence, the Plaintiff's trailer was stolen, the
suit asserts.
Timber Products Trucking, LLC is a self-insured limited liability
company, with a principal place of business at 305 South 4th
Street, Springfield, Oregon.
Tampa Florida Kenworth is a truck dealer in Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank G. Mackoul II, Esq.
MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C.
1301 Riverplace Blvd., Suite 2140
Jacksonville, FL 32207
Telephone: (262) 673-7850
E-mail: ehernandez@mwl-law.com
TAPPED 1010: Reyes Files Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JOSE HERNANDEZ REYES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAPPED 1010 INC. d/b/a TAP
ROOM, JAMES BONANNO and DAVID JOHNSON, as individuals, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-04230 (E.D.N.Y., July 19, 2022) alleges the
Defendant of violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a kitchen worker,
cook, cleaner, food preparer and online order receiver and preparer
while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants
from in or around March 2015 until in or around April 2022.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked
approximately 72 hours or more hours each week throughout his
employment with the Defendants. However, the Defendants did not pay
him overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek in violation of the overtime provisions of the FLSA and
NYLL. In addition, the Defendant did not pay him an extra hour at
the legally prescribed minimum wage for each day worked over 10
hours in violation of the spread-of-hours provisions contained in
the NYLL. The Defendant also failed to keep payroll records as
required by both NYLL and FLSA. Moreover, the Defendant willfully
failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage
requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their
employment, and willfully failed to provide the Plaintiff with a
written notice and with any wage statements, alleges the suit.
Tapped 1010 Inc. d/b/a Tap Room operates a restaurant owned by
James Bonanno and David Johnson. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Tel: (718) 263-9591
TAX AFFAIR: Fails to Pay Premium Overtime Wages, Bopp Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS BOPP, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. TAX AFFAIR, INC. d/b/a JACKSON HEWITT TAX SERVICE, and
KEN SRA, Case No. 2:22-cv-04300 (E.D.N.Y., July 21, 2022) alleges
that the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff, and those similarly
situated, premium overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week in violation of the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff brings this action due to the Defendants' failure to
pay him all commissions owed by the end of each month in which they
were earned, in violation of NYLL 191(c), as well as for failure to
provide him with accurate wage statements with his wages each week
pursuant to NYLL section 195(3) and for failure to provide him with
a compliant wage notice upon his hire pursuant to NYLL section
195(1), and for claims of unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and
breach of contract under New York common law.
The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on behalf of himself,
individually, and on behalf of all other persons similarly-
situated during the applicable limitations periods who suffered
damages as a result of the Defendants' violations of the NYLL and
the supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations and
violations of New York common law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a tax preparer from
on or about December 17, 2016 until in or about February 2021. The
Plaintiff did not work from the months of May through November each
year, only serving as a tax preparer during "tax season." For the
purposes of this Complaint, the term "tax season" represents the
period of December through April the following year.
The Defendants are engaged in the business of providing tax advice
and preparing tax returns for customers, and maintain a place of
business in Shirley, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
E-mail: mfarnworth@RomeroLawNY.com
TAX DEFENSE NETWORK: Reimer Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tax Defense Network,
LLC. The case is styled as Ruhi Reimer, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Tax Defense Network, LLC doing
business as: Moneysolver, Case No. 3:22-cv-00793 (M.D. Fla, July
21, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Tax Defense Network, LLC doing business as MoneySolver --
https://www.moneysolver.org/ -- is a national financial services
company based in Jacksonville, Florida that helps people and
businesses transform their student loan, tax, business, and credit
situations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander J. Taylor, Esq.
NATIONAL LITIGATION LAW GROUP, LLP
2401 Northwest 23rd Street, Suite 42
Oklahoma City, OK 73107
Phone: (630) 366-0140
Email: ataylor@nationlit.com
TERRAFORM LABS: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Vignesh Karunanidhi, writing for TronWeekly, reports that a new
class action lawsuit has been brought on TerraForm Labs, its
founder Do Kwon, its director of research Nicholas Platias, and
other companies.
The class action complaint has been filed by Bragar Eagel & Squire
PC accusing the defendants of breaking the California Common Law,
the Exchange Act, the Securities Act, and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
Terra faces three class action lawsuits
In a news statement on July 25, Bragar Eagel & Squire PC disclosed
that it has filed a class action lawsuit against TerraForm Labs,
its founder Do Kwon, and Nicholas Platias.
In addition, affiliates like GSR/GSR Markets, Three Arrows Capital,
Republic Capital, Republic Maximal, Tribe Capital, DFinance
Capital, and DFinance Technologies (3AC).
All investors, including people and businesses, who bought or
obtained LUNA tokens between May 20, 2021, and May 25, 2022, are
included in the class action lawsuit.
In the case, Terra Labs and other defendants are charged with
breaking Exchange Act rules. Investors claim that the company
misled them, causing them to purchase LUNA Tokens at inflated
rates. The defendants reportedly carried out a strategy and set of
actions to entice investors.
The defendants are charged with approving false claims that were
deceptive and of which they knew or ought to have known. The
complaint also asserts that by failing to register their token,
Terraform Labs and other defendants violated Securities Act
restrictions.
The investigating teams from South Korea and the United States had
already agreed to exchange information on their investigations into
Do Kwon and the LUNA disaster.
In reality, South Korea's investigative team searched 15
cryptocurrency businesses and exchanges, as well as co-founder of
TerraForm Labs Daniel Shin's residence and offices, stepping up
inquiries into claims that Do Kwon and TerraForm Labs committed
fraud.
Terra's USTC and LUNC values have fallen as a result of the new
round of investigations; previously, they had been steadily rising
as a result of community-led token burning.[GN]
TESLA INC: Securities Suit in Delaware Court Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Tesla, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 25, 2022, that the court granted the plaintiffs'
motion to amend their complaint, its trial is set for October
2022.
On June 4, 2018, a purported Tesla stockholder filed a putative
class and derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery
against Elon Musk and the members of Tesla's board of directors as
then constituted, alleging corporate waste, unjust enrichment and
that such board members breached their fiduciary duties by
approving the stock-based compensation plan awarded to Elon Musk in
2018.
The complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages and
rescission or reformation of the stock-based compensation plan. On
August 31, 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint; plaintiff filed its opposition brief on November 1,
2018; and defendants filed a reply brief on December 13, 2018. The
hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on May 9, 2019.
On September 20, 2019, the Court granted the motion to dismiss as
to the corporate waste claim but denied the motion as to the breach
of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims. Defendants' answer
was filed on December 3, 2019.
On January 25, 2021, the Court conditionally certified certain
claims and a class of Tesla stockholders as a class action. On
September 30, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a
verified amended derivative complaint. On October 1, 2021,
defendants Kimbal Musk and Steve Jurvetson moved for summary
judgment as to the claims against them.
Following the motion, the plaintiff agreed to voluntarily dismiss
the claims against Kimbal Musk and Steve Jurvetson. Plaintiff also
moved for summary judgment on October 1, 2021. On October 27, 2021,
the Court approved the parties' joint stipulation that, among other
things, (a) all claims against Kimbal Musk and Steve Jurvetson in
the Complaint are dismissed with prejudice; (b) the class is
decertified and the action shall continue exclusively as a
derivative action under Court of Chancery Rule 23.1; and (c) the
direct claims against the remaining defendants are dismissed with
prejudice.
On November 18, 2021, the remaining defendants (a) moved for
partial summary judgment, (b) opposed plaintiff's summary judgment
motion and (c) opposed the plaintiff's motion to amend his
complaint. In January 2022, the case was assigned to a different
judge.
On February 24, 2022, the court (i) granted plaintiff's motion to
amend his complaint, and (ii) canceled oral argument on the summary
judgment motions, stating that the court is "skeptical that this
litigation can be resolved based on the undisputed facts" and the
"case is going to trial," but that the "parties may reassert their
arguments made in support of summary judgment in their pre-trial
and post-trial briefs." Trial is currently set for October 24-31,
2022.
Tesla Inc. designs, develops, manufactures and sells fully electric
vehicles, solar energy generation and energy storage products.
TESLA INC: Securities Suits in California Court Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Tesla, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 25, 2022, that between August 10, 2018 and
September 6, 2018, nine purported stockholder class actions were
filed against Tesla and Elon Musk in connection with Mr. Musk's
August 7, 2018 Twitter post that he was considering taking Tesla
private. All of the suits are now pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.
Although the complaints vary in certain respects, they each purport
to assert claims for violations of federal securities laws related
to Mr. Musk's statement and seek unspecified compensatory damages
and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of
Tesla's securities.
Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint on January 16, 2019
and added as defendants the members of Tesla's board of directors.
The now-consolidated purported stockholder class action was stayed
while the issue of selection of lead counsel was briefed and argued
before the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit ruled regarding lead
counsel.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 22,
2019. The hearing on the motion was held on March 6, 2020. On April
15, 2020, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss. The
parties stipulated to certification of a class of stockholders,
which the court granted on November 25, 2020.
On January 11, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary
judgment. On April 1, 2022, the Court granted in part plaintiffs'
motion for partial summary judgment. The company disagrees with the
ruling and accordingly, on April 22, 2022, asked the Court for
reconsideration or, in the alternative, certification to file an
interlocutory appeal.
On June 16, 2022, in response to Tesla's motions, the Court denied
certification to appeal and declined to reconsider its opinion but
clarified its summary judgment ruling to make clear that it had not
ruled that any misstatements it identified met the required
materiality element under the securities statute. The issue of
materiality and reliance will both be questions for the jury to
decide at trial, which is set for January 17, 2023.
Tesla Inc. designs, develops, manufactures and sells fully electric
vehicles, solar energy generation and energy storage products.
TG THERAPEUTICS: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of Sept. 16 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attention TG Therapeutics, Inc. ("TG Therapeutics") (NASDAQ: TGTX)
shareholders:
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on July 25 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased
between January 15, 2020 and May 31, 2022.
If you suffered a loss on your investment in TG Therapeutics,
contact us about potential recovery by using the link below. There
is no cost or obligation to you.
https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/tgtx-lawsuit-loss-submission-form?prid=30151&wire=4
ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against TG Therapeutics includes
allegations that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) clinical
trials revealed significant concerns related to the benefit-risk
ratio and overall survival data of the Company's therapeutic
product candidates, Ublituximab and Umbralisib; (ii) accordingly,
it was unlikely that the Company would be able to obtain approval
from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of the Umbralisib
marginal zone lymphoma and follicular lymphoma New Drug
Application, the Biologics License Application for Ublituximab in
combination with Umbralisib, the supplemental New Drug Application
for Ublituximab in combination with Umbralisib, or the Ublituximab
relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis Biologics License Application
in their current forms; (iii) as a result, the Company had
significantly overstated Ublituximab and Umbralisib's clinical
and/or commercial prospects; and (iv) therefore, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
DEADLINE: September 16, 2022
Aggrieved TG Therapeutics investors only have until September 16,
2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You
are not required to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in
any recovery.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
TJB GEARYS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TJB Gearys, LLC. The
case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. TJB Gearys, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-06135
(S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Gearys, LLC -- https://www.gearys.com/ -- offers luxury jewelry,
dinnerware, watches, gifts, tableware and more by the most coveted
luxury brands.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail
TRANSDEV SERVICES: Ganther Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRENDA GANTHER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC. and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Case No. 22CV000632, was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Napa, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on July 20, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-04230 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code including failure to provide meal periods,
failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay all wages, knowing
and intentional failure to comply with itemized employee wage
statement, failure to timely pay wages due at termination, failure
to timely pay employees, and failure to reimburse for business
expenses.
Transdev Services, Inc. is a provider of passenger transportation
services doing business in California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Tyler M. Paetkau, Esq.
Olga Savage, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
1999 Harrison St., Suite 700
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 768-0650
Facsimile: (510) 768-0651
E-mail: Tyler.Paetkau@huschblackwell.com
Olga.Savage@huschblackwell.com
TRANSPORTATION MARKETING: Nordstedt Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transportation
Marketing Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Mindi
Nordstedt, individually, and on behalf of, other members of the
general public similarly situated v. Transportation Marketing
Services, Inc., King Courier, Does 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case
No. CGC22600780 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., July 18,
2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Transportation Marketing Services International, Inc. provides
transport and logistics services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101
Pasadena, CA 91103-3069
Phone: (818) 230-7502
Fax: (818) 230-7259
Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
TREK RETAIL: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Green Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT GREEN v. TREK RETAIL
CORPORATION, Case No. 4:21-cv-07004-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an amended scheduling order as
follows:
Event Deadline
-- Close of Fact Discovery March 31, 2023
-- Exchange of Opening April 10, 2023
Expert Reports:
-- Exchange of Rebuttal April 24, 2023
Expert Reports:
-- Deadline for Class May 15, 2023
Certification Motion:
-- Deadline for Class June 14, 2023
Certification Opposition:
-- Deadline for Class June 28, 2023
Certification Reply:
-- Class Certification July 13, 2023
Motion Hearing Deadline:
A copy of the Court's order dated July 14, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ztJjot at no extra charge.[CC]
TRI-COUNTY CONSTRUCTION: Bailey Class Suit Junked
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN BAILEY v.
TRI-COUNTY CONSTRUCTION, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-312-MOC-WCM
(W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Max Cogburn entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's Consent Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Plaintiff's motion is granted, and this action is dismissed
with prejudice. Each party shall bear its own costs.
Furthermore, since this matter is being dismissed, the Plaintiff's
pending Motion to Certify Class and Approve Notice is denied as
moot. The Clerk shall terminate this action.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 14, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cDvH0W at no extra charge.[CC]
UKG INC: Arpie Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Compromised Employees' Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
AUDREY ARPIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UKG, INC., MERCY MEDICAL GROUP, INC., and
TRINITY HEALTH OF NEW ENGLAND CORPORATION, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:22-cv-30096 (D. Mass., July 20, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for unpaid regular wages in violation of the
Massachusetts Wage Act, negligence, intrusion upon
seclusion/invasion of privacy, breach of fiduciary duty.
The case arises from the Defendants' unlawful withholding of the
Plaintiff's and Class Members' wages and the negligent disclosure
of over 8 million employees' personally identifiable information in
a massive data breach on or around December 11, 2021. The
Defendants' inadequate security measures allowed unauthorized
individuals to access and render unusable a workforce management
software application the Defendants used to process payroll and
store data that contained the PII of Plaintiff and other
individuals. As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and
Class Members were not timely paid the full amount of wages to
which they are entitled, says the suit.
UKG, Inc. is a provider of workforce management solutions, with its
principal place of business at 2000 Ultimate Way, Weston, Florida.
Mercy Medical Group, Inc. is a medical care services company, with
its principal place of business at 271 Carew St., Springfield,
Massachusetts.
Trinity Health of New England Corporation, Inc. is a healthcare
services firm, with its principal place of business at 114 Woodland
St., Hartford, Connecticut. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
One North Broadway, Suite 900
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 298-3281
E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com
- and –
Jack J. Canzoneri, Esq.
Nicholas Wanger, Esq.
MCDONALD LAMOND CANZONERI
352 Turnpike Rd., Suite 210
Southborough, MA 01772
Telephone: (508) 485-6600
E-mail: jcanzoneri@masslaborlawyers.com
nwanger@masslaborlawyers.com
UNITED STATES: Gov't. Issues Formal Apology for Anti-Black Racism
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Lapointe, writing for The Hill Times, reports that following
the federal government's formal apology for the systemic,
anti-Black racism experienced by members of the No. 2 Construction
Battalion who served during World War I, members of the
multi-billion-dollar Black class action lawsuit welcome the prime
minister's words, but leading lawyer Courtney Betty says the
"battle that the battalion fought 106 years ago is no different
from the battle that we're fighting right now on behalf of Black
public service workers."
The apology comes in the midst of an ongoing, multi-billion dollar
class-action lawsuit representing current and former Black federal
public servants seeking long-term solutions to permanently address
systemic racism and discrimination in the bureaucracy. [GN]
UNITED STATES: Murphey Files Suit in D. Arizona
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States of
America, et al. The case is styled as Jennifer N. Murphey,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
United States of America, Merrick B Garland, United States Attorney
General, United States Department of Justice; Anne Milgram,
Administrator of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration;
Mark Brnovich, Attorney General of the State of Arizona, Case No.
2:22-cv-01224-JJT (D. Ariz., July 21, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil
Rights Act.
The U.S. -- https://www.usa.gov/ -- is a country of 50 states
covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the
northwest and Hawaii extending the nation's presence into the
Pacific Ocean.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
UNITY SOFTWARE: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of September 6 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of
Unity Software Inc. (NYSE:U) between March 5, 2021 and May 10,
2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important
September 6, 2022 lead plaintiff deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Unity securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Unity class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=7381 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 6, 2022.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually
handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that
refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the
cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class
action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was
Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of
securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds
of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm
secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner
Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar.
Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and
Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) deficiencies in Unity's product
platform reduced the accuracy of the Company's machine learning
technology; (2) the foregoing was likely to have a material
negative impact on Unity's revenues; (3) accordingly, Unity had
overstated its commercial and/or financial prospects for 2022; (4)
as a result, Unity was likely to have to reduce its fiscal 2022
guidance; and (5) as a result, defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
To join the Unity class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=7381 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Students Seek to Certify Classes
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI COVID-19
TUITION AND FEE REFUND LITIGATION, Case No. 0:20-cv-60851-AHS (S.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying
the following proposed classes:
-- The Tuition Class
"All students who paid tuition and were enrolled in
classes at the University of Miami for the Spring 2020
semester but were denied live, in-person instruction and
forced to use online distance learning platforms for the
latter portion of that semester;" and
-- The Fees Class
"All students who paid the Activity Fee, Athletic Fee,
Wellness Center Fee, Student Health and Counseling Centers
Fee, and Student Center Fee, and were enrolled in classes
at the University of Miami for the Spring 2020 semester."
The Plaintiffs further ask that the Court appoint Plaintiffs as
class representatives and appoint their lawyers as co-lead class
counsel under Rule 23(g).
The case raises one central question: who should bear the burden of
Defendant University of Miami's ("UM") failure to provide students
with bargained for on-campus education: the students -- entering
the workforce with an average indebtedness of $18,645 1 or UM -- an
institution supported by a $1.05 billion endowment.
This question will be answered the same way for every student in
the proposed class because every student who paid UM tuition and/or
fees for the Spring 2020 semester lost a portion of the benefit of
their bargain when the school closed in response to the pandemic
and transitioned classes from in-person to virtual. Therefore,
class action treatment is not merely appropriate, it is the ideal
way to answer questions about the propriety and calculation of
refunds to each student. Multiple courts, including one applying
Florida law, have readily concluded that class treatment is
appropriate in similar cases.
The central facts relevant to class certification are not in
genuine dispute. UM is an institution of higher learning in Coral
Gables, Florida. While it disputes the terms and sources of its
contractual bargain with its students, UM admits that it entered
into a contract with its students.
UM charged, and Plaintiffs and class members paid, tuition and fees
when they registered to take classes during the Spring 2020
semester, specifically registering for classes that UM specifically
described as in-person.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 15, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ozXzWO at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Ave, Suite 1420
Miami, FL 33131-2800
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com
- and -
Roy T. Willey IV, Esq.
Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
G. Abbott, Esq.
POULIN WILLEY & ANASTOPOULO, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (843) 614-8888
E-mail: roy@akinlawfirm.com
eric@akinlawfirm.com
blake@akinlawfirm.com
- and -
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
Whitney K. Siehl, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr., Suite 2410
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (708) 628-4949
Facsimile: (708) 628-4950
E-mail: dank@hbsslaw.com
whitneys@hbsslaw.com
UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO: More Student-Athletes File Abuse Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
FeganScott announced in MENAFN that nine former University of San
Francisco (USF) baseball players joined the class action lawsuit
filed in March 2022 against their two (now former) baseball
coaches, USF, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA).
The players allege that USF coaches Anthony Giarratano and Troy
Nakamura created an intolerable sexualized environment on the team
over the course of 22 years, that USF knew about their misconduct
and did nothing to stop it, and that the NCAA has inadequate
policies in place to protect student-athletes from such abuse or
prevent coaches from moving on to another member institution with
impunity.
The amended complaint includes the claims brought by the original
three plaintiffs. It provides vivid details of an environment rife
with emotional abuse and highly sexualized behavior, with the
earliest allegations dating back to 1999 -- Giarratano's first year
as coach.
The original complaint was filed on March 11, 2022, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division. Since the filing, Giarratano and Nakamura have
been fired, and USF athletic director, Joan McDermott, has left her
position.
"Since we filed this case on behalf of three young student-athletes
who had the courage to stand up and share their horrific
experiences at USF, we've been contacted by many former USF
baseball players who share similar stories of crippling emotional
abuse and perverse sexual behavior by the USF coaches," said
Elizabeth Fegan, founding partner of FeganScott, and one of the
attorneys representing the students."These experiences clearly
illustrate why USF and the NCAA should be held accountable for
abuse by coaches."
According to Fegan, the intent of the suit is to force the school
to adopt and implement best practices to prevent future occurrences
and to compensate the young men for the harm they suffered at the
hands of the coaches.
"These nine new plaintiffs -- who played baseball at USF going back
to the very beginning of Giarratano and Nakamura's coaching tenure
-- establish that this was not a one-off, one day, one player, or
one season incident," said Jonathan Selbin, a senior partner at
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, who has led the firm's
litigation against the University of Southern California and the
University of Michigan involving sexual abuse of students and
serves as co-counsel on the present suit."It was a two-decade
period during which the coaches created a pervasive and intolerable
sexualized environment that did lasting damage to these young
players, that USF did nothing to stop despite its knowledge, and
for which the NCAA had and has inadequate policies in place to
address or prevent it from recurring."
"The reality is that the University of San Francisco has an abysmal
record in safeguarding students," Fegan added."The deplorable case
involving the baseball team comes on the heels of similar
allegations involving both the men's soccer program and the women's
basketball program."
"We are forced to use the civil court system to require the Jesuit
school to make the changes it won't make on its own," she added.
The complaint also challenges the NCAA's refusal to take meaningful
steps to create penalties for sexual, violent, or criminal conduct
by coaches or personnel in their athletics programs. While the NCAA
freely metes out punishments for student-athletes for poor academic
performance and disciplines athletes for profiting off their own
likenesses, the NCAA's bylaws do not contain any penalties for
sexual, violent, or criminal conduct by coaches or personnel in
their athletics programs.
According to the complaint, the NCAA has taken no action in the two
decades since the NCAA adopted a coaching code of ethics in 1992,
which prohibits sexual harassment and sexual relationships between
coaches and athletes.
The complaint also cites the NCAA's failure to track instances of
abuse to prevent coaches from moving to different schools.
With over 140 pages, the complaint also cites repeated instances in
which USF coaches used emotional abuse to force players to leave
the team, often forced to walk away from guaranteed scholarships
worth as much as $280,000.
'Our investigation has revealed that the coaches would routinely
berate players with profanity-laced, sexualized screeds intended to
humiliate and intimidate them, often in front of other players or
fans," said Fegan."The intent was clear, to get the kids to quit,
freeing up scholarships the coaches could dangle in front of other
prospects, and the data supports this conclusion."
According to the complaint of the 13 recruits in the 2017 USF
class, only five stayed for four years. Of the 17 recruits in 2020,
eight have transferred, and two are planning to, giving the team a
60% transfer rate compared to a national average of just 2%.
"Many of the student-athletes we represent are dealing with severe
trauma, depression and other health issues stemming from the
horrific sexualized abuse and bullying Giarratano and Nakamura put
them through," said Fegan."These impressionable young men looked
forward to a bright future playing college baseball with the
training and mentorship they were promised. Instead, the coaches
tasked with guiding and teaching them, abused and scarred them.
These experiences at USF are an example of what happens when the
NCAA is allowed to refuse responsibility."
About FeganScott
FeganScott is a national class-action law firm dedicated to helping
victims of sexual abuse and sexual harassment. Elizabeth Fegan, the
firm's founder and managing member, represents the group of
survivors suing criminally convicted movie mogul Harvey Weinstein.
The firm, championed by acclaimed veteran, class-action attorneys
who have successfully recovered $1 billion for victims nationwide,
has helped survivors of sexual abuse reclaim their lives and seek
compensation from their perpetrators. FeganScott is committed to
pursuing successful outcomes with integrity and excellence while
holding the responsible parties accountable.
Contact:
Mark Firmani
+1 206-466-2700
About Lieff Cabraser
Lieff Cabraser is a national law firm that represents individuals
and small businesses in a variety of individual and class action
cases, including cases brought by survivors of sexual abuse against
physicians, teachers, and the institutions who employ them,
including the groundbreaking sexual abuse class action against the
University of Southern California filed on behalf of nearly 18,000
women who were abused by USC gynecologist George Tyndall. Lieff
Cabraser served as Co-Lead Class Counsel in the USC suit, securing
a historic $215 million settlement for the survivors that also
included sweeping institutional reforms requiring USC to make
significant and substantial changes to ensure such sexual abuse
never happens again on its campus. Lieff Cabraser is currently
serving as Co-Lead Class Counsel in litigation against the
University of Michigan on behalf of student-patient and other
survivors of sexual abuse by the late Dr. Robert E. Anderson. [GN]
UPTOWN TAVERN: Fails to Pay Mandated Wages for Restaurant Servers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANNE FULLINGTON, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. UPTOWN TAVERN, LLC, an Illinois limited
liability company, Case No. 3:22-cv-03136-SEM-KLM (C.D. Ill., July
21, 2022) is a class action complaint for damages and demand for
jury trial against the Defendant for failure to comply with
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Illinois Minimum
Wage Act, and to recover applicable tips and minimum wages for
certain hours worked for the Plaintiff and all Restaurant Servers
who worked within the past 5 years for Uptown Tavern in
Carlinville, Illinois.
The Plaintiff and the Class Members were paid less than the
applicable Illinois minimum wage by Defendant for certain hours
worked in one or more workweeks, the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Server from on or about May
1, 2021, through on or about June 2, 2022. The proposed Class
Members worked for Defendant as Servers in the same or identical
capacity as Plaintiff within the past 5 years.
The Plaintiff seeks class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 of
the following three classes for failure to pay Illinois' mandated
minimum wages pursuant to the Illinois Minimum Wage Act:
-- Tip Notice Class
"All Servers who worked for the Defendant at Uptown Tavern in
Carlinville, Illinois, during the five years preceding this
lawsuit, who were paid less than the prevailing Illinois
Minimum Wage and not provided the sufficient tip notice;"
-- Tip Pool Class
"All Servers who worked for Defendant at Uptown Tavern in
Carlinville, Illinois from March 23, 2018, through the
present, who were required to share any portions of their tips
with employers, supervisors, and/or managers;"
-- 80/20 Class
"All Servers who worked for Defendant at Uptown Tavern in
Carlinville, Illinois within the past five years preceding
this lawsuit, who were required to spend more than 30 minutes
(or 20% of their shift) performing non-tip producing
work."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan Richards, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS - JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com
David@usaemploymentlawyers.com
Catherine@usaemploymentlawyers.com
UTILITY TRAILER: Class Certification Filing Extended to August 26
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTINA KHEDERLARIAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
UTILITY TRAILER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Case No.
8:22-cv-00435-JFW-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John F. Walter
entered an order that:
1. The July 26, 2022 deadline for Plaintiff Khederlarian to
file a motion for class certification in Khederlarian
pursuant to Section 5(i) of the Court's Scheduling Order
is continued to August 26, 2022; and
2. The August 18, 2022 deadline for Plaintiff Easley to file
a motion for class certification in Easley pursuant to
Section 5(i) of the Court's Scheduling Order is continued
to August 26, 2022;
Utility Trailer is an American semi-trailer truck dry van, flatbed,
and refrigerated van trailer manufacturing company, with its
headquarters in the City of Industry, Los Angeles County,
California, and sales office in Alpharetta, Georgia and a Parts
Distribution Center in Batavia, Ohio.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cMbm9K at no extra charge.[CC]
VALLE DEL SOL: Pineda Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled VERONICA BENITEZ PINEDA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. VALLE DEL SOL, LLC; VALLE DEL
SOL JONES; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV03518,
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Fresno, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on July 19, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-04926 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law
including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum
wage, failure to pay meal periods, failure to pay rest periods,
failure to pay wages timely upon cessation of employment, and
unfair competition.
Valle Del Sol, LLC is a healthcare services firm doing business in
California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Thomas E. Campagne, Esq.
CAMPAGNE & CAMPAGNE
A Professional Corporation
Airport Office Center
1685 North Helm Avenue
Fresno, CA 93727
Telephone: (559) 255-1637
Facsimile: (559) 252-9617
E-mail: tcampagne@campagnelaw.com
VELEX INC: Jordan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Velex, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Derrick Jordan, and on behalf of all other
similarly situated employees v. Velex, Inc., Does 1-100, Case No.
34-2022-00323715-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July
20, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Velex -- https://www.velex.com/ -- is a tower construction and
technical services company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brittany V. Berzin, Esq.
SHIMODA LAW CORP
9401 E Stockton Blvd., Ste. 120
Elk Grove, CA 95624-5050
Phone: 916-525-0716
Fax: 916-760-3733
Email: bberzin@shimodalaw.com
VIAERO WIRELESS: Fails to Pay Briseno Lawful OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Briseno, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Viaero Wireless Technologies, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-01798-STV (D. Colo., July 21, 2022) seeks declaratory
judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a
result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff lawful overtime
compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Act,
and the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Wage Order.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant within the three years
preceding the filing of this Complaint. She was employed by the
Defendant from October of 2017 until January of 2019 as a Customer
Care Representative, and from January of 2019 until November of
2021 as an Online Sales Representative.
As an OSR, the Plaintiff was paid an hourly wage and she also
earned commission based on sales made. The Defendant also employed
other hourly-paid OSRs who also earned commission within the three
years preceding the filing of this Complaint, says the suit.
Viaero is in the Cellular Telephone Services business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
VIESTE SPE: Crossfirst Bank, et al., File Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Crossfirst Bank, a Kansas
banking corporation, et al., v. Vieste SPE, LLC, an Arizona limited
liability company, et al., Case No. CV-18-01637-PHX-DLR (D. Ariz.),
the Plaintiffs CrossFirst Bank and CrossFirst Investments, Inc.,
Minnesota Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company, and ALPS Property &
Casualty Insurance Company move the Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23, to certify the following class:
"All purchasers or holders of The Industrial Development
Authority of the City of Phoenix, Arizona's Sold Waste
Disposal Facilities Revenue Bonds (Vieste SPE, LLC --
Glendale, Arizona Project) that read and relied upon the
Official Statement before purchasing the Bonds;"
Excluded from the Class are legal representatives, attorneys,
heirs, and assigns of Defendants; any judge, justice or
judicial officers presiding over this matter and the members
of their immediate families and judicial staff.
The operative Third Amended Complaint alleges Defendant made
several fraudulent misrepresentations in the Official Statement
("OS") issued as part of the bond sale. This centrally orchestrated
scheme to unlawfully sell bonds will be the "center of gravity" in
this action and thus should be certified.
CrossFirst Bank provides banking services primarily designed for
business owners, professionals, and their families.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 15, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3J6aOb3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey Goulder, Esq.
Timothy Lauxman, Esq.
STINSON LLP
1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100
Phoenix, AZ 85004-4584
Telephone: (602) 279-1600
Facsimile: (602) 240-6925
E-mail: jeffrey.goulder@stinson.com
- and -
Clinton A. Krislov, Esq.
Christopher M. Hack, Esq.
KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
20 North Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 606-0500
Facsimile: (312) 739-1098
E-mail: clint@krislovlaw.com
chris@krislovlaw.com
VISION SOLAR: Sego Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP NEAL SEGO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VISION SOLAR LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-11181 (D. Mass., July 21, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of making
unsolicited telemarketing calls to promote its goods and services.
The Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers did not provide
prior express written consent to receive calls from the Defendant.
The Plaintiff's and Class members' telephone numbers are listed on
the National Do Not Call Registry, says the suit.
Vision Solar LLC is a renewable energy company, headquartered in
Blackwood, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason R. J. Campbell, Esq.
CHARLESTOWN LAW GROUP
The Schrafft Center Power House
529 Main Street, Suite P200
Charlestown, MA 02129
Telephone: (617) 872-8652
E-mail: jcampbell@charlestownlawgroup.com
- and –
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 South Dixie Highway, Floor 4
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: S&C Eliminates 2019 Lawsuit Over Used Cars
------------------------------------------------------------
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP announced that culminating a series of
wins, Volkswagen obtained summary judgment in a case in which
plaintiffs had sought significant damages on behalf of multiple
purported classes of thousands of consumers who bought used
Volkswagen vehicles over a 14-year period. On July 7, Judge Liam
O'Grady of the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary
judgment on all of plaintiffs' remaining claims and also granted
Volkswagen's Daubert motions as to plaintiffs' two damages experts
- a separate and independent basis for summary judgment.
The decision in Garcia et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America brings
the litigation to a close in the district court, eliminating all
that remained of a sprawling proposed class action filed originally
in 2019. It built upon two earlier key rulings in which Volkswagen
eliminated significant legal exposure by successfully opposing
plaintiffs' two attempts to certify a class, including in a ruling
in January 2022.
The case involved used cars that Volkswagen utilized for its
internal purposes -- such as for auto shows or for publicity loans
to members of the automotive press -- and which Volkswagen dealers
then sold as Certified Pre-Owned vehicles. In May 2018, Volkswagen
initiated a recall for some of these vehicles out of an abundance
of caution because the vehicle's internal documentation was not
maintained properly.
Plaintiffs claimed that their vehicles did not comply with federal
safety standards and had sustained damage that was not properly
documented. They asserted that they were entitled to statutory
penalties of at least $10,000 per vehicle, plus a full refund of
their purchase prices.
In his summary judgment ruling, Judge O'Grady concluded that
despite extensive discovery, plaintiffs ultimately came up with
nothing: "The series of innuendos and implications that the
Plaintiffs have continuously attempted to piece together into a
coherent theory of liability does not meet [their legal] burden and
has not demonstrated any actual harm to any of the individual
Plaintiffs." He added: "There is no admissible evidence in the
record that any of the Plaintiffs' individual vehicles has any
defect."
Volkswagen was represented by Robert Giuffra Jr., Suhana Han, Bill
Monahan and Judson Littleton, who received an American Lawyer
"Litigator of the Week" runner-up recognition for this result. The
team also included Adam Brebner, Elizabeth Rose, Lee Deppermann,
Stephanie Freudenberg, Thomas McIver, Martin Erreich, Elizabeth
Williams, Riley Foley, Madeline Jenks, and Zachary Barker.
LAWYERS
Robert J. Giuffra Jr.
Suhana S. Han
William B. Monahan
Judson O. Littleton
Adam R. Brebner
Elizabeth A. Rose
Lee JF Deppermann
Stephanie L. Freudenberg
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP [GN]
WALMART INC: Vazquez Files Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Walmart, Inc. The
case is styled as Charlene Vazquez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Walmart, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-06215-JPO (S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Walmart Inc. -- https://corporate.walmart.com/ -- is an American
multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of
hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores from
the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Road, Ste. 412
Great Neck, NY 11021
Phone: (516) 268-7080
Fax: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
WELLS FARGO: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of August 29 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Attention Wells Fargo & Company ("Wells Fargo") (NYSE: WFC)
shareholders:
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on July 25 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors. This lawsuit
is on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired Wells Fargo common stock between February 24, 2021 and
June 9, 2022.
If you suffered a loss on your investment in Wells Fargo, contact
us about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no
cost or obligation to you.
https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/wells-fargo-class-action-loss-submission-form?prid=30145&wire=4
ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Wells Fargo includes
allegations that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Wells
Fargo had misrepresented its commitment to diversity in the
Company's workplace; (ii) Wells Fargo conducted fake job interviews
in order to meet its Diverse Search Requirement; (iii) the
foregoing conduct subjected Wells Fargo to an increased risk of
regulatory and/or governmental scrutiny and enforcement action,
including criminal charges; (iv) all of the foregoing, once
revealed, was likely to negatively impact Wells Fargo's reputation;
and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
DEADLINE: August 29, 2022
Aggrieved Wells Fargo investors only have until August 29, 2022 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not
required to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any
recovery.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
WORLD RUGBY: Former Rugby Players File Brain Injury Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that more than 100 former rugby
players are taking legal action against World Rugby and the
national governing bodies of England and Wales over what they say
was a failure to protect them from permanent injury caused by
repeated concussions during their careers.
Many players in the group, which includes former internationals
Steve Thompson (England), Carl Hayman (New Zealand) and Alix Popham
(Wales), suffer from neurological impairments such as early onset
dementia, CTE (chronic traumatic encephalopathy), epilepsy,
Parkinson's disease and motor neurone disease.
The group is represented by Rylands Legal, which says it is in
contact with more than 185 former rugby union players. The firm
says the class action is being issued on behalf of the majority of
those 185, with the rest taking legal action soon.
"This claim isn't just about financial compensation," Rylands Legal
said in a statement, "it is also about making the game safer and
ensuring current and former players get tested so that if they are
suffering a brain injury they can get the clinical help they
need."
World Rugby told The Associated Press it had yet to receive
notification of any formal proceedings being filed.
"It would be inappropriate to comment until we have received and
reviewed the formal details of any potential action being taken,"
the governing body said.
England's Rugby Football Union and the Welsh Rugby Union have yet
to comment.
Rylands Legal said it is the biggest class action of its kind
outside of the United States.
In 2013, the NFL settled lawsuits from thousands of former players
who developed dementia or other concussion-related health problems
they say were caused by the very on-field clashes that fueled the
game's rise to popularity and profit. The NFL has paid out more
than $800 million to date and is expected to cost it $1 billion.
The settlement spared the league a trial over claims that it long
hid what it knew about the link between concussions and brain
injuries. The settlement fund is designed to cover more than 20,000
retirees suffering from brain disorders that include Alzheimer's
disease, Parkinson's disease and dementia. The settlement did not
include an admission from the NFL that it hid information from
players about head injuries.
In the rugby case, the allegations raised by the players include
the failure of the governing bodies to "take proper steps as the
game turned professional to respond to a disregard for player
safety and brain health at the club and international level."
It is claimed the rugby bodies did not educate the players about
the risks of permanent brain damage or subject them to regular
monitoring, and did not seek expert medical advice about the
issue.
A pre-action letter of claim was issued to World Rugby, England's
Rugby Football Union and the Welsh Rugby Union on behalf of a group
of nine players in December 2020.
"The players we represent love the game," Rylands Legal said. "We
aim to challenge the current perceptions of the governing bodies,
to reach a point where they accept the connection between
repetitive blows to the head and permanent neurological injury and
to take steps to protect players and support those who are
injured."
Former Wales rugby captain Ryan Jones announced he has been
diagnosed with early onset dementia and probable CTE.
Rylands Legal said it also represents 75 rugby league players as
part of a separate but similar potential claim against England's
Rugby Football League. [GN]
WYNDHAM VACATION: Bennett Suit Removed to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Brittani Bennett, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Wyndham Vacation Ownership Inc.,
Wyndham Destinations, Inc., Does 1-20, Case No.
37-02022-00015195-CU-OE-CTL was removed from the Superior Court,
San Diego County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on July 19, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-01050-CAB-BLM to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights for FLSA action
for Overtime Wage Violation.
Wyndham Destinations -- https://www.wyndhamdestinations.com/ -- is
the largest vacation ownership company, with 230 vacation club
resort locations across the globe.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David C Hawkes, Esq.
BLANCHARD KRASNER & FRENCH
800 Silverado Street, Second Floor
La Jolla, CA 92037
Phone: (858) 551-2440
Email: dhawkes@bkflaw.com
- and -
Stephen J. Matcha, Esq.
MATCHA LAW
2535 Kettner Blvd., Suite 2C2
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 565-3865
Email: steve@matchalaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Abbey M. Jahnke, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
225 Broadway, Suite 2000
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 573-4900
Email: Abbey.Jahnke@jacksonlewis.com
- and -
Kathy A. Le, Esq.
Sanam Aghnami, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS
200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: (949) 885-1360
Fax: (949) 885-1380
Email: Kathy.le@jacksonlewis.com
YEXT INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of August 16 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Attention Yext, Inc. ("Yext") YEXT shareholders:
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on July 25 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased
between March 4, 2021 and March 8, 2022.
If you suffered a loss on your investment in Yext, contact us about
potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost or
obligation to you.
https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/yext-class-action-lawsuit?prid=30143&wire=4
ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Yext includes
allegations that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Yext's
revenue and earnings were significantly deteriorating because of,
among other things, poor sales execution and performance, as well
as COVID-19 related disruptions; (ii) accordingly, Yext was
unlikely to meet consensus estimates for its full year fiscal 2022
financial results and fiscal 2023 outlook; and (iii) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
DEADLINE: August 16, 2022
Aggrieved Yext investors only have until August 16, 2022 to request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not required
to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
YONISKI AMSTERDAM: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Victoriano Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CLAUDIA VICTORIANO and HUGO CANDIA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. YONISKI AMSTERDAM LLC
(DBA HOLY SCHNITZEL) and HISKI MIEROV, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-06203 (S.D.N.Y., July 21, 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 overtime wages,
failure to provide notice at time of hiring, and failure to provide
accurate wage statements.
Plaintiffs Victoriano and Candia worked at the Defendants'
restaurant located at 654 Amsterdam Ave., New York, New York from
March 2019 until May 5, 2022.
Yoniski Amsterdam LLC, doing business as Holy Schnitzel, is a
restaurant owner and operator located at 654 Amsterdam Ave., New
York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
YUGA LABS: Scott+Scott Mulls Class Suit Over Inflated Crypto Assets
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shalini Nagarajan, writing for Blockworks, reports that Yuga Labs,
the $4 billion startup behind the Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC) NFT
collection, could face a class action lawsuit that alleges it
artificially boosted the price of its crypto assets, leaving
investors with deep losses.
Investors were "inappropriately induced" to buy the company's NFTs
(non-fungible tokens) and its native coin ApeCoin, law firm
Scott+Scott wrote on July 21.
Lawyers are claiming that Yuga Labs used celebrity promoters and
endorsements to "inflate" the price of its NFTs by overpromising
high returns.
Celebrities such as rapper Snoop Dogg, football star Tom Brady and
influencer Paris Hilton, among others, own and have endorsed the
BAYC collection. The most expensive BAYC digital artwork sold for
$3.4 million late last year.
More recently, prices for crypto assets and NFTs have declined amid
the wider financial market downturn. The average price of a BAYC
NFT sold over the past seven days is now $115,000, according to
data from NFT Stats, down from around $425,000 three months ago.
Alongside its popular BAYC NFTs, Yuga Labs launched ApeCoin in
March via the Ethereum blockchain, intended to power its upcoming
metaverse ecosystem.
But Scott+Scott slammed the firm's move to introduce a
community-focused token. "After selling off millions of dollars of
fraudulently promoted NFTs, Yuga Labs launched ApeCoin to further
fleece investors," lawyers said.
They added: "Once it was revealed that the touted growth was
entirely dependent on continued promotion (as opposed to actual
utility or underlying technology), retail investors were left with
tokens that had lost over 87% from the inflated price high on April
28, 2022."
ApeCoin, listed on major exchanges Coinbase, Binance and Kraken,
opened trade at $8.15 on March 17. The token hit an all-time high
of $26.70 on April 28 -- a 200% surge. It has since retreated more
than 75% to $6.30 as of Monday, July 25, 4:40 am ET, CoinGecko data
shows.
Yuga Labs class action would join hundreds of other crypto
lawsuits
Scott+Scott is now calling on individual investors that have borne
losses from their Yuga Labs-related investments between April to
June this year to join a potential class action.
Pseudonymous critic Ryder Ripps -- who is being sued by Yuga Labs
in a separate case involving trademark infringement -- said he
expects more lawsuits to follow.
Others criticized the law firm for wanting to take up a case
against Yuga Labs, with one suggesting the investors "don't know
how to hold."
An official case is yet to be filed, but Scott+Scott would have to
submit evidence that investors were not aware of risks involved, or
that they didn't know celebrities were (allegedly) being paid to
promote the NFTs they held.
Scott+Scott maintains offices across the US, as well as New York,
London, Amsterdam and Berlin. If formally proposed, the firm's
lawsuit would add to an ever-expanding sea of legal actions levied
at cryptocurrency companies.
Bloomberg Law reported that the cryptocurrency industry had
generated more than 200 class action lawsuits and other private
litigations as of March, with targets including Binance, Solana
Labs and KuCoin.
Yuga Labs didn't return Blockworks' request for comment by press
time. [GN]
YUMA REGIONAL MEDICAL: Ashby Files Suit in D. Arizona
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yuma Regional Medical
Center. The case is styled as Carol Ashby, Keith Gren, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Yuma Regional
Medical Center, Case No. 2:22-cv-01223-CDB (D. Ariz., July 21,
2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Breach of
Contract.
Yuma Regional Medical Center -- https://www.yumaregional.org/Home
-- is a 406-bed, not-for-profit hospital dedicated to providing
outstanding medical care to the residents of Yuma and the
surrounding communities.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Cristina Perez Hesano, Esq.
PEREZ LAW GROUP PLLC
7508 N 59th Ave.
Glendale, AZ 85301
Phone: (623) 826-5593
Email: cperez@perezlawgroup.com
- and -
Jason Rathod, Esq.
Kevin Leddy, Esq.
Nicholas A Migliaccio, Esq.
Tyler Bean, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H St. NE
Washington, DC 20002
Phone: (202) 470-3520
YUMA REGIONAL MEDICAL: Ogrady Suit Removed to D. Arizona
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Margaret Ogrady, Mayra Esquivel, next friend of
E.N.; individually on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Yuma Regional Medical Center, Unknown Parties
named as John and Jane Does I-X; ABC Corporations I-X; DEF LLCs
I-X; and XYZ, Case No. S1400CV202200351 was removed from the Yuma
County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona on July 19, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01207-JJT to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Labor/Mgmnt.
Relations.
Yuma Regional Medical Center -- https://www.yumaregional.org/Home
-- is a 406-bed, not-for-profit hospital dedicated to providing
outstanding medical care to the residents of Yuma and the
surrounding communities.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew Roland Bainer, Esq.
BAINER LAW FIRM
1999 Harrison Street Suite 1800
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 922-1802
Email: mbainer@bainerlawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Amanda Whitney Molinari, Esq.
Amanda C. Sommerfeld, Esq.
JONES DAY
555 South Flower Street 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 489-3939
Fax: (213) 243-2539
Email: amolinari@jonesday.com
asommerfeld@jonesday.com
ZRS & ASSOCIATES: Fails to Pay Paramedics' OT Wages, Corbell Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER CORBELL, VESTER WILLIAMS, RICCARDO MUSCATO, AND BRAD
ANDREW, Each individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. ZRS & ASSOCIATES LLC and CINDY STAUTY, Case No.
5:22-cv-05146-TLB (W.D. Ark., July 21, 2022) seeks declaratory
judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a
result of the Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs and other
EMT/paramedic, driver, or dispatcher employees lawful overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as EMTs/paramedics,
drivers, or dispatchers, working in Washington County and Benton
County, Arkansas.
ZRS & Associates, LLC is a provider of non-emergency medical
transport, transporting individuals to and from medical
appointments and hospitals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris Burks, Esq.
Stewart Whaley, Esq.
WH LAW | WE HELP
1 Riverfront Pl. -- Suite 745
North Little Rock, AR 72114
Telephone: (501) 891-6000
E-mail: chris@wh.law
stewart@wh.law
ZYNGA INC: Court Okays Rider to Protective Order in Ferrando Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TONDA FERRANDO and DEX MARZANO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ZYNGA INC.,
a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-0214RSL (W.D.
Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, approves the Agreed Rider
To Protective Order Regarding The Use And Disclosure Of Discovery
Produced By Nonparty Apple Inc.
The Agreement is entered into between and among nonparty Apple and
the Named Plaintiffs. They anticipate that Apple will produce
documents that contain sensitive consumer information and are
necessary to provide notice of the Class Action Settlement
Agreement to members of the Settlement Class. The Agreement is
intended to supplement the protective ordered entered by the Court
on July 15, 2022.
Apple Protected Material designated under the terms of the Rider
will be used by the Parties solely for the purpose of providing
notice to and verifying and paying the recovery amount owed to each
member of the Settlement Class. It will not be used directly or
indirectly for any other purpose whatsoever. No Apple Protected
Material provided by Apple to the Class Action Administrator under
the terms of the Rider may be shared with any of the Parties,
unless specifically authorized. It is the intention of Apple and
the Parties that the Rider will protect all materials produced by
Apple in the Actions unless otherwise specified.
Nothing in this Rider will prevent or restrict Apple's own
disclosure or use of its own Apple Protected Material for any
purpose, and nothing in the Rider will preclude Apple from showing
its Apple Protected Material to an individual who prepared the
Apple Protected Material.
Even after the termination of the case, the confidentiality
obligations imposed by the Order will remain in effect until a
Producing Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order
otherwise directs, subject to the Final Disposition clause
therein.
The Rider is intended to provide no mechanism to the Parties
through which they can challenge the designation or protected
status of Apple Protected Materials.
Absent written permission from Apple or a court Order secured after
appropriate notice to all interested persons, the Parties may not
file or disclose in the public record any Apple Protected Material.
Unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure does not change the status
of Apple Protected Material or waive the right to hold the
disclosed document or information as Protected.
Not later than 90 days after closure of the Final Disposition of
the case, each Party and the Class Action Administrator will return
all Discovery Material of a Producing Party to the respective
outside counsel of the Producing Party or destroy such Material, at
the option of Apple. "Final Disposition" occurs after an order,
mandate, or dismissal finally terminating the action with
prejudice, including all appeals. All Parties that have received
any such Discovery Material, as well as the Class Action
Administrator, will certify in writing that all such materials have
been returned to counsel for Apple or destroyed.
All disputes concerning Apple Protected Material, however
designated, produced under the protection of the Order will be
resolved by the United States District Court for the Western
District Washington.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 22, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5n8st3du from Leagle.com.
[*] Companies Hit with Class Action Over "Sustainability" Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Collins, Esq., and Lisa M. Northrup, Esq., of Stradling Yocca
Carlson & Rauth, in an article for Bloomberg Law, report that when
a company misrepresents its sustainability or eco-friendly
policies, it is referred to as greenwashing, and consumer activists
groups are taking action, warn attorneys with Stradling Yocca
Carlson & Rauth. They look at several pending lawsuits, and offer
steps for companies to be proactive to minimize their legal risks.
"Eco-friendly," "sustainable," "net zero, " and "reusable" -- the
advertising landscape is increasingly awash with these buzzwords as
companies increasingly prioritize environmental, social, and
governance initiatives in response to increased consumer demand for
sustainable and socially conscious products and services.
For example, the clean beauty market is estimated to reach $22
billion (on a global basis) by 2024, making it one of the fastest
growing categories within the cosmetics industry. Cosmetic
companies, as well as companies in other industries, are eager to
gain market share in the incredibly lucrative and expanding
sustainability and eco-friendly movement.
Indeed, 72% of North American executives agreed that their
organization has overstated its sustainability efforts in a recent
survey conducted by Harris Poll for Google Cloud. This practice of
misrepresenting the sustainability or eco-friendliness of a
company's products or services, commonly referred to as
"greenwashing," has caught the attention of plaintiff consumer and
activist organizations.
A wide range of companies presently face class action lawsuits
including, for example, Whole Foods for touting its commitment to
"sustainability" and "environmental stewardship," Burt's Bees
Cosmetics for advertising that its ingredients "come from nature"
and are obtained using "responsible sourcing methods," Dasani and
other bottled water brands for marketing products as "100%
recyclable," and KLM for its "Be a hero, fly CO2 zero" tag line.
While both the law and many of these cases are still in their early
stages, recent court decisions shed additional insight into how
courts may analyze these types of claims and how companies can
proactively take action to minimize their legal risk.
Don't Assume Ads Will Be Viewed as Puffery
Defendants facing allegations of false advertising have frequently
mounted successful defenses by showing the statements were mere
puffery, such as "world's best cup of coffee."
ALDI Inc. took this approach in defending against false advertising
allegations in relation to the statement "Simple. Sustainable.
Seafood." on its Atlantic salmon products. Yet, the court recently
rejected this argument.
Kroger Co., as one of several companies in a recent spate of
lawsuits attacking advertising of sunscreen products as reef
friendly, similarly sought dismissal on the grounds of puffery,
pointing to other court decisions where statements such as "pet
friendly" constituted puffery. The court rejected this argument.
Context and Visual Proximity Matters
While well-established case law advises courts to examine allegedly
false advertising in context, recent court decisions underscore the
risks companies assume in relying on context for proving the truth
of broad advertising statements.
StriVectin Operating Co. argued its advertising of sunscreen
products reading "REEF SAFE* SUNSCREEN" is literally true because
on the back of the product package there is an asterisk and fine
print stating that the product does not contain two particular
ingredients that are widely thought to harm coral reefs. Quickly
rejecting this argument, the court described the argument as
"absurd" explaining a company cannot have a misleading statement on
the front and then escape liability by stating in fine print on the
back "that's not actually what we mean."
A court, however, also recently rejected ALDI's argument that its
"Simple. Sustainable. Seafood." advertising is not misleading when
read in connection with the third-party best aquaculture practices
certification symbol that also appears on the front of the
packaging (pictured below as in the court's order).
The court explained consumers may not connect the slogan with the
certification due to the separation by space and color design.
Specificity Is Critical
These recent decisions suggest companies should be prepared to
defend an advertising statement as true on its face by a reasonable
consumer. Specific representations allow truth to be more readily
established.
For instance, Allbirds Inc. faced a class action in which
plaintiffs attacked allegedly false advertising statements
regarding the environmental impact of its wool shoes as described
using a life-cycle assessment tool to estimate the product's carbon
footprint and a sustainability index. The plaintiffs argued that
the methodologies Allbirds used were too narrowly focused on the
impact of the shoes and failed to take into account the
environmental impact of wool production overall.
Not only did the court reject this argument, but the court granted
Allbirds' motion and terminated the case.
On the Horizon
Companies can anticipate forthcoming legal guidance to aid
themselves and counsel. While not binding, courts frequently look
to the Federal Trade Commission's guides for the use of
environmental marketing claims. The FTC is set to review these
green guides this year.
Additionally, there are several greenwashing advertising cases with
pending motions to dismiss that should be decided this year.
In the meantime, companies should anticipate that plaintiffs will
continue to pursue these types of false advertising claims. While
some companies such as Allbirds quickly disposed of these claims,
Keurig is waiting for court approval of a $10 million class
settlement in relation to claims it falsely advertised its coffee
pods as recyclable.
A good practice is to engage in the ongoing assessment and review
of advertising to aid in minimizing and understanding a company's
legal and regulatory risk. Companies can proactively manage and
minimize this risk by making specific, readily understandable
representations in their advertisements that directly align with
the company's present actions.
Companies additionally may benefit from reviewing their insurance
policies, which frequently contain exclusions for false advertising
claims.
Lastly, companies should not limit their review and risk assessment
to advertising statements, but rather should broadly analyze all of
their ESG representations. [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 ***