/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221013.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, October 13, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 199 Headlines 1AND8 INC: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York 20 NORTH 5TH STREET DELI: Zamacona Sues Over Unpaid Wages 653 ELEVENTH AVE: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York 74-39 MEAT CORP: Kuczun Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York A2 RAILLA: Correa Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. California ABB/CON-CISE: Macchiavello Sues to Recover Unpaid Compensation ALLIANCE HOMECARE: Bari Sues Over Home Health Aides' Unpaid OT ALLIANT CREDIT: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Sherrier Suit Reversed AMAZON.COM INC: Alexandre Sues Over Unfair Diversity Grant Program ASPEN DENTAL: Faces Elfstrom Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls BED BATH: NJ Consolidated Securities Suit Deal Gets Final Court OK BRASS LANTERN: Delffs Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages CARMAX INC: Awaits Nov. 17 Arbitration Bid Hearing in Bendure Suit CARNIVAL CORPORATION: Nine COVID-19-related Class Actions Resolved DVA RENAL: Tuttle Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California ETNA INC: Radcliffe's 2nd Amended Suit Dismissed With Prejudice EYM CHICKEN: English BIPA Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois FARBEX CONSTRUCTION: Coyt Sues Over Unlawful Employment Practices FITZGERALD MOTORS: Asher Walli Suit Removed to M.D. Florida FREUD AMERICA: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Tuter Class Suit GRG VENTURES: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HOMETOWN AMERICA: Davis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HRA PHARMA AMERICA: Iglesias Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York INGALLS MEMORIAL: Nurses' Biometric Info Under HIPAA, Court Rules INTERFACE INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York IPPUDO NY: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York JANCO INDUSTRIES: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. JILL RANGOS: Horton Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania JPMORGAN CHASE: Radabaugh Sues to Recover Overtime Wages JUST A BIT OF COIN: Spindler Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky KELLER WILLIAMS: Havassy TCPA Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas KIA AMERICA INC: Hilliard Files Suit in D. Minnesota KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Van Ginkel Sues Over Defective CPAP Machines LOOMIS ARMORED: Ligorria Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California MARGON RESTAURANT: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Catano Claims MDL 2873: AFFF's Toxic Chemicals Caused Cancer, Friot Suit Says MDL 2873: Barrett Files Personal Injury Suit Over PFAS Exposure MDL 2873: Bredahl Files Personal Injury Suit Over PFAS Exposure MDL 2873: Browning Files Personal Injury Suit Over PFAS Exposure MDL 2873: Coleman Files Suit Over AFFF Products' Harmful Effects MDL 2873: Davis Sues Over Health Dangers of Toxic AFFF MDL 2873: Dolley Sues Over Dangers From Exposure to Toxic AFFF MDL 2873: Henly Files Personal Injury Suit Over PFAS Exposure MDL 2873: PFAS Exposure Caused Cancer, Coats Says MDL 2873: PFAS Exposure Caused Cancer, Diguiseppe Says MDL 2873: Sanders Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF MDL 2873: Toxic PFAS Caused Leukemia, Jordan Says MDL 2913: E-Cigarettes Target Youth Market, Silver Creek Claims MDL 2913: Faces Polk County School Suit Over E-Cigarette Crisis MDL 2913: Hendry County School Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis MDL 2913: JUUL Caused Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, DeKalb County Says MDL 2913: JUUL Caused Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Eugene School Says MDL 2913: JUUL Caused Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Warrick Cty. Claims MDL 2913: Plainfield Community Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis MDL 2913: Sedgwick Cty. School Hits Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic META PLATFORMS: Williams Sues Over Intercepted Browsing Activity MIDLAND CREDIT: Kupczyk Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York MOAC MALL HOLDINGS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MONROE OPERATIONS: Chung Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California NATIONAL REPUBLICAN: Dorr Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Alabama NATIONWIDE CHILDREN'S: Williams Balks at Phlebotomists' Unpaid OT NEW YORK AND PRESBYTERIAN: Tay Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages NEWELL BRANDS: Court Narrows Claims in Rife Product Liability Suit OAKCITY PROTECTION: Shaw Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages PEOPLES BANK: Mays Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia PIPELINE SAFETY: Starr Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages PRECISION DIALOGUE: Trejo BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois PROCOLLECT INC: Shalolashvili Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Texas PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Berger Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey RESURGENT CAPITAL: Merced Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York RHODE ISLAND CREDIT: Cassata Hits Illegal Overdraft Fees RUSH SYSTEM: Kurowski Alleges Medical Privacy Rights Violations S AND L FLOWER COMPANY: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SALTWATER INC: Norman Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Newbery Sues Over Failure to Secure Data SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Rollins Sues Over Failure to Protect PII SENTARA RMH MEDICAL: Swartzendruber Files Suit in W.D. Virginia SHAMROCK FOODS: Valdez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California THULE INC: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TRANSFORM SR HOLDING: Tyson Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL: Telford Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII UNIQLO USA: Licea Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping of Conversations UNIVERSAL 3D INNOVATION: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WALMART INC: Brunts Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri WELLS FARGO: Levin Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California WEST VIRGINIA: Files Certiorari Bid in Child Welfare Class Suit [*] 1st Annual Complex Litigation Ethics Conference - Register Now ********* 1AND8 INC: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 1And8 Inc. The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. 1And8 Inc. doing business as: Museum of Ice Cream, Case No. 1:22-cv-05896-ENV-SJB (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 3, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 1And8 Inc. doing business as Museum of Ice Cream -- https://www.museumoficecream.com/ -- is a company that develops and operates interactive retail experiences, or "selfie museums" in the United States and Singapore.[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 20 NORTH 5TH STREET DELI: Zamacona Sues Over Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Francisco Zamacona, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. 20 North 5th Street Deli, Inc., Najib Manea, and Rosa Manea, Case No. 1:22-cv-05977 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 5, 2022), is brought to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, spread-of-hours, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York State Labor Law, and their supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations, and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Plaintiff was required to work in excess of 40 hours per week, but never received an overtime premium of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for those hours. No notification, either in the form of posted notices, or other means, was ever given to the Plaintiff regarding wages are required under the FLSA or NYLL. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at the rate of one and one-half times his hourly wage rate for hours worked in excess of forty per workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a cashier, stocker and deli man, as a non-managerial employee, at the Defendants' deli. 20 North 5th Street Deli, Inc. is a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 792-0046 Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com 653 ELEVENTH AVE: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 653 Eleventh Ave, LLC. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. 653 Eleventh Ave, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05912 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 3, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 653 Eleventh Ave LLC is an entity registered at New York doing busiess as a boutique 10-100 Rooms, with luxury facilities, themed, stylish, with full service accommodations.[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 74-39 MEAT CORP: Kuczun Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 74-39 Meat Corp., et al. The case is styled as Zofia Kuczun, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. 74-39 Meat Corp. doing business as: C-Town, 74-39 Realty Corp., Case No. 2:22-cv-05926-JMA-LGD (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 4, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 74-39 Meat Corp. doing business as CTown Supermarkets -- http://www.ctownsupermarkets.com/-- is a chain of independently owned and operated supermarkets operating in the northeastern United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Bell, Esq. BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC 100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd., Suite 208 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 280-3008 Fax: (516) 706-4692 Email: jb@belllg.com - and - Daniel A. Johnston, Esq. JOHNSTON LAW LLC 1103 Stewart Avenue, Suite 200 Garden City, NY 11757 Phone: (516) 388-7611 Email: DJ@BellLG.com A2 RAILLA: Correa Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled FRANCISCO CORREA, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A2 RAILLA DEVELOPMENT, INC., a California corporation; SHANGRI-LA CONSTRUCTION, L.P., a California limited partnership; BUILD GROUP CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., a California corporation; BUILD GROUP, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV25714, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Sept. 30, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-07128 to the proceeding. In the complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action under the California Labor Code: (1) failure to pay overtime wages; (2) failure to pay minimum wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to provide rest periods; (5) waiting-time penalties; (6) wage statement violations; (7) failure to timely pay wages; (8) failure to indemnify; and (9) unfair competition. A2 Railla Development, Inc. is a construction company based in California.[BN] Defendant A2 Railla Development, Inc. is represented by: Anthony R. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS LAW GROUP 215 E. Oak St. Ojai, CA 93023 Telephone: (805) 641-9992 E-mail: ars@strausslawgroup.com ABB/CON-CISE: Macchiavello Sues to Recover Unpaid Compensation -------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Macchiavello, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. ABB/CON-CISE OPTICAL GROUP LLC, Case No. 7:22-cv-08468 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 4, 2022), is brought to recover statutory damages for violations of New York Labor Law, and to seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs and other appropriate relief pursuant to NYLL. The Plaintiff and other Class Members spend more than twenty-five percent of their hours worked each week performing manual tasks. The Defendant compensated the Plaintiff and similarly situated current and former employees of Defendant who are/were manual workers in the State of New York on a bi-weekly basis in violation of NYLL. The Defendant failed to properly pay Plaintiff and similarly situated current and former employees their wages within seven calendar days after the end of the week in which these wages were earned. Thus, the Defendant failed to provide timely wages to the Plaintiff and similarly situated current and former employees who work or have worked for Defendant in the State of New York in violation of NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a shipping and receiving clerk from November 2021 to July 2022. The Defendant is a manufacturer and distributor of contact lenses.[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 Phone: (631) 257-5588 Email: promero@romerolawny.com ALLIANCE HOMECARE: Bari Sues Over Home Health Aides' Unpaid OT -------------------------------------------------------------- FATIMA BARI, on behalf herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIANCE HOMECARE, INC., and ALLIANCE NURSING STAFFING OF NY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-08310 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 29, 2022) arises from the Defendant's conduct of failing and refusing to pay Plaintiff the legally federally required overtime wage for all hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek and failing to provide written wage notices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a home health aide in November 2021. Alliance Homecare Inc. owns and operates an in-home nursing care company in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. Michael DiGiulio, Esq. JOSEPH KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 688-2548 ALLIANT CREDIT: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Sherrier Suit Reversed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MICHELLE SHERRIER and DAVID GAEGER, deceased, by his Special Representative, MICHELLE SHERRIER, as individuals and as Class Representative for those similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. ALLIANT CREDIT UNION, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 1-21-1214 (Ill. App.), the Appellate Court of Illinois for the First District, Second Division, reverses the circuit court's denial of Alliant's motion to compel arbitration. The Plaintiffs were married Illinois residents. Alliant is a member-owned, not-for-profit financial cooperative. Sherrier became a member of Alliant beginning on December 1978, and in 2008, she added Gaeger as a joint account holder to several of her Alliant accounts. Membership at Alliant is governed by the "Account Agreement and Disclosures Booklet," also known as the "Membership Agreement." Relevant to this appeal are the 2008 and 2019 versions of the Membership Agreement. The 2008 version provided that each account holder jointly and severally "agrees to the terms and conditions" in the Membership Agreement and, importantly, "any amendments to these documents from time to time which collectively govern your Membership and accounts." The 2008 Membership Agreement further stated that "except as provided by applicable law, Alliant may change the terms of this Agreement" subject to written notice via mail. Notably, the 2008 Membership Agreement did not contain any language regarding arbitration. On July 17, 2018, Sherrier and Gaeger jointly entered into a "Loan Security Agreement and Disclosure Statement" for the purpose of financing an automobile. They both signed the loan as borrowers, and certified that they "agreed to the terms of the agreement." In conjunction with the loan, the Plaintiffs also jointly entered into a "Debt Protection Plan" (debt plan) after paying a one-time premium of $549.52. Specifically, in the event of an eligible borrower's death, Alliant agreed to "cancel the amount of the Outstanding Balance as of the date of death, up to $100,000." In 2019, Alliant amended its Membership Agreement. Relevant in the case, one such change was the addition of an agreement to arbitrate. The 36-page Membership Agreement included a table of contents, which listed "Arbitration Agreement" as item number 13, located on page 10 of the document. At the bottom of the table of contents, the 2019 version provided that "this Account Agreement and Disclosures booklet supersedes all previous versions of Alliant's account agreement and disclosures booklet. This Disclosure may change from time to time." Section 15 of the 2019 Membership Agreement also stated that Alliant "may change the terms of this Agreement" and that any changes regarding changes in terms, rates, or fees would be sent to the members via mailing address or by electronic notice. On Aug. 1, 2019, Alliant sent electronic notice of the 2019 Membership Agreement to the two email addresses provided by Sherrier and Gaeger. The notice included a cover letter that briefly described some of the changes to the Membership Agreement. The cover letter did not reference the arbitration agreement. On Feb. 28, 2020, Gaeger passed away. At some point following Gaeger's death, Sherrier made a claim on the debt plan, which Alliant denied because Gaeger had passed away after his 70th birthday. Alliant also refused to return the initial premium paid at the time the debt plan was executed. On May 5, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a six-count complaint against Alliant, as an individual, as special representative of Gaeger, and as class representative for all those similarly situated. The complaint was amended on Sept. 21, 2020, and the four-count amended complaint is the operative complaint. Although the complaint has four "counts," the claim is essentially a single count for deceptive practices under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. The complaint alleged, generally, that under the terms of the debt plan, Alliant collected a fee from Sherrier and Gaeger that neither would be able to utilize towards the balance of their loan, and that they were "sold nothing of value in exchange for the premium/fees except an empty and fraudulent promise." The complaint also stated that Alliant had entered into a "'cooperative' marketing or excess coverage plan with Minnesota Life Insurance (Securian)" to underwrite the debt plan, with the intent to "avoid state insurance regulations on credit life insurance." The complaint further noted that neither the debt plan nor the loan contained an arbitration clause or class action waiver. Specifically, as to Count I, the Plaintiffs alleged that Alliant's collection of their premium was a "deceptive practice" because Gaeger had been 70 years old at the time of payment, indicating that Alliant had no intention to ever cancel the loan. They alleged that the debt plan was an essential term of the relationship, and that "they would not have contracted the loan without" it. Count II was brought on a class action basis pursuant to section 2-801 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs alleged that Alliant transacted hundreds of loans in Illinois, and "dealt with consumers such as Sherrier and Gaeger on a daily basis. As such, they sought to represent "individual consumers who * * * entered into loan agreements with debt plans where Alliant * * * (a) sold * * * debt plans to those over 70 years old" and (b) where Alliant "sold the debt plan and denied the claim over a 'protected event' and failed to return the fee/premium." Counts III ("Appointment of Special Representative") and IV ("Motion to Certify the Class") were both in the nature of motions. Overall, the Plaintiffs sought a declaration that Alliant's sale of the debt plan and loans were fraudulent, as well as its failure to return fees and premiums after an exclusion to the protected event was claimed. The amended complaint attached a copy of the loan and debt plan. On Oct. 30, 2020, Alliant filed a "Motion to Dismiss or Stay and Compel Arbitration" pursuant to section 2-619(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a) (West 2020)), section 2 of the Illinois Uniform Arbitration Act (720 ILCS 5/2(a) (West 2020)), and section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) (9 U.S.C Section 2 (West 2020)). Alliant attached the affidavit of Chris Moore, its Director of Deposit Product and Payment Strategy, as an exhibit to the motion. The affidavit attested that Sherrier and Gaeger received notice of the 2019 Membership Agreement, which included the arbitration clause, and that both had failed to opt out. Alliant argued that per the 2008 Membership Agreement, the Plaintiffs agreed to be bound by Alliant's periodic amendments to the agreement, effective upon transmission. That notwithstanding, it pointed out that the newly added arbitration clause had not been mandatory, but by failing to opt out, the Plaintiffs had agreed to arbitrate any past, present, or future disputes. The Plaintiffs filed a response, disagreeing that an agreement to arbitrate existed because neither the loan agreement nor the debt plan included any arbitration clauses. In its reply, Alliant rejected the characterization of its purported attempt to "retroactively" change the loan's terms but maintained that the arbitration clause governed all disputes between it and its members, including any disputes about loans and related services, regardless of when they arose. On April 20, 2021, the circuit court heard arguments on Alliant's motion and in a written ruling denied the same. In so ruling, the court observed that "neither the loan itself nor the debt plan contained any arbitration agreements or class action waivers" and that "neither document explicitly referenced or incorporated the Alliant Membership Agreement." It court stated "considering the public policy at issue in the case -- both in protecting elderly citizens in general and consumers specifically against fraud and deceptive business practices -- and the fact that the arbitration provision Alliant wishes to enforce is under a document not referenced in the complaint, and not at issue in this litigation, that was executed more than a year after the allegedly harmful business practices occurred, this court holds that there is no agreement to arbitrate or waive class action rights as to the loan or debt plan." This appeal followed. On appeal, Alliant argues that the circuit court erred in denying its motion to compel arbitration for three main reasons: (1) the Plaintiffs failed to opt out pursuant to the terms of the 2019 Membership Agreement; (2) the arbitration clause governs the Plaintiffs' consumer fraud claim as it concerns a "loan" and "related service," and (3) the arbitration clause was not unconscionable. Alternatively, Alliant contends that the matter should at least be referred to arbitration in order to allow the arbitrator to resolve any disputed issues of arbitrability. Initially, the parties dispute the proper standard of review. Alliant contends that the standard is de novo, as the circuit court denied its motion to compel arbitration without an evidentiary hearing. On the other hand, the Plaintiffs argue that the proper standard is "whether there was a sufficient showing to sustain the circuit court's order," because, according to them, the circuit court "made extensive factual findings" with regard to the "sequence of events" stemming from the 2008 Membership Agreement to the 2019 version. The Appellate Court disagrees with the Plaintiffs' characterization of the proceedings. It says the record reflects that the circuit court heard oral argument on Alliant's motion to compel. However, there was no evidentiary hearing. Instead, the circuit court reviewed and construed the several contractual agreements between the parties and subsequently concluded that no arbitration agreement existed. In an appeal from the denial of a motion to compel arbitration, where no evidentiary hearing has taken place, the Appellate Court's review is de novo. Likewise, issues of contractual interpretation, including with respect to arbitration provisions, are reviewed de novo. Having settled the matter regarding our standard of review, the Appellate Court turns to the crux of Alliant's appeal: whether the circuit court erred in denying Alliant's motion to compel arbitration. The parties agree that review of a motion to compel "raises a sole and narrow issue," namely, "whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute." Thus, as the Plaintiffs correctly note, whether the sale of the debt plan implicates a consumer fraud or deceptive practice is not before the Appellate Court and it expresses no opinion in that regard. As to whether an agreement to arbitrate exists, Alliant contends that the circuit court erred in finding that no agreement to arbitrate exists. It asserts that the court confused the concept of arbitrability with the threshold question of whether an agreement exists. It notes that it made an offer to the Plaintiffs to arbitrate at the point in time that it e-mailed its updated Membership Agreement to them and that, by failing to opt out, they accepted the offer. The Appellate Court finds that the 2008 Membership Agreement expressly provided that the Plaintiffs were bound by any changes to the agreement, and, such changes were the 2019 Membership Agreement, which contained an arbitration clause. The Plaintiffs do not dispute that they were on notice of the changes as reflected in the Membership Agreement, and given the language of the 2008 Agreement, which allowed for Alliant to make amendments to the governing agreement as needed, the Appellate Court agrees that the relationship between the parties supports a finding of a validly executed agreement to arbitrate. Further, the parties do not dispute that they failed to opt out of the arbitration agreement. Accordingly, the Appellate Court finds that the circuit court erred in concluding that no agreement to arbitrate existed. It now determines whether the scope of the agreement encompassed the loan agreement and debt plan at issue. Alliant contends that the circuit court erred in finding that the arbitration clause in the 2019 Membership Agreement does not encompass plaintiffs' loan and debt plan agreements. Pointing to language in the arbitration clause, it maintains that the agreement covers "any unresolved disagreement between Alliant and the Plaintiffs, including disputes concerning loans provided by Alliant or any "related service with Alliant." The Plaintiffs disagree, contending that the 2019 Membership Agreement is an entirely separate contract between the parties. Their contention, with which the circuit court agreed, is that as neither the loan agreement nor the debt plan contained "an anti-class action or forced arbitration clause," their dispute is not subject to arbitration. They urge the Appellate Court to treat the loan agreement and the debt plan as "free standing final agreements." The Appellate Court declines. It finds that the arbitration clause may be read to reach the loan agreement between Alliant and the Plaintiffs, as it specifically lists "loans" within the definition of "dispute." It also agrees with Alliant that the debt plan is a "related service" to the loan. The debt plan expressly indicated that it would be incorporated into the loan documentation, that it amended the loan terms, and that its terms could be changed at any time, provided that prior notice be given to the borrowers. Of note, the Plaintiffs alleged that they would not have entered into the loan without the debt plan. Moreover, as the Plaintiffs' counsel admitted during argument on the motion, the Membership Agreement ultimately governs the overall relationship between the parties. Even if the Appellate Court were doubtful that language of the arbitration clause was broad enough to encompass the loan and debt plan, such doubt would not foil operation of the clause. "When the language of an arbitration clause is broad and it is unclear whether the subject matter falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement, the question of substantive arbitrability should still be initially decided by the arbitrator." Accordingly, barring other defenses, the Plaintiffs' dispute was proper to be submitted to arbitration. However, the Appellate Court analysis does not end here. The Plaintiffs contend that the arbitration clause is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. The Appellate Court holds that the arbitration clause is not procedurally unconscionable. There is no evidence that the arbitration provisions were not "plainly visible in the agreement" or that "the meaning of their terms were not clear." The discussion of arbitration is clearly conspicuous, there was no maze of fine print, and the clause was drafted in such a way that accommodated many levels of education and experience. Further, nothing within the language of the arbitration agreement appears out of the ordinary. To the Plaintiffs' point that "no standards" are given for how the process is conducted, the Appellate Court notes that the arbitration clause incorporates the rules and procedures of two arbitration and mediation associations, which govern the more precise questions of the actual process, depending on which organization the party seeking arbitration selects. Having found that there is a valid agreement to arbitrate and that both the loan agreement and debt plan fall within the scope of the clause, the Appellate Court finds that the circuit court erred in denying Alliant's motion to compel. The matter should be referred to arbitration, where the Plaintiffs are free to raise any objections to the clause or business practices of Alliant. For the reasons it stated, the Appellate Court reverses the judgment of the circuit court. The case is remanded to the circuit court for the entry of an order staying the Plaintiffs' case pending disposition of the arbitration proceedings. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 30, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc2fuz2d from Leagle.com. AMAZON.COM INC: Alexandre Sues Over Unfair Diversity Grant Program ------------------------------------------------------------------ LUCIANO ALEXANDRE, CHRISTINE LOUISE JOHNSON, ERIC NELSON, and NAM BE on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM, INC., and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01459-MMA-WVG (S.D. Cal., Sept. 28, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged violations of the California Civil Code's Unruh Civil Rights Act. According to the complaint, Amazon discriminates against Asians, Whites, and Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders through a so-called "Diversity Grant" program whereby only Amazon's preferred or favored Black, Latino, and Native American entrepreneurs who wish to contract with Amazon as delivery service partners (DSPs) are provided $10,000 in additional consideration as part of their contracts with Amazon to be a DSP. Allegedly, Amazon's denial of full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services to Plaintiffs and other Asian, White, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander people violates California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, which is codified as California Civil Code section 51. Amazon's (1) discrimination against Plaintiffs and other Asian, White, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander people, (2) boycott or blacklist of Plaintiffs and other Asian, White, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander people, and (3) refusal to contract or trade with Plaintiffs and other Asian, White, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander people violates California Civil Code section 51.5, says the suit. Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company that focuses on e-commerce, cloud computing, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Greg Adler, Esq. GREG ADLER P.C. 39899 Balentine Drive Suite 200 Newark, CA 94560 Telephone: (844) 504-6587 Facsimile: (469) 807-8878 E-mail: greg@adler.law - and - Alfred G. Rava, Esq. RAVA LAW FIRM 3667 Voltaire Street San Diego, CA 92106 Telephone: (619) 238-1993 E-mail: alrava@cox.net ASPEN DENTAL: Faces Elfstrom Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- ELLEN ELFSTROM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASPEN DENTAL MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00626-SPC-NPM (M.D. Fla., Sept. 28, 2022) arises from the Defendant's telephonic sales calls in violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant owns and manages dental practices throughout the United States. To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in aggressive telephonic sales calls to consumers without having secured prior express written consent as required under the FTSA. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory damages on behalf of herself and the Class members, and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the unlawful actions of Defendant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Garrett O. Berg, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com gberg@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Christopher Gold, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (786) 289-9471 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com chris@edelsberglaw.com BED BATH: NJ Consolidated Securities Suit Deal Gets Final Court OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended August 27, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2022, that the court granted final approval of the settlement in the consolidated securities class action headed by Kavin Bakhda, and the court dismissed the securities class action on June 2, 2022. On April 14, 2020, a putative securities class action was filed on against the Company and three of its officers and/or directors (Mark Tritton (the Company's former President and Chief Executive Officer), Mary Winston (the Company's former Interim Chief Executive Officer) and Robyn D'Elia (the Company's former Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer)) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "New Jersey federal court"). The case, which is captioned Vitiello v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-04240-MCA-MAH, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's securities from October 2, 2019 through February 11, 2020. The Complaint alleges that certain of the Company's disclosures about financial performance and certain other public statements during the putative class period were materially false or misleading. A similar putative securities class action, asserting the same claims on behalf of the same putative class against the same defendants, was filed on April 30, 2020. That case, captioned Kirkland v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-05339-MCA-MAH, is also pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On August 14, 2020, the court consolidated the two cases and appointed Kavin Bakhda as lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (as consolidated, the "Securities Class Action"). Lead plaintiff and additional named plaintiff Richard Lipka filed an Amended Class Action Complaint on October 20, 2020, on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's securities from September 4, 2019 through February 11, 2020. Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on December 21, 2020. After a mediation held in August 2021, a settlement in principle was reached between the Company and lead plaintiff in the Securities Class Action. The settlement has been executed and was preliminarily approved by the New Jersey Federal Court in February 2022. The court granted final approval to the settlement and dismissed the Securities Class Action on June 2, 2022. The Company had previously recorded a liability for the Securities Class Action, based on the agreed settlement amount and insurance coverage available and this amount was paid by the insurance company in the second fiscal quarter of 2022. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. is an American chain of domestic merchandise retail stores. The chain operates many stores in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Puerto Rico. Bed Bath & Beyond was founded in 1971 and is based in Union, New Jersey. BRASS LANTERN: Delffs Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- DUSTIN DELFFS and KIM McCULLOUGH, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs v. BRASS LANTERN RESTAURANT, INC.; LEGENDS OF COLUMBIA, INC.; LEGENDS OF PULASKI, INC; LEGENDS OF SHELBYVILLE, INC.; and LEGENDS OF SMYRNA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00758 (M.D. Tenn., Sept. 28, 2022) is a collective action against the Defendants seeking to recover unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime wages for Plaintiffs, as well as for all similarly situated current and former employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs Delffs and McCullough worked as servers at Legends of Columbia from approximately January 2021 until December 2021, and from approximately May 2021 until January 2022, respectively. Brass Lantern Restaurant, Inc. is a restaurant in Lawrenceburg, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq. Melody Fowler-Green, Esq. N. Chase Teeples, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC 2021 Richard Jones Road, Suite 310A Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 250-2000 Facsimile: (615) 250-2020 E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com mel@yezbaklaw.com teeples@yezbaklaw.com CARMAX INC: Awaits Nov. 17 Arbitration Bid Hearing in Bendure Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ CarMax Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 30, 2022, that it is waiting the November 17 hearing on its motion to compel arbitration filed in the putative class action captioned Daniel Bendure v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC et al. CarMax entities are defendants in two proceedings asserting wage and hour claims with respect to non-exempt CarMax employees in California. The asserted claims include failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks; pay statutory or contractual wages; reimburse for work-related expenses; and Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") claims. On July 9, 2021, Daniel Bendure v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC et al., a putative class action, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino. The Bendure lawsuit seeks civil penalties for violation of the Labor Code, attorneys' fees, costs, restitution of unpaid wages, interest, injunctive and equitable relief, general damages, and special damages. Bendure subsequently decided not to proceed with an individual or putative class claim, but rather filed and served a PAGA-only complaint in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Bernardino on December 7, 2021, based on the same allegations pled in the original complaint. CarMax filed a motion to compel arbitration. The Court has stayed all discovery until after it rules on CarMax's motion to compel arbitration. On August 12, 2021, Jordon Miller v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC et al., a putative class action, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside. The Miller lawsuit also seeks civil penalties for violation of the Labor Code, attorneys' fees, costs, restitution of unpaid wages, interest, injunctive and equitable relief, general damages, and special damages. On June 15, 2022, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana, holding that an individual who signs an arbitration agreement cannot circumvent that agreement by filing a related PAGA claim in court. The U.S. Supreme Court further held that, based on California law, an individual who pursues his PAGA claim in arbitration does not have standing to pursue a representative PAGA claim. However, the U.S. Supreme Court indicated that the issue of whether an individual has standing to pursue a representative PAGA claim is a question of state law. The California Supreme Court has agreed to hear a new case, Adolph v. Uber, to address this issue of state law, which is expected to be decided in 2023. In light of the Viking River decision, the Company has filed a motion to compel arbitration of the individual Bendure claim and to dismiss Bendure's representative PAGA claims. The Court is scheduled to hear this motion on November 17, 2022. CarMax also intends to move to compel arbitration of the Miller individual PAGA claims noted above and will seek to dismiss any representative PAGA claims. CarMax, Inc. is a used vehicle retailer based in the United States. It operates two business segments: CarMax Sales Operations and CarMax Auto Finance. CarMax, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is based in Richmond, Virginia. CARNIVAL CORPORATION: Nine COVID-19-related Class Actions Resolved ------------------------------------------------------------------ Carnival Corporation & plc disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 30, 2022, that as of August 31, 2022, nine class actions over COVID-19 exposure have either been settled individually for immaterial amounts or had their class allegations dismissed by the courts, and only one class action remains in Australia. As of August 31, 2022, 10 purported class actions have been brought by former guests from Ruby Princess, Diamond Princess, Grand Princess, Coral Princess and Zaandam in several U.S. federal courts and in the Federal Court of Australia. These actions include tort claims based on a variety of theories, including negligence, gross negligence and failure to warn, physical injuries and severe emotional distress associated with being exposed to and/or contracting COVID-19 onboard. As of August 31, 2022, nine of these class actions have either been settled individually for immaterial amounts or had their class allegations dismissed by the courts and only the Australian matter remains. All COVID-19 matters seek monetary damages and most seek additional punitive damages in unspecified amounts. The Company continues to take actions to defend against the above claims. Carnival Corporation & plc is a British-American cruise operator with a combined fleet of over 100 vessels across 10 cruise line brands. A dual-listed company, Carnival is composed of two companies – Panama-incorporated, US-headquartered Carnival Corporation, and UK-based Carnival plc – which function as one entity. Carnival Corporation is listed on the New York Stock Exchange, whereas Carnival plc is listed on the London Stock Exchange with an ADR listing on the NYSE. DVA RENAL: Tuttle Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled TWINKLE TUTTLE, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DVA RENAL HEALTHCARE, INC., a Corporation; DAVITA HEALTHCARE PARTNERS, INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV25918, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Sept. 30, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-07154-MEMF-JEM to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint alleges seven causes of action under the California Labor Code: (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime wages; (3) meal and rest period violations; (4) waiting time penalties; (5) failure to pay all wages by the appropriate pay period; (6) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and (7) unfair business practices. DVA Renal Healthcare, Inc. provides dialysis services. The Company offers outpatient kidney dialysis services.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Aaron H. Cole, Esq. Catherine L. Brackett, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 E-mail: aaron.cole@ogletree.com catherine.brackett@ggtetree.com ETNA INC: Radcliffe's 2nd Amended Suit Dismissed With Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RAYMOND RADCLIFFE, et al., Plaintiffs v. AETNA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01274-VAB (D. Conn.), Judge Victor A. Bolden of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs Raymond Radcliffe and Carol Flaim have filed a second amended consolidated putative class action Complaint ("SAC" or "Second Amended Complaint") against Defendants Aetna, Inc., CVS Health Corp., the Aetna Benefits Finance Committee, Larry J. Merlo, Mark T. Bertolini, Eva C. Boratto, Aetna Does 1-20, and CVS Does 1-20. They allege that the Defendants failed to seek leave to file their SAC and breached their fiduciary duty to them as participants in Aetna's employee stock ownership plan under Section 404 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 1104, and engaged in prohibited transactions in violation of ERISA Section 406(a) and Section 406(b), 29 U.S.C. Section 1106(a), (b). Aetna is a wholly owned subsidiary of CVS. Before merging with CVS in 2018, Aetna was a diversified health benefits company that offered health insurance products and services. Between Dec. 3, 2017, and Feb. 20, 2019 (the "Class Period"), Aetna sponsored a 401(k) participant-directed defined contribution plan, a voluntary savings plan that provided retirement income to eligible employees who were U.S. employees, employed by it or a participating subsidiary company. Allegedly, the Plan's investment in Aetna stock units was a material portion of the Plan's assets. From the end of 2016 to Dec. 31, 2017, the Plan's investment in Aetna common stock units, calculated at market price, allegedly rose from $866,271,483 to $1,144,635,702. During the same period, participants' investment in Aetna units allegedly increased from 11.8% of total plan assets to 13.6% and the "dollar amount of Aetna stock units in the Plan" allegedly increased by 32.1%. In mid-2017, Aetna allegedly began discussions with CVS "to explore whether a combination of Aetna and CVS could be agreed whereby CVS, the larger of the two companies, would in effect take over Aetna and absorb it into CVS." On Dec. 3, 2017, CVS and Aetna announced the execution of a merger agreement under which Aetna shareholders would receive $145 per share in cash and 0.8378 shares of CVS common stock for each share of Aetna stock. The transaction allegedly valued Aetna at approximately $207 per share, or $77 billion, including $8 billion in net debt. In the Merger Agreement, CVS and Aetna allegedly agreed "to keep each other informed of each other's operations and financial condition." On Dec. 1, 2017, the last trading day before the Merger Agreement was announced, "Aetna was trading at approximately $177 per share." After the announcement of the Merger Agreement, Aetna's stock price allegedly "increased to meet the implied value of the CVS Merger consideration." The Plaintiffs allege that in 2017 and 2018 CVS was facing profound risks to its operations which were not fully disclosed to, nor appreciated by, the investing public. On Aug. 18, 2015, CVS acquired Omnicare, a provider of pharmaceuticals and related pharmacy services to long-term care facilities and a provider of specialty pharmacy and commercialization services for the bio-pharmaceutical industry." CVS allegedly promoted the Omnicare acquisition as a key move to expanding its business throughout multiple markets related to pharmaceutical care. CVS allegedly acquired Omnicare for $9.6 billion and assumed long-term debt with a fair value of approximately $3.1 billion. At acquisition, it allegedly estimated that the fair value of the Omnicare assets it acquired included $9.1 billion of goodwill. After the acquisition, CVS' retail segment's long-term care ("LTC") unit was largely comprised of Omnicare. In 2016, CVS' Retail/LTC segment allegedly lost two pharmacy contracts, causing CVS stock to drop 20%. In late 2017, CVS allegedly continued to experience "reimbursement pressure at its retail/LTC business," which "had been cited by CVS as a cause of its 17% year over year net income decline" in the first quarter of 2017. On June 1, 2015, Omnicare was sued "in a qui tam action for violating the Federal False Claims Act, and state and local false claims acts, by seeking reimbursement for drugs illegally delivered to patients in its assisted living and skilled nursing facility clients." On Dec. 13, 2019, the original complaint against Omnicare was unsealed. On Dec. 17, 2019, after several years of investigation, the U.S. Department of Justice intervened in the qui tam action on behalf of the United States and filed a lawsuit against Omnicare and CVS under the False Claims Act. The Plaintiffs allege that teported results at Omnicare had been inflated by revenues earned in the illegal prescription scheme. On Jan. 4, 2018, CVS filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") a preliminary Registration Statement on Form S-4 for the issuance of CVS shares to be exchanged for Aetna stock in the merger. Aetna allegedly provided these documents in order "to solicit plan participants' vote in favor of approval of the merger and to provide to them information about the CVS stock units they would receive for their Aetna stock units in their 401(k)." On March 13, 2018, CVS and Aetna shareholders approved the Merger Agreement, "including the provisions whereby Aetna plan participants' Aetna units would be exchanged for CVS units." In June 2018, CVS allegedly updated its LTC unit forecasts "to reflect the sharply declining LTC business" since early 2017. In August 2018, CVS announced that its "2018 second quarter results (April 1, 2018 to June 30, 2018) represented a $3.9 billion charge related to impaired goodwill for its LTC unit related to poor actual and projected Omnicare performance. On Nov. 28, 2018, the merger closed, with Aetna shareholders receiving cash and CVS stock units valued at $80 per share in exchange for their Aetna stock. The Plan merged into the CVS Health Future Fund 401(k) Plan on Jan. 1, 2020. In 2019, six months after the merger closed, the CVS stock price allegedly was trading in the "$60 per share range, far below the price of CVS shares during most of 2018." The Plaintiffs allege that, because the Plan's "holdings in Aetna stock units comprised a significant percentage of the overall value of the assets the Plan held on behalf of its beneficiaries after the merger was approved, the long-term retirement savings of Plaintiffs and members of the Class were dependent, to a substantial degree, on the performance of CVS common stock." On Aug. 28, 2020, Mr. Radcliffe filed his putative class action Complaint. On Nov. 3, 2020, Mr. Radcliffe and Ms. Flaim moved to consolidate this case with Flaim v. CVS Health Corp., No 3:20-cv-01321, and to file an Amended Complaint. The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion on Nov. 4, 2020. On Nov. 12, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action Complaint. On Dec. 22, 2020, the Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the consolidated Complaint and on Feb. 4, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Defendants' motion to dismiss. On Feb. 25, 2021, the Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss. On March 5, 2021, the Defendants filed a notice of supplemental authority relating to a New York state court case cited by the Plaintiffs in their opposition to their motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs filed a reply to the Defendants' notice of supplemental authority on March 19, 2021. On July 23, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of supplemental authority regarding a federal district court decision relating to the False Claims Act action against Omnicare and CVS. The Defendants filed a reply to the Plaintiffs' notice of supplemental authority on July 29, 2021 On Sept. 30, 2021, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss on all nine counts, but allowed the Plaintiffs leave to file an Amended Complaint addressing any legal deficiencies by Oct. 29, 2021. On Oct. 29, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed the SAC. On Nov. 24, 2021, the Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the SAC. Soon after on Dec. 18, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss. On Jan. 14, 2022, the Defendants submitted a reply to the Plaintiffs' memorandum. On Aug. 26, 2022, the Defendants filed a notice of additional authority in support of their motion to dismiss to SAC. The Defendants move to dismiss the SAC for the Plaintiffs' failure to properly file the pleading without asking for leave. They argue that "instead of attempting to convince the Court that the amendment was justified, the Plaintiffs opted to leapfrog directly to filing a pleading, without seeking either leave of Court or their consent." They also note that "Courts routinely dismiss or strike amended complaints that, like the SAC, are filed without first obtaining leave to amend." In response, the Plaintiffs concede that they "failed to notice the Court's Order, in two places," and have deprived the Defendants' "opportunity to preview their dismissal arguments." They proposed to "seek leave nunc pro tunc to submit the SAC for the Court's consideration on the merits." Judge Bolden disagrees. He finds that the Plaintiffs should have sought leave of Court before filing the SAC, but did not. In this particular case, they have not just circumvented the express language of both Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 7(f), but have undermined their specific purpose: providing clarity about how the proposed amendments remedy the legal deficiencies carefully laid out by the Court in its earlier ruling. As a result, in this limited circumstance -- and without reaching the issue of whether dismissal on this basis alone is always required -- dismissal of the SAC on this basis alone is appropriate, as a "reasonable response to the problems and needs confronting the court's fair administration of justice and not contrary to any express grant of or limitation on the district's power contained in a rule or statute." Accordingly, for failure to seek leave of the Court before filing the SAC, the Defendants' motion to dismiss will be granted. Even if the Plaintiffs had sought leave of Court before filing the Second Amended Complaint, Judge Bolden finds that it would not have survived the Court's substantive review. The Defendant moves to dismiss the SAC for the Plaintiffs' failure to state a claim once again. They argue that the SAC "fails to plausibly allege that CVS's stock was artificially inflated by material non-public information." They also argue that "the SAC identifies no new information that allegedly should have been disclosed," and "instead, all that the Plaintiffs muster is naked argumentation about Judge McMahon's decision denying the motion to dismiss in Bassan. In response, the Plaintiffs argue that the "Defendants' motion makes mostly factual arguments against their factual allegations." Additionally, they note that "a motion to dismiss is obviously not a place to pit fact vs fact or for the Court to pick a winner." Moreover, they argue that "the Second Circuit has set the standard in Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. ex. Rel. St. Vincent Catholic Med. Ctrs. Ret. Plan v. Morgan Stanley Inv. Mgmt., Inc., 712 F.3d 705, 718 2d Cir. (direct allegation of imprudence are not necessary if there are facts constituting circumstantial evidence to "reasonably infer" a breach); and Jander v. Ret. Plans Committee of IBM, 910 F.3d 620, 628 (2d Cir. 2018) ("No heightened pleading standard applies it is enough to provide the context necessary to show a plausible claim for relief")." They note that the Second Circuit provided "guidance on ERISA pleading standards that was ignored by Defendants in their Opposition." In reply, the Defendants note that the "Plaintiffs' Opposition repeats nearly verbatim the arguments the Court considered and rejected in its Dismissal Order." In addition, they emphasize that "the SAC leaves the Plaintiffs little alternative, since it makes only superficial changes." They argue that the Plaintiffs are not able to "provide no reason for this Court to rethink its well-reasoned decision, their implausible legal theories should again be rejected." Judge Bolden agrees. First, he holds that the Plaintiffs still have not plausibly alleged that Aetna, CVS, or any individual officers and directors functioned as ERISA fiduciaries as a matter of law. The Plaintiffs' SEC filing argument also fails for the same reasons it failed before in the Court's previous Ruling and Order: the acts alleged do not plausibly establish that any of the individual Defendants acted as a fiduciary. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss any claims based on Aetna, CVS, or any individual officers and directors functioning as ERISA fiduciaries would have been dismissed, even if the Plaintiffs had properly sought leave. Second, Judge Bolden finds that the Plaintiffs still have not plausibly alleged a duty of prudence claim arising from material, non-public information that CVS participated in the "Illegal Prescription Scheme." Indeed, as the Defendants rightly note -- for the most part -- the Plaintiffs have simply tried to recast arguments already rejected by the Court before. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' duty of prudence claim in the Second Amended Complaint would have been dismissed, even if they had sought leave. Given that the Plaintiffs already have amended their operative pleading three times, without success, Judge Bolden sees no reason to provide yet another opportunity and will dismiss the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice. For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 30, 2022 Ruling & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/59tjpu5d from Leagle.com. EYM CHICKEN: English BIPA Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled COSHIRA ENGLISH, DAWN WASHINGTON, OTIS CHILDS, and LATESSA LEROGAN-WASHINGTON, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs v. EYM CHICKEN OF ILLINOIS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2022LA000155, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court for the Seventh Judicial Circuit to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois on Sept. 30, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of Illinois assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-03202-SEM-KLM to the proceeding. The complaint in this matter seeks damages from EYM for multiple violations of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. EYM Chicken of Illinois, LLC is a chicken restaurant with principal place of business in Texas.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Daniel E. Tranen, Esq. Wilson Elser Moskowitz, Esq. EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 7777 Bonhomme Ave, Suite 1900 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (618) 307-0200 Facsimile: (618) 307-0221 E-mail: daniel.tranen@wilsonelser.com FARBEX CONSTRUCTION: Coyt Sues Over Unlawful Employment Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS COYT, on behalf of himself and all similarly aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. FARBEX CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC.; and DOES through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22CV403546 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Sept. 28, 2022) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful employment practices and policies in violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to provide meal and rest periods; pay appropriate premium overtime wages for all overtime hours worked; provide accurate itemized wage statements; pay agreed wages for all work performed; timely pay at the end of their employment all wages for work performed; reimburse employees for all business expenses; and keep accurate records. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately February 19, 2021 through approximately February 4, 2022. The Plaintiff and the Class Members were non-exempt employees of Defendants under the California Labor Code and were protected by to the provisions of the Wage Order. Farbex Construction Services Inc. is a construction company based in Sunnyvale, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: B. James Fitzpatrick, Esq. Laura L. Franklin, Esq. FITZPATRICK & SWANSTON 555 S. Main Street Salinas, CA 93901 Telephone: (831) 755-1311 Facsimile: (831) 755-1319 FITZGERALD MOTORS: Asher Walli Suit Removed to M.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ASHER WALLI, LLC, individually and on Behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FITZGERALD MOTORS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 522022CA004186XXCICI, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division on Sept. 30, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-02242 to the proceeding. The complaint alleges that Defendant sent telephonic sales calls to Plaintiff and putative class members in purported violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. Fitzgerald Motors, Inc. retails automobile vehicles. The Company offers new and used cars, vans, trucks, sport utility vehicles, parts, and accessories, as well as financing, maintenance, and repair services. Fitzgerald Motors operates in the United States.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Brandon T. White, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 374-8500 E-mail: Brandon.white@hklaw.com FREUD AMERICA: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Tuter Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JEFFREY TUTER, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. FREUD AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-00282-RK (W.D. Mo.), Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division, grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim. Mr. Tuter has filed a class action complaint against Freud, involving one of the Defendant's products, a bonded abrasive wheel that is attached to various power tools and used to cut materials like metal and concrete. He asserts multiple statutory and common law claims under Missouri law against the Defendant centered on allegations that it concealed or omitted the abrasive wheels' shelf life (or expiration date) and that if used after they have expired, the abrasive wheels give way, crack, split, explode, and fail. The Defendant manufactures, produces, distributes, and sells at least thirty types of bonded abrasive wheels under the "Diablo Tools" brand, to which the Court refers as "Diablo abrasive wheels." The Diablo abrasive wheels are attached to power tools such as grinders and chop saws to cut materials like metal and concrete. They have a shelf life or expiration date, and if they are used past their expiration date, they "will give way, crack, split, explode and fail." However, the Defendant does not advertise, package, label, or otherwise provide notice to consumers of the shelf life of this product or that the wheels will fail if used after reaching their shelf-life date. The Plaintiff alleges that "industry standards" require a clear expiration date on the Diablo abrasive wheels. In support, he specifically points to a handbook published by the Health and Safety Executive, "Safety in use of abrasive wheels," requiring an expiration date to be placed on bonded abrasive wheels: "All organic bonded wheels for hand-held applications will bear a use-by date of three years from the date of manufacture." The Plaintiff alleges he purchased one or more Diablo abrasive wheels within the last two years, and at the time he made the purchase(s), he was not aware they would "give way, crack, split, explode, and fail if used after their shelf life." He alleges he suffered economic damages because "the product he purchased was worth less than the product he thought he had purchased had the Defendant not omitted material facts." Both individually and on behalf of a proposed class for other purchasers of a Diablo abrasive wheel, the Plaintiff only seeks as damages a "refund of monies paid as a result of his purchase." In addition, he seeks "appropriate injunctive relief, enjoining the Defendant from selling the Diablo abrasive wheels and ordering it to warn consumers that the Diablo abrasive wheels expire." The Plaintiff initially filed the class action in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, asserting five counts: Count One - a claim under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"); Count Two - a claim for unjust enrichment; Counts Three and Four - claims for strict liability (design defect and failure to warn, respectively); and Count Five - negligence. The Defendant removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2). It now seeks to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Although neither party expressly considered the issue, Judge Ketchmark sua sponte considers the issue of whether the Plaintiff has established Article III standing to proceed in federal court, and asked the parties to provide supplemental briefing on the issue. She finds the Plaintiff has alleged a sufficient particularized and actual injury-in-fact at this juncture to demonstrate Article III standing in the context of this products liability lawsuit. Judge Ketchmark now turns to the Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. The Defendant first argues that the complaint should be dismissed because it does not satisfy the heightened pleading standard under Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff argues Rule 9(b) does not apply to his MMPA claim and even if it does, he has adequately pleaded a claim for relief under the MMPA that satisfies that heightened pleading standard. In Count One, the Plaintiff claims that Defendant violated the MMPA by failing to include a clear expiration date for the Diablo abrasive wheels it sold, distributed, and advertised. While the Plaintiff does not allege fraud in the traditional sense, Judge Ketchmark finds that the MMPA claim based on the Defendant's alleged concealment or omission of the material facts regarding the expiration of the Diablo abrasive wheels is sufficiently fraud-like (as opposed to having any foundation in breach of contract, for instance) to implicate Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading requirement. As to whether the Plaintiff adequately pleads an MMPA claim under Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard, the Defendant specifically argues the Plaintiff does not plead with any particularity facts regarding his expectation of the shelf life of the Diablo abrasive wheels when he purchased them, that the wheels "expired" before he used them, or that he used the wheels after their expiration date. Judge Ketchmark finds that the Plaintiff's MMPA claim satisfies the federal pleading standard under Rules 8 and 9(b) to the extent Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated the MMPA by its alleged omission or concealment of the material fact that the Diablo bonded abrasive wheels had a shelf-life or expiration date. The Plaintiff has provided a sufficient particularized factual basis to plausibly allege a claim that the Defendant knew or should have known the Diablo abrasive wheels had a shelf life to the extent the prevailing industry standard (as alleged by the Plaintiff) requires a clear expiration date to be placed on the Diablo abrasive wheels. Therefore, the Defendant's motion to dismiss Count One for failure to state a claim is denied. Next, the Defendant argues that pursuant to Missouri's "economic loss doctrine," the Plaintiff fails to state a claim as to Counts Two, Three, Four, and Five (the Plaintiff's common law claims for unjust enrichment, strict liability, and negligence). In each of his common law claims for unjust enrichment, strict liability, and negligence, the Plaintiff only alleges damage to the product itself. He does not allege personal injury or damage to other property and only alleges economic loss or damage to the product sold, In other words, the only loss sustained by the Plaintiff as alleged in his complaint is a purely economic loss. In opposition, the Plaintiff argues that the economic loss doctrine "applies only to commercial contract cases where no duty exists independent of the contract itself." In other words, he argues the economic loss doctrine does not apply because (1) he (and yjr putative class members) are consumers, not commercial parties, and (2)the Defendant "owes him and the other class members non-contractual duties." Judge Ketchmark does not find the Plaintiff's arguments persuasive. Neither does she find persuasive the Plaintiff's argument that economic loss doctrine only applies to commercial transactions with commercial parties (as opposed to ordinary consumers). It does not appear the Missouri Supreme Court has specifically addressed whether the economic loss doctrine applies only to commercial-purchasers or commercial transactions. The Court's role, then, is to determine how the Missouri Supreme Court would likely rule. Because the Missouri Supreme Court has not addressed whether the economic loss doctrine applies only to claims by a commercial-purchaser, the Court must determine how the Missouri Supreme Court would likely rule on the issue. The Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim rests on the theory that he "would not have purchased the Diablo abrasive wheels had he known that the products, when used as anticipated, crack, split, explode and fail." The only loss sustained by the Plaintiff as alleged in his complaint is a purely economic loss fundamentally based on an alleged defect in the product. The economic loss doctrine bars this unjust enrichment claim. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment on this theory is barred by the economic loss doctrine. With respect to the Plaintiff's strict liability and negligence claims, the only loss sustained by the Plaintiff as alleged in his complaint is a purely economic loss. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's claims for strict liability and negligence are also barred by the economic loss doctrine. Finally, as to the Plaintiff's argument that the economic loss doctrine does not apply because the Defendant "owes the Plaintiff and other class members non-contractual duties," Judge Ketchmark emphasizes that as a matter of law, because the Plaintiff does not allege personal injury or damage to other property and only alleges economic loss or damage to the product sold, the economic loss doctrine applies, and this argument is without merit. Each of the Plaintiff's common law claims for unjust enrichment, strict liability, and negligence, only allege damage to the product itself and are thus barred by the economic loss doctrine. Therefore, the Defendant's motion to dismiss Counts Two, Three, Four, and Five is granted. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Ketchmark grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim. She denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss Count One. She grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss Counts Two, Three, Four, and Five, and these counts are dismissed as barred by the economic loss doctrine. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 30, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/464cbb3a from Leagle.com. GRG VENTURES: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grg Ventures, LLC. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Grg Ventures, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-08351 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 30, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Grg Ventures LLC is a trucking company.[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 HOMETOWN AMERICA: Davis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hometown America Management L.P., et al. The case is styled as Carl Davis, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hometown America Management L.P., Does 1–10, Case No. 34-2022-00327467-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Sept. 29, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Unlimited Civil." Hometown America Management L.P. -- https://www.hometownamerica.com/ -- offers properties that are known nationwide for their quality amenities, professional on-site management and the affordable lifestyle they provide for our residents.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin F. Marquez, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 510 Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145 Phone: 213-381-9988 Fax: 213-381-9989 Email: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com HRA PHARMA AMERICA: Iglesias Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HRA Pharma America, Inc. The case is styled as Isaac Iglesias, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HRA Pharma America, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-08398 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. HRA Pharma America, Inc. -- https://www.hra-pharma.com/ -- is a pharmaceutical company in Morristown, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Abiri, Esq. CUSTODIO & DUBEY LLP 445 S. Figueroa St., Suite 2520 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 593-9095 Email: abiri@cd-lawyers.com INGALLS MEMORIAL: Nurses' Biometric Info Under HIPAA, Court Rules ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases, LUCILLE MOSBY, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v. THE INGALLS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, UCM COMMUNITY HEALTH & HOSPITAL DIVISION, INC., and BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY, Defendants, (Beckton, Dickinson and Company, Defendant-Appellant). YANA MAZYA, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v. NORTHWESTERN LAKE FOREST HOSPITAL, and NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE, Defendants-Appellants, Case Nos. 1-20-0822, 1-21-0895, cons (Ill. App.), the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Six Division, enters an Opinion finding that the biometric information of health care workers is not excluded under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. On April 18, 2018, Mosby, a registered nurse, filed a class-action suit individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against Defendants Ingalls Memorial Hospital and UCM Community Health & Hospital Division, Inc. (collectively, Ingalls), and Becton, Dickinson and Co. (BD). Mosby worked as a registered pediatrics nurse at Ingalls Memorial Hospital from October 1987 to February 2017. As a condition of her employment with Ingalls, she was required to scan her fingerprint to authenticate her identity and gain access to Pyxis MedStation, a medication dispensing system distributed and marketed by BD. She alleged that she left Ingalls' employ without ever having been provided with a statement of the Defendants' destruction policy and schedule. Ms. Mosby alleged that the Defendants' actions exposed employees like herself to serious irreversible privacy risks. She alleged that the Defendants violated the Act by (1) not informing her in writing of the specific purpose and the length of time for which her fingerprints were being collected, stored, and used; (2) failing to provide a publicly available retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying Mosby's fingerprints; (3) failing to obtain a written release from her to collect, store, disseminate, or otherwise use her fingerprint; and (4) failing to obtain consent before disclosing her fingerprints to third-party vendors that host the data. On May 14, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an amended class-action complaint substantially similar to the original. On June 5, 2019, the Defendants filed a combined motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-619.1 (735 ILCS 5/2-619.1 (West 2018)) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) or to strike the amended complaint. On Jan. 13, 2020, the circuit court ruled that the exception was limited to the information protected under HIPAA. It denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss based on this issue. It dismissed BD from the complaint in its entirety, without prejudice, and found that Mosby failed to state a claim as to how defendants disseminated her biometric information. With authorization of the circuit court, Mosby amended her pleadings on Feb. 24, 2020, which realleged all of the claims contained in the previously dismissed claim. On March 14, 2022, the circuit court granted final approval of the settlement agreement between Ingalls and Mosby. Ingalls then moved in the Appellate Court to withdraw from this appeal, which the Appellate Court granted on March 30, 2022, leaving BD as the sole Defendant-Appellant in the Mosby appeal. Similarly, on April 10, 2019, Mazya, a registered nurse, filed a class-action suit individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against Defendants Northwestern Lake Forest Hospital and Northwestern Memorial Healthcare (collectively Northwestern). On April 10, 2019, Mazya and Tiki Taylor filed an amended class-action complaint against Northwestern, Omnicell Inc., and BD seeking redress for each Defendant's violations pursuant to section 15(a)-(d) of the Act (740 ILCS 14/15(a)-(d) (West 2018)). Northwestern used medication dispensing systems distributed by both Omnicell and BD. However, both Omnicell and BD were dismissed from this action, as was Taylor. Taylor was dismissed on July 2, 2019, without prejudice. As a party to a collective bargaining agreement, Taylor's claims were preempted. Like Mosby, Mazya was also employed as a registered nurse, but at Northwestern Memorial Lake Forest Hospital. Like Mosby, Mazya is no longer employed at this hospital, having also left in 2017. Mayza worked for Northwestern from 2012 until December 2017. Like Mosby, Mazya was required to scan her fingerprint to gain access to a medication dispensing system as a condition of her employment. Like Mosby, Mazya alleged that she left defendant's employ without ever having been provided with a statement of its destruction policy and schedule. Ms. Mazya alleged that Northwestern disregarded her statutorily protected privacy rights by unlawfully collecting, storing, using, and disseminating her biometric data in violation of the Act. Like Mosby, she alleged that the Defendant was in violation of the Act by failing (1) to inform her in writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which her fingerprints were being collected, stored, and used; (2) to provide a publicly available retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying her fingerprints; (3) to obtain a written release to collect, store, or otherwise use her fingerprints; and (4) to obtain consent from her to disclose, redisclose, or otherwise disseminate her fingerprints to a third party. Both Mosby and Mazya suits were filed under the Biometric Information Privacy Act (Act) (740 ILCS 14/1 et seq/) (West 2018)). During the course of the Mosby litigation, Ingalls and BD filed a petition for leave to file an interlocutory appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 308 (eff. Oct. 1, 2019) asking the Appellate Court to answer the following certified question: Whether the exclusion in Section 10 of the Act for 'information collected, used, or stored for health care treatment, payment, or operations under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996' [HIPAA] applies to biometric information of health care workers (as opposed to patients) collected, used or stored for health care treatment, payment or operations under HIPAA? Subsequently, Northwestern also filed a petition in the Mayza litigation for leave to file a Rule 308 interlocutory appeal concerning a similar issue: Does finger-scan information collected by a health care provider from its employees fall within the Act's exclusion for 'information collected, used, or stored for health care treatment, payment or operations under the federal HIPAA,' 740 ILCS 14/10, when the employee's finger-scan information is used for purposes related to 'healthcare,' 'treatment,' 'payment,' and/or 'operations' as those terms are defined by the HIPAA statute and regulations? On appeal, Northwestern, BD and the two amici (collectively, Defendants) argue that the Appellate Court should answer both certified questions in the affirmative, because section 10 of the Act (740 ILCS 14/10 (West 2018) excludes employee biometric information used in medication dispensing systems from the protections of the Act. For purposes of this appeal, the Defendants do not dispute that the fingerprints captured qualify as biometric information as that phrase is defined by the Act. The Act defines "biometric information" as "any information, regardless of how it is captured, converted, stored, or shared, based on an individual's biometric identifier used to identify an individual." It defines "biometric identifiers" as "a retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or face geometry." On this appeal, and for the limited purpose of it, the parties do not dispute that the fingerprint scan of the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated hospital employees is a biometric identifier and, when stored, this fingerprint constitutes biometric information as defined in the Act. The Appellate Court opines that the language of the statute is clear. It explains that part of the plain language of the Act is its objectives, which are stated right in the Act itself. The legislative purpose of this Act is easy to discern because the Act's drafters provided a statutory section entitled: "Legislative findings; intent." The section notes that "corporations" are interested in utilizing the new biometric technology. However, "an overwhelming majority" of the public are wary. The section explains that the public is wary because, "once" a corporation has "compromised" an individual's unique biometric identifier, "the individual has no recourse." The purpose of the Act is to reassure a wary public by providing a means for "regulating the collection, use, safeguarding, handling, storage, retention, and destruction of biometric identifiers and information." Finding that the nurses at issue are covered by the Act vis-a-vis their employers and the MedStation marketing company furthers the stated goals of the Act. The primary purpose of this Act is to protect the secrecy interest of the "individual" in his or her biometric information, such as the finger scans at issue. The Appellate Court's findings further that purpose. Since the language is plain, the Appellate Court need not consider other sources to discern statutory meaning. "Absent ambiguity there is no basis to delve into the conference reports or statements of legislators." However, as a final matter, the Appellate Court notes that, even if it were to consider the Defendants' legislative-history argument, it would not find it persuasive. The Defendants cite the following line from a page of remarks by the House sponsor of the bill, Representative Kathleen Ryg: "The Act provides exemptions as necessary for hospitals." In the quoted line, Representative Ryg asserted that it provided "exemptions as necessary." Her remark is completely consistent with the Appellate Court's finding that the Act excludes from coverage information as it is captured from a patient in a healthcare setting, as well as HIPAA-protected information that is "collected, used or stored." These exclusions are the ones that legislators like Representative Ryg apparently deemed "necessary." Representative Ryg ended her remarks, immediately prior to passage, by stating: "we are in very serious need of protections for the citizens of Illinois when it comes to biometric information." Those citizens include the nurses at issue in the present case. The Appellate Court has previously observed that: "Representative's Ryg's remarks establish that the primary impetus behind the bill was to allay the fears of and provide protections for 'thousands of' people who had provided their biometric data for use as identifiers and who were now left 'wondering what will become of' this data. "This is the position" that Mosby and Mayza "found themselves in, after leaving the Defendants' employ" in 2017 "without ever having been provided with a statement of the Defendants' destruction policy and schedule." Consideration of the legislative history and the Act's objectives leave no doubt that the Appellate Court reaching the correct finding. Consistent with the plain language of the Act, Judge Oden Johnson, writing for the Appellate Court, concludes that while Ingalls and BD phrase the question as a tautology that presumes certain facts, the parties essentially seek the answer to the same question of whether the biometric information of health care workers is excluded under the Act. He answers "no," finding that the biometric information of health care workers is not excluded under the Act. He remands the cause for further proceedings consistent with its Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 30, 2022 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yhd5bcjk from Leagle.com. Gary M. Miller -- gmiller@shb.com -- Matthew C. Wolf -- mwolf@thwvlaw.com -- and Elisabeth A. Hutchinson -- ehutchinson@shb.com -- of Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., both of Chicago, for appellant Becton, Dickinson and Company. Joel Griswold -- jcgriswold@bakerlaw.com -- and Bonnie Keane DelGobbo -- bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com -- of Baker & Hostetler LLP, of Chicago, for Northwestern Lake Forest Hospital and Northwestern Memorial HealthCare. James B. Zouras -- jzouras@stephanzouras.com -- Ryan F. Stephan, Andrew C. Ficzko, Catherine T. Mitchell, and Paige L. Smith, of Stephan Zouras, LLP, of Chicago, for the Appellees. Michael A. Woods, of Naperville, for amici curiae Illinois Health and Hospital Association and Richard H. Tilghman, of Nixon Peabody LLP, of Chicago, for amici curiae Alexian Brothers-AHS Midwest Region Health Co. d/b/s AMITA Health. INTERFACE INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Interface, Inc. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Interface, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-08354 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 30, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Interface -- https://www.interface.com/ -- is a world-leading modular flooring company with a fully integrated collection of carpet tiles and resilient flooring.[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 IPPUDO NY: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ippudo NY, LLC. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Ippudo NY, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05918 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 3, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ippudo NY -- https://ippudony.com/ -- is a ramen restaurant offering ramen dishes & pork buns that are the lures at this popular East Village Japanese eatery.[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 JANCO INDUSTRIES: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Janco Industries, Inc. The case is styled as Jose Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals v. Janco Industries, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2022-0008790 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Sept. 30, 2022). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Janco Industries -- https://www.janco-ind.com/ -- is a family-owned, specialized metal fabrication company located in Sully, Iowa.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel F. Gaines, Esq. GAINES & GAINES, APLC 4550 E Thousand Oaks Blvd., Ste. 100 Westlake Village, CA 91362-3824 Phone: 818-703-8985 Fax: 818-703-8984 Email: daniel@gaineslawfirm.com JILL RANGOS: Horton Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Judge Jill Rangos. The case is styled as Dion Horton, Damon Jones, Rahdnee Oden-Pritchett, Elijah Bronaugh, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. Administrative Judge Jill Rangos, in her official capacity; Frank Scherer, Director of Adult Probation and Parole, in his official capacity; Anthony Mariani, Court of Common Pleas Judge; Kelly Bigley, Court of Common Pleas Judge, in their official and individual capacities; Charlene Christmas, Robert Obrien, Stephen Esswein, Renawn Harris, Probation Hearing Officers, in their official and individual capacities; Orlando Harper, in his official capacity, Case No. 2:22-cv-01391-DMF (W.D. Pa., Oct. 2, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights Act. Judge Rangos was appointed to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sumayya Saleh, Esq. CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS 1601 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20009 Phone: (813) 351-9423 Email: sumayya@civilrightscorps.org JPMORGAN CHASE: Radabaugh Sues to Recover Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Jodi Radabaugh and Barbara J. Vernon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-08336 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 29, 2022), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act (the Ohio Wage Act and the OPPA will be referred to collectively as the "Ohio Acts") to recover overtime wages they are owed (plus liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs) as a result of the Defendants' unlawful policy of excluding non-discretionary, performance based bonuses from the customer service employees' "regular rates of pay" for purposes of calculating their overtime rates of pay, in violation of the FLSA. The Defendants did not include their non-discretionary, performance-based 5 Key Rewards Program payments in hourly-paid, non-exempt customer service employees' "regular rates of pay," for purposes of calculating their overtime premium compensation. Accordingly, in weeks in which the Defendants' hourly-paid, non-exempt healthcare workers worked in excess of 40 hours and earned both overtime and non-discretionary, performance-based bonuses pursuant to the 5 Key Reward Program, the overtime premium compensation they received was calculated at a lower than time-and-a-half of their regular rates of pay, in violation of the FLSA and the Ohio Wage Acts. The Defendants were aware of, and/or recklessly disregarded the possibility that they were required to include non-discretionary, performance-based bonuses in each customer service employee's "regular rate of pay," for purposes of calculating their overtime premium compensation, but failed to do so, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as hourly-paid, non-exempt employees. The Defendants operate the largest bank in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason T. Brown, Esq. Nicholas Conlon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Pl Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Phone: (877) 561-0000 Fax: (855) 582-52971 Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com - and - Robert E. DeRose, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Phone: (614) 221-4221 Fax: (614) 744-2300 Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com - and - Adam L. Slone, Esq. BRIAN G. MILLER CO., L.P.A. 250 West Old Wilson Bridge Road, Suite 270 Worthington, Ohio 43085 Phone: (614) 221-4035 Fax: (614) 987-7841 Email: als@bgmillerlaw.com JUST A BIT OF COIN: Spindler Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Just a Bit of Coin, Ltd., et al. The case is styled as Mike Spindler, Carl Canady, Adam Moyers, Brayden Reince, Thomas Barrath, Alexandre Dutrisac, Lance Hunter, Adam Knauer, Arnoldas Kurbanovas, Edward Rojas, Derek Durst, Arnold Villa, Pedro Viteri, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Just a Bit of Coin, Ltd., Steven Drawdy, George Lavoy Graham, Case No. 5:22-cv-00137-BJB (W.D. Ky., Oct. 2, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Racketeer/Corrupt Organization. Just a Bit of Coin Ltd. -- https://justabitofcoinltd.com/ -- offers parts of the computer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Wes Sullenger, Esq. SULLENGER LAW OFFICE, PLLC 2508 Jackson Street Paducah, KY 42003 Phone: (270) 443-9401 Email: wes@sullengerfirm.com KELLER WILLIAMS: Havassy TCPA Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as James Havassy, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Keller Williams Realty Inc., Peter Hewitt, Kelly Houston, Case No. 2:21-cv-04608 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 Texas on Sept. 29, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-00985 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Keller Williams Realty -- https://www.kw.com/ -- is an American technology and international real estate franchise with headquarters in Austin, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Uri Ginsburg, Esq. Kimmel & Silverman, P.C. 30 E. Butler Ave. Ambler, PA 19002 Phone: (267) 468-5374 Fax: (877) 788-2864 Email: jginsburg@creditlaw.com - and - Christopher Elisha Roberts BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC 231 S Bemiston Ave. Suite 260 Clayton, MO 63105 Phone: (314) 863-5700 The Defendants are represented by: John P. Ryan, Esq. Todd P. Stelter, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP 151 N. Franklin Street, Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 704-3464 Fax: (312) 704-3001 Email: jryan@hinshawlaw.com tstelter@hinshawlaw.com - and - John D Shea, Esq. FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP 3 Executive Campus, Suite 155 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Phone: (856) 406-1260 - and - Thomas J Gregory, Esq. O'CONNOR KIMBALL LLP Two Penn Center-Ste. 1100 1500 John F Kennedy Blvd Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (215) 564-0400 Fax: (215) 564-1973 KIA AMERICA INC: Hilliard Files Suit in D. Minnesota ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kia America, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Lisa Hilliard, Kelsey Biljan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kia America, Inc., Hyundai Kia America Technical Center, Inc., Hyundai Motor America, Case No. 0:22-cv-02431-NEB-JFD (D. Minn., Oct. 3, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. Kia America, Inc. -- https://www.kia.com/us/en -- provides a wide range of cars that meet your lifestyle.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lindsey LaBelle Larson, Esq. Nathan D. Prosser, Esq. Anne T. Regan, Esq. HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC 8050 West 78th Street Edina, MN 55439 Phone: (952) 484-8599 Email: llabellelarson@hjlawfirm.com nprosser@hjlawfirm.com aregan@hjlawfirm.com KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Van Ginkel Sues Over Defective CPAP Machines ----------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY VAN GINKEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.; PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC; AND PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00332-RGE-HCA (S.D. Iowa, Sept. 30, 2022) seeks to recover damages based on, inter alia, Philips' breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranties, misrepresentations, and omissions, in connection with its manufacture, marketing, and sales of Philips Respironics System I Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) machines containing polyester-based polyurethane sound abatement foam. On April 26, 2021, Philips made a public announcement disclosing it had determined there were risks that the PE-PUR Foam used in certain CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, and mechanical ventilator devices it manufactured may degrade or off-gas under certain circumstances. On June 14, 2021, Royal Philips issued a recall in the United States of its CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, and mechanical ventilator devices containing PE-PUR Foam because Philips had determined that (a) the PE-PUR Foam was at risk for degradation into particles that may enter the devices' pathway and be ingested or inhaled by users, and (b) the PE-PUR Foam may off-gas certain chemicals during operation. According to the complaint, Philips recommended that patients, including Plaintiff, using the recalled CPAP and Bi-Level PAP devices immediately discontinue using their devices and that patients using the recalled ventilators for life-sustaining therapy consult with their physicians regarding alternative ventilator options. The Plaintiff has now incurred substantial expenses to replace the device. In addition, Plaintiff has experienced diabetes mellitus, hypertension, deep vein thrombosis, and embolism during the use of the Philips' CPAP machine. Since being notified of the recall, Plaintiff has experienced anxiety concerning the potential other serious health risks he is facing from possible exposure to off-gassed or degraded PE-PUR Foam in the recalled device, says the suit. Koninklijke Philips N.V. is a health technology company focused on improving people's health across the health continuum from healthy living and prevention, to diagnosis, treatment, and home care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Danny L. Cornell, Esq. CORNELL LAW 111 East Washington Street P.O. Box 27 Mt. Pleasant, IA 52641 Telephone: (319) 219-2800 Facsimile: (319) 385-2148 E-mail: danny@cornellinjurylaw.com - and - Larry D. Helvey, Esq. LARRY HELVEY LAW FIRM 2735 First Avenue S.E., Suite 101 Cedar Rapids, IA 52402 Telephone: (319) 362-0421 Facsimile: (319) 362-3496 E-mail: lhelvey@helveylaw.com LOOMIS ARMORED: Ligorria Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ALEC LIGORRIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOOMIS ARMORED US, LLC, a Texas limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV24588, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Sept. 30, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-07116 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint alleges eight causes of action under the California Labor Code for: (1) failure to provide meal periods; (2) failure to provide rest periods; (3) failure to pay hourly wages; (4) failure to pay vacation wages; (5) failure to indemnify; (6) failure to provide accurate written wage statements; (7) failure to timely pay all final wages; and (8) unfair competition. Loomis Armored US, LLC is a provider of cash management and cash optimization solutions based in Houston, Texas.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: JoAnna L. Brooks, Esq. Michael W. Nelson, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Treat Towers 1255 Treat Boulevard Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Telephone: (925) 932-2468 Facsimile: (925) 946-9809 E-mail: jbrooks@littler.com mwnelson@littler.com MARGON RESTAURANT: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Catano Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR CATANO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARGON RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a MARGON, GUADALUPE RIVAS, and RAFAEL RIVAS, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-08299 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 28, 2022) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law seeking from Defendants unpaid overtime, unpaid wages for all hours worked, unpaid minimum wage, unpaid spread of hours premium, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff Victor Catano was employed by Defendants as a food preparer and dishwasher at Margon Restaurant from April 2021 through January 2022. Margon Restaurant Corp. owns and operates a restaurant located in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Angela Kwon, Esq. BROWN, KWON & LAM LLP 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (212) 295-5828 Facsimile: (718) 795-1642 E-mail: akwon@bkllawyers.com MDL 2873: AFFF's Toxic Chemicals Caused Cancer, Friot Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- GARY FRIOT, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. 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-03373-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 29, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use reasonable, ordinary and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of AFFF products containing synthetic, toxic PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. He relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the suit. As a result of Defendants' conduct and the resulting contamination, Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer, the suit further alleges. The Friot case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 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.[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 MDL 2873: Barrett Files Personal Injury Suit Over PFAS Exposure --------------------------------------------------------------- RON BARRETT, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. 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-03358-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 29, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use reasonable, ordinary and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of AFFF products containing synthetic, toxic PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. He relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the suit. As a result of Defendants' alleged conduct and the resulting contamination, Plaintiff suffered severe personal injuries by exposure to AFFF containing PFAS. The Barrett case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 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.[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 MDL 2873: Bredahl Files Personal Injury Suit Over PFAS Exposure --------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Bredahl, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. 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-03361-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 29, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use reasonable, ordinary and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of AFFF products containing synthetic, toxic PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. He relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the suit. As a result of Defendants' conduct and the resulting contamination, Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer, the suit further alleges. The Bredahl case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 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.[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 MDL 2873: Browning Files Personal Injury Suit Over PFAS Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- BOBBY BROWNING, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. 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-03398-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 30, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use reasonable, ordinary and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of AFFF products containing synthetic, toxic PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. He relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the suit. As a result of Defendants' conduct and the resulting contamination, Plaintiff suffered severe personal injuries by exposure to AFFF containing PFAS, the suit alleges. The Browning case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 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.[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 MDL 2873: Coleman Files Suit Over AFFF Products' Harmful Effects ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL COLEMAN, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. 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-03400-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 30, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use reasonable, ordinary and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of AFFF products containing synthetic, toxic PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. He relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the suit. As a result of Defendants' conduct and the resulting contamination, Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer, the suit alleges. The Coleman case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 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.[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 MDL 2873: Davis Sues Over Health Dangers of Toxic AFFF ------------------------------------------------------ REGAN DAVIS, individually and as Personal Representative/Administrator/Executor of the Estate of ROBERT VANCE GALLUP, deceased, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC 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.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-03371-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 29, 2022) seeks damages for personal injury and death resulting from Decedent's exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans, says the suit. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Decedent in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Decedent was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Decedent's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Decedent to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein including death, the suit added. The Davis case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 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.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr. John E. Keefe, Jr. WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A. 125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Telephone: (732) 855-6060 Facsimile: (732) 726-4860 MDL 2873: Dolley Sues Over Dangers From Exposure to Toxic AFFF -------------------------------------------------------------- DOLORES DOLLEY, individually and as Personal Representative/Administrator/Executor of the Estate of JACK RAYMOND DOLLEY, deceased, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC 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.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-03369-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 29, 2022) seeks damages for personal injury and death resulting from Decedent's exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans, says the suit. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Decedent in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Decedent was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Decedent's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Decedent to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein including death, the suit added. The Dolley case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 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.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr. John E. Keefe, Jr. WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A. 125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Telephone: (732) 855-6060 Facsimile: (732) 726-4860 MDL 2873: Henly Files Personal Injury Suit Over PFAS Exposure -------------------------------------------------------------- GARY HENLY, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. 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-03397-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 30, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use reasonable, ordinary and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of AFFF products containing synthetic, toxic PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. He relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the suit. As a result of Defendants' conduct and the resulting contamination, Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer by exposure to AFFF containing PFAS, the suit alleges. The Henly case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 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.[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 MDL 2873: PFAS Exposure Caused Cancer, Coats Says ------------------------------------------------- CARLOS COATS, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. 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-03399-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 30, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use reasonable, ordinary and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of AFFF products containing synthetic, toxic PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. He relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the suit. As a result of Defendants' conduct and the resulting contamination, Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer, the suit alleges. The Coats case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 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.[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 MDL 2873: PFAS Exposure Caused Cancer, Diguiseppe Says ------------------------------------------------------ WILLIAM DIGUISEPPE, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. 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-03367-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 29, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use reasonable, ordinary and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of AFFF products containing synthetic, toxic PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. He relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the suit. As a result of Defendants' conduct and the resulting contamination, Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer, the suit further alleges. The Diguiseppe case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 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.[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 MDL 2873: Sanders Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF ------------------------------------------------------------ RODERICK SANDERS, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. 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-03372-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 29, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use reasonable, ordinary and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of AFFF products containing synthetic, toxic PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. He relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the suit. As a result of Defendants' conduct and the resulting contamination, Plaintiff was diagnosed with skin cancer and/or other medical conditions, the suit further alleges. The Sanders case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 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.[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 MDL 2873: Toxic PFAS Caused Leukemia, Jordan Says -------------------------------------------------- RALPH JORDAN, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. 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-03374-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 29, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use reasonable, ordinary and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of AFFF products containing synthetic, toxic PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. He relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the suit. As a result of Defendants' conduct and the resulting contamination, Plaintiff was diagnosed with leukemia, the suit further alleges. The Jordan case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 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.[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 MDL 2913: E-Cigarettes Target Youth Market, Silver Creek Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Silver Creek School Corporation, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX Labs, Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung Huh; Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC; Altria Group Distribution Company; AND Philip Morris USA, Inc. Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-05535 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 28, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Indiana Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. The Silver Creek School Corporation case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Silver Creek School Corporation is a public school district serving approximately 2,800 students.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and - Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, California 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 - and - Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com - and - Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and - John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com MDL 2913: Faces Polk County School Suit Over E-Cigarette Crisis --------------------------------------------------------------- The School Board of Polk County, Florida, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX Labs, Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung Huh; Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC; Altria Group Distribution Company; AND Philip Morris USA, Inc. Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-05578 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 29, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Florida Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. The School Board of Polk County case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. The School Board of Polk County, Florida s is a public school district serving over 110,000 students in more than 150 schools.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and - Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, California 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 - and - Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com - and - Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and - John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com MDL 2913: Hendry County School Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis ----------------------------------------------------------------- The School Board of Hendry County, Florida, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX Labs, Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung Huh; Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC; Altria Group Distribution Company; AND Philip Morris USA, Inc. Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-05576 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 29, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Florida Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. The School Board of Polk County case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Hendry County Schools is a public school district serving over 7,000 students. The Plaintiff's administrative offices are in LaBelle, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and - Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, California 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 - and - Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com - and - Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and - John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com MDL 2913: JUUL Caused Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, DeKalb County Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ DeKalb County School District, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX Labs, Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung Huh; Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC; Altria Group Distribution Company; AND Philip Morris USA, Inc. Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-05550 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 28, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Georgia Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. The DeKalb County School District case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. DeKalb County School District is Georgia's third largest school system, serving over 93,000 students in over 140 schools and centers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and - Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, California 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 - and - Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com - and - Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and - John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com MDL 2913: JUUL Caused Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Eugene School Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Eugene School District 4J, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX Labs, Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung Huh; Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC; Altria Group Distribution Company; AND Philip Morris USA, Inc. Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-05617 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 29, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Oregon Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. The Eugene School District 4J case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Eugene School District 4J is a public school district serving more than 16,000 students.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and - Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, California 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 - and - Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com - and - Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and - John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com MDL 2913: JUUL Caused Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Warrick Cty. Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- Warrick County School Corporation, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX Labs, Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung Huh; Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC; Altria Group Distribution Company; AND Philip Morris USA, Inc. Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-05542 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 28, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Georgia Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. The Warrick County School Corporation case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Warrick County School Corporation is a public school district serving approximately 10,000 students.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and - Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, California 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 - and - Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com - and - Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and - John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com MDL 2913: Plainfield Community Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plainfield Community School Corporation, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX Labs, Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung Huh; Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC; Altria Group Distribution Company; AND Philip Morris USA, Inc. Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-05527 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 28, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Indiana Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. The Plainfield Community School Corporation case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Plainfield Community School Corporation is a public school district serving approximately 5,600 students.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and - Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, California 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 - and - Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com - and - Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and - John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com MDL 2913: Sedgwick Cty. School Hits Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic -------------------------------------------------------------- Unified School District No. 259, Sedgwick County, Kansas, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX Labs, Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung Huh; Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC; Altria Group Distribution Company; AND Philip Morris USA, Inc. Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-05591 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 29, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Kansas Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. The Unified School District No. 259 case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Unified School District No. 259, Sedgwick County, Kansas, is a public school district serving over 47,000 students. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and - Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, California 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 - and - Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com - and - Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and - John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com META PLATFORMS: Williams Sues Over Intercepted Browsing Activity ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alexandra Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-05627 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 29, 2022), is brought seeking relief for all persons who used Meta's Facebook or Messenger app and whose private browsing activity and communications were surreptitiously intercepted, monitored and recorded by Meta's in-app internet browsers. Beginning in April 2021, Apple's iOS 14 update required Meta to obtain its users' informed consent before tracking their internet activity on apps and third-party websites. As a result, Meta lost access to its primary stream of revenue, derived from the user data it obtained from this tracking. Now, even when users do not consent to being tracked, Meta tracks Facebook users' online activity and communications with external third-party websites by injecting JavaScript code into those sites. When a user clicks on a web link within the Facebook, Instagram, or Messenger app, Meta automatically directs them to the in-app browser Meta monitors instead of the user's default browser. Meta does not tell its users this is happening or explain that they are being tracked. The user information Meta intercepts, monitors, and records includes personally identifiable information, private health details, text entries, and other sensitive confidential facts. Meta's undisclosed tracking of citizens' browsing activity and communications violates federal and state wiretap laws and other laws, entitling the Plaintiff and Class members to damages. The Plaintiff and Class members also seek injunctive relief and equitable remedies to stop Meta's undisclosed and nonconsensual tracking practices, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has had an active Facebook account for several years and regularly accesses her account using the Facebook App on her iPhone. Meta is a multinational technology conglomerate that owns Facebook, Instagram, and several other social media platforms, and offers a wide array of products and services, including advertising and marketing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com - and - Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com jarisohn@bursor.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Kupczyk Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc. The case is styled as Leib Kupczyk, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 7:22-cv-08393 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 30, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Midland Credit Management, Inc. -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/ -- is a third-party debt collector with headquarters in San Diego.[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 MOAC MALL HOLDINGS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moac Mall Holdings, LLC. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Moac Mall Holdings, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-08326 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 29, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Moac Mall Holdings LLC, doing business as Mall of America -- https://www.mallofamerica.com/dmca -- operates an indoor shopping and entertainment complex.[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 MONROE OPERATIONS: Chung Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled WILSON CHUNG and LISA BURTON, individuals, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MONROE OPERATIONS, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2022-01268754-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Sept. 29, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-01798-JWH-JPR to the proceeding. The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: 1) unfair competition in violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200; 2) failure to pay minimum wages; 3) failure to pay overtime wages; 4) failure to provide required meal periods; 5) failure to provide required rest periods; 6) failure to provide accurate itemized statements; 7) failure to reimburse employees for required expenses; 8) failure to provide wages when due; and 9) failure to pay sick pay wages. Additionally, the Plaintiffs seek attorneys' fees and various penalties under the California Labor Code. Monroe Operations, LLC is an American mental health treatment program for teens and young adults.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Eugene Ryu, Esq. Penny Chen Fox, Esq. Paul Suh, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd. 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 553-5000 Facsimile: (310) 553-5001 E-mail: Gene.Ryu@klgates.com Penny.Chen@klgates.com Paul.Suh@klgates.com NATIONAL REPUBLICAN: Dorr Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Alabama --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Republican Senatorial Committee. The case is styled as Katherine Dorr, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. National Republican Senatorial Committee, Case No. 2:22-cv-01271-SGC (N.D. Ala., Sept. 30, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. The National Republican Senate Committee (NRSC) -- https://www.nrsc.org/ -- is the Republican Hill committee for the United States Senate, working to elect Republicans to that body.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam W. Pittman, Esq. CORY WATSON ATTORNEYS PC 2131 Magnolia Avenue South, Ste. 200 Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-7000 Fax: (205) 324-7896 Email: apittman@corywatson.com NATIONWIDE CHILDREN'S: Williams Balks at Phlebotomists' Unpaid OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRI'ANA WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONWIDE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-03518-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Sept. 28, 2022) seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act arising from the Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees proper overtime wages. Named Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt phlebotomist from approximately January 2022 through the present in Columbus, Ohio. Nationwide Children's Hospital is one of the largest and most comprehensive pediatric hospitals and research institutes in the United States. It operates multiple healthcare facilities throughout central Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com NEW YORK AND PRESBYTERIAN: Tay Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Berlinda Tay, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. THE NEW YORK AND PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL, Case No. 7:22-cv-08379 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 30, 2022), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendants: unpaid overtime; unpaid wages, including overtime, wages due to time shaving; unreimbursed costs for purchasing and maintaining uniforms; statutory penalties; liquidated damages; and attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff and Class members were not always paid for all overtime hours worked. The Plaintiff estimates that she would be missing approximately 4 hours of overtime pay for each bi-weekly pay period. When Plaintiff complained, she was shut down and told she didn't work those hours. Class members were similarly short overtime pay for each bi-weekly pay period. Additionally, throughout her employment, the Plaintiff also suffered from the Defendant's policy of time shaving for causing the Plaintiff to work during her 1 hour meal break daily. At all times, the Plaintiff was always so busy that she could never take a free and clear meal break. Therefore, the Plaintiff was time shaved 1 hour for every workday that she worked. All Class members were subject to this automatic meal break deduction, even though they could not take them because they were too busy and working during these breaks. As a result, the Plaintiff and Class members did not receive compensation for all hours, including overtime, worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired to work as a nurse assistant at the Defendant's New York Presbyterian Lawrence Hospital. THE NEW YORK AND PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL owns and operate a non-profit organization containing a network of hospitals and medical centers in the state of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 NEWELL BRANDS: Court Narrows Claims in Rife Product Liability Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, KIMBERLY RIFE, et al., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NEWELL BRANDS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-80021-CIV-ALTMAN/Reinhart (S.D. Fla.), Judge Roy K. Altman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Since the 1970s, the Defendants -- Newell Brands, Inc., and Sunbeam Products, Inc. -- have sold electric slow cookers under the "Crock-pot" name. In recent years, though, the Defendants' competitors sought to out-compete them by introducing an electric pressure cooker, which allows for faster cooking. When demand for these pressure cookers skyrocketed, the Defendants invented a pressure cooker of their own. The Defendants marketed their pressure cooker as a "TRUSTED" product and claimed that it "featured a locking, air-tight lid that stays sealed under pressure for total peace-of-mind." But these promises, at least according to the Plaintiffs, were false. On the Plaintiffs' account, the Defendants' pressure cookers suffered from serious defects that caused them to explode during normal use, splashing unsuspecting customers with scorching hot food. They allege that the Defendants knew about these defects -- and, therefore, that they knew their representations about the Pressure Cooker weren't accurate. The Plaintiffs either purchased the Defendants' pressure cookers directly or else were burned while using them. The Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit "individually and as a putative nationwide class action" under FED. R. CIV. P. 23. They also seek to represent the following statewide subclasses of people who bought a Pressure Cooker: Plaintiffs Rife and Kainrath on behalf of consumers from Illinois; Plaintiff Griffin on behalf of consumers from Georgia; Plaintiff Brown on behalf of consumers from Washington; Plaintiff Casey on behalf of consumers from Florida; and Plaintiff Naegele on behalf of consumers from Michigan. Altogether, the Plaintiffs bring 19 claims: i. Breach of Express and Implied Warranties Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class) - Count I; ii. Breach of Express Warranty (on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class) - Count II; iii. Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability (on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class) - Count III; iv. Negligence (on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class) - Count IV; v. Unjust Enrichment (on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class) - Count V; vi. Strict Product Liability - Manufacturing and Design Defects and Failure to Warn (on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class) - Count VI; vii. Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) (on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class) - Count VII; viii. Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA) (on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Illinois Subclass) - Count VIII; ix. Violation of Georgia's Fair Business Practices Act (GFBPA) (O.C.G.A. Sections 10-1-390 et seq.) (on behalf of the Georgia Subclass) - Count IX; x. Violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act (WCPA) (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. Sections 19.86.010, et seq.) (on behalf of the Washington Subclass) - Count X; xi. Violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) (Mich. Comp. Laws, Sections 445.901, et seq.) (on behalf of the Michigan Subclass) - Count XI; xii. Injunctive and Declaratory Relief (on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class) - Count XII; xiii. Negligence (on behalf of Sharling Prado) - Count XIII; xiv. Negligence (on behalf of Kimberly Rife) - Count XIV; xv. Products/Strict Liability (on behalf of Sharling Prado) - Count XV; xvi. Products/Strict Liability (on behalf of Kimberly Rife) - Count XVI; xvii. Unjust Enrichment (on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class) - Count XVII; xviii. Deceptive Acts or Practices, New York Gen. Bus Law Section 349 (on behalf of Mercedes Prado) - Count XVIII; and xix. False Advertising, New York Gen. Bus. Law Section 350 (on behalf of Mercedes Prado). As redress, the Plaintiffs ask for money damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. The Defendants have filed motion to dismiss the Complaint (MTD) on two main grounds: for "lack of subject matter jurisdiction" under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1), and for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). The Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the Purchasing Plaintiffs' claims (the Defendants say) because those Plaintiffs "lack Article III constitutional standing." Specifically, the Defendants argue that the Purchasing Plaintiffs haven't suffered any "injury in fact" with respect to their "economic loss claims." They also contend that "the SAC separately fails to establish standing for injunctive relief for any Plaintiff." And they maintain that the Plaintiffs have failed to state claims: (a) for breach of express warranty under Florida law (Count II); (b) for breach of implied warranty of merchantability under Florida law (Count III); (c) under the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2301, et seq. ("MMWA") (Count I); (d) for negligence (Count IV) and strict-product liability (Count VI); (e) under any state statute (Counts VII-XI); and (f) for unjust enrichment (Count V). Regarding Article III standing for monetary damages, Judge Altman holds that the Purchasing Plaintiffs -- Kainrath, Griffin, Brown, Casey, and Naegele -- have adequately alleged Article III standing for their money-damage claims. The Purchasing Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that they suffered an injury in fact when -- based on the Defendants' misrepresentations -- they overpaid for their Pressure Cookers. The Plaintiffs thought they were buying a safe Pressure Cooker. Instead, they received a dangerous one -- with an unexpected propensity for explosion. They paid more for the Pressure Cooker than they would have had they known the truth about the Product. That's enough at this stage of the case. Judge Altman determines that the Plaintiffs have failed, though, to plausibly allege standing to seek injunctive relief. He says the Plaintiffs are fully aware that their Pressure Cookers suffer from defects. They never say that a warning would address any of their injuries; they never suggest that they intend to purchase a Pressure Cooker again in the future; and they never claim that they would avail themselves of any renewed recall the Defendants might implement. They, therefore, lack standing to pursue the injunctive relief they've requested. Turning now to the merits, Judge Altman begins with the Plaintiffs' claim for breach of an express warranty under Florida law (Count II). He denies the MTD as to Count II of the Complaint. He finds that the Plaintiffs allege that the Lid Lock Defect and the Abnormal Close Defect constitute both design and manufacturing defects. The Florida Supreme Court has said that "manufacturing flaws" come about "where products do not conform to planned specifications due to manufacturing error," while "design defects" occur "where products are produced as designed but the design itself is defective." The allegations of prior knowledge is also sufficient to get the Plaintiffs' express-warranty claim past a motion to dismiss. And, whether the Written Express Warranty failed of its essential purpose is, of course, a question of fact the Court will leave for summary judgment (or trial). With respect to the Purchasing Plaintiffs' implied-warranty claim, because the Purchasing Plaintiffs aren't in privity with the Defendants -- and because they don't qualify for one of the statutory exceptions to the privity requirement -- Judge Altman holds that their implied-warranty claim cannot proceed. The unviability of Rife's claim is even more straightforward. She's never been in privity with the Defendants -- since she never bought her Pressure Cooker from anyone -- and she has an (unchallenged) claim for strict product liability. Kramer, then, plainly bars her implied-warranty claim. As to the Plaintiffs' breach of express and implied warranties claims under the MMWA (Count I), since he denies the MTD as to Count II and granted it as to III, Judge Altman now denies the MTD in part as to that portion of Count I that's premised on an express warranty and grants in part as to that part of Count I that's based on an implied warranty. The parties stipulate that the Plaintiffs' claims under the MMWA rise and fall with their claims under Florida law. The Defendants next argue that the "economic loss doctrine" bars the Purchasing Plaintiffs' claims for negligence (Count IV) and strict-product liability (Count VI). Judge Altman grants in part the MTD with respect to the Purchasing Plaintiffs' claims for economic damages in Count IV and VI. but he denies in part that portion of Counts IV and VI that seeks money damages for Griffin's kitchen damage. He holds that (i) physical injury to third parties like Rife is insufficient to satisfy the economic loss rule exception of personal injury or damage to other property vis-à-vis the other Plaintiffs; (ii) a complaint alleging economic loss in a cause of action for strict-product liability isn't "well-pled" and must be dismissed; and (iii) since the cases is a products-liability case -- and given that the Purchasing Plaintiffs (with one exception) make no claim of personal injury or damage to other property -- the economic-loss rule bars their tort claims. All that said, Griffin does invoke the "other property" exception to the economic-loss rule, which applies to "property that is unrelated and unconnected to the product sold, and there is no privity between the owner of the property damaged and the distribution chain for the product causing the damage." This kitchen damage is sufficient -- at this stage of the case -- to satisfy the "other property" exception to the economic-loss rule. Judge Altman next addresses the Plaintiffs' claims under the FDUTPA, the ICFA, the GFBPA, the WCPA, and the MCPA. As to these claims, the Defendants move along three fronts. First, they say that the Plaintiffs failed to satisfy the heightened pleading standards that govern fraud claims under Rule 9(b). Second, they contend that the Plaintiffs failed to allege that the Defendants knew about the Pressure Cooker's defects.Third, they argue that Rife failed to allege "facts establishing that her injuries were caused by Defendants' actions subject to state consumer protection statutes." Judge Altman rejects each argument. He holds that (i) the allegations, in sum, plainly satisfy Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard; (ii) the Plaintiffs have plausibly averred that the Defendants knew about those defects given the detailed allegations that the Defendants continued selling their Pressure Cookers long after receiving detailed warnings about their Product's defects; and (iii) Rife never bargained with anyone -- or for anything -- so her right to return the Product, if that right exists at all, doesn't entitle her to the benefit of a bargain she never struck. Hence, the MTD is denied in part as it relates to the Purchasing Plaintiffs' consumer-protection claims and granted in part as to Rife's FDUTPA claim. Judge Altman concludes with the Plaintiffs' first unjust-enrichment claim (Count V). He says the allegations mirror the assertions the Purchasing Plaintiffs advanced in their express-warranty claim. And the Plaintiffs (notably) never claim that they lack an adequate remedy at law. Therefore, the MTD is granted as to Count V. After careful review and for the reasons he outlined in his Order, Judge Altman grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' MTD as follows: 1. The MTD is granted as to: a. The Plaintiffs' claim for Breach of Express and Implied Warranties under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class) - Count I - as to that part of the claim that's based on an implied warranty; b. The Plaintiffs' claim for Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability (on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class) - Count III; c. The Plaintiffs' claim for Unjust Enrichment (on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class) - Count V; d. The Plaintiffs' class claims for Negligence and for Strict Product Liability (Manufacturing and Design Defects and Failure to Warn) - as pled in Counts IV and VI - to the extent they're brought by Plaintiffs Nicolle Kainrath, Mitzi Griffin, Heather Brown, Lorrayne Casey, and Kelly Naegele for economic losses; e. The Plaintiffs' consumer-protection claims, as pled in Counts VII-XI, to the extent they're brought by Plaintiff Kimberly Rife; and f. The Plaintiffs' claim for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief (on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class)-Count XII-to the extent the claim seeks injunctive relief; 2. The MTD is denied as to: a. The Plaintiffs' claim for Breach of Express and Implied Warranties under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class) - Count I - as to that part of the claim that's based on an express warranty; b. The Plaintiffs' claim for Breach of Express Warranty (on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class) - Count II; c. The Plaintiffs' class claims for Negligence and for Strict Product Liability (Manufacturing and Design Defects and Failure to Warn) - as pled in Counts IV and VI - to the extent they're brought by Plaintiff Mitzi Griffin for other property damage; and d. The Plaintiffs' consumer-protection claims, as pled in Counts VII-XI, to the extent they're brought by all Plaintiffs other than Rife. 3. Furthermore, Counts XII (as to declaratory relief), Count XIV (Negligence - on behalf of Kimberly Rife), Count XVI (Products/Strict Liability - on behalf of Kimberly Rife), and Count XVII (Unjust Enrichment - on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class) are unchallenged and will proceed. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 30, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdezfh6z from Leagle.com. OAKCITY PROTECTION: Shaw Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Rachelle Shaw and Markell Harewood, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OAKCITY PROTECTION, LLC, ALPHA DEFENSE GROUP CORP., AUSTIN TAYLOR and JASON YOUNG, Case No. 5:22-cv-00396-M (E.D.N.C., Sept. 29, 2022), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and to seek a declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs as a result of the Defendants' policy and practice of failing to pay proper wages under the FLSA. The Plaintiffs regularly or occasionally worked over forty hours in a week. When the Defendants paid the Plaintiffs for hours worked over 40 in a week, the Defendants paid the Plaintiffs their regular rate for those hours. In other words, the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiffs an overtime premium for hours worked over forty each week. The Defendants did not pay other Security Officers an overtime premium for hours worked over forty each week. The Defendants knew or should have known that the Plaintiffs and other Security Officers worked hours over 40 in some weeks. The Defendants knew or showed reckless disregard for whether their actions violated the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as hourly-paid Security Officers. OakCity Protection, LLC, is a domestic limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Wilson, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AK 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: patrick@sanfordlawfirm.com - and - Janelle L. Cline, Esq. CLINE LAW GROUP, PLLC 6329 Oleander Drive Wilmington, NC 28403 Phone: (910) 661-2012 Facsimile: (910) 338-0557 Email: janelle.cline@clinelawgroupnc.com PEOPLES BANK: Mays Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Patrick Mays, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Peoples Bank, Case No. 22-C-51 was removed from the Nicholas County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia on Sept. 29, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00418 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Peoples Bank -- https://www.peoplesbancorp.com/ -- offers full-service banking including personal checking and savings, investments, and loans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Alexander Urban, Esq. Rodney Arthur Smith, Esq. ROD SMITH LAW 108-1/2 Capitol Street, Suite 300 Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: (304) 342-0550 Email: aurban@lawwv.com rod@LawWV.com The Defendant is represented by: Arie M. Spitz, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL P. O. Box 11887 Charleston, WV 25339-1887 Phone: (304) 357-0900 Fax: (304) 357-0919 Email: arie.spitz@dinslaw.com - and - Jordan McMinn, Esq. 209 Beauregard Street, Apartment C Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: (304) 993-2135 Email: jrmcminn@mix.wvu.edu PIPELINE SAFETY: Starr Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Stephen Starr, individually and for others similarly situated v. PIPELINE SAFETY, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-03569-JCZ-JVM (E.D. La., Sept. 30, 2022), is brought to recover the unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed to him by the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff and the other Pipeline Safety inspectors regularly work more than 40 hours in a week. But the Defendant does not pay the inspectors overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of paying overtime, the Plaintiff and the other inspectors received a daily rate with no overtime compensation. The day rate paid by the Defendant did not compensate the Plaintiff and the other inspectors on a salary basis. This class and collective action seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed to these inspectors, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from October 2018 until January 2021 as a welding inspector and a quality inspector. Pipeline Safety provides inspection services and data collection to the energy industry, including pipelines and gas plants among others.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Bohrer, Esq. Scott E. Brady, Esq. BOHRER BRADY, LLC 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Phone: (225) 925-5297 Facsimile: (225) 231-7000 Email: phil@bohrerbrady.com scott@bohrerbrady.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com PRECISION DIALOGUE: Trejo BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled JAVIER TREJO, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRECISION DIALOGUE DIRECT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2022 CH 08472, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court of Cook County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 28, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-05296 to the proceeding. The complaint alleges that Defendant violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Precision Dialogue Direct, Inc. provides advertising services. The Company offers a wide range of furnishing services for direct mail advertising such as creating, producing, and mailing of direct mail advertising. Precision Dialogue Direct operates in the United States.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Kwabena Appenteng, Esq. Orly Henry, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 321 North Clark Street, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 372-5520 E-mail: kappenteng@littler.com ohenry@littler.com - and - Patricia J. Martin, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 600 Washington Avenue, Suite 900 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 659-2000 E-mail: pmartin@littler.com PROCOLLECT INC: Shalolashvili Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against ProCollect Incorporated. The case is styled as Irakli Shalolashvili, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ProCollect Incorporated, Case No. 3:22-cv-02168-M (N.D. Tex., Sept. 29, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Procollect Inc. -- https://procollect.com/ -- is operating as a debt collection company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christofer Dean Merritt, Esq. STEIN SAKS LLC 1 University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: cmerritt@SteinSaksLegal.com PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Berger Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Claims Bureau, LLC. The case is styled as Judy Berger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Professional Claims Bureau, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-05794 (D.N.J., Sept. 30, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Professional Claims Bureau Inc. -- https://www.pcbinc.org/ -- is a collection agency located in Garden City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christofer Merritt, Esq. STEIN SAKS LLC 1 University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: cmerritt@SteinSaksLegal.com RESURGENT CAPITAL: Merced Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resurgent Capital Services L.P. The case is styled as Carlos Merced, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Resurgent Capital Services L.P., Case No. 1:22-cv-08327 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 29, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Resurgent Capital Services, LP -- https://www.resurgent.com/ -- provides financial services. The Company manages debt portfolios for credit grantors and debt buyers.[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 RHODE ISLAND CREDIT: Cassata Hits Illegal Overdraft Fees -------------------------------------------------------- MARA CASSATA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RHODE ISLAND CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00358 (D.R.I., Oct. 2, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant over the improper assessment and collection of overdraft fees on debit card transactions authorized on sufficient funds in violation of Regulation E of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and the Rhode Island Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, besides being deceptive, the practice breaches Defendant's standardized adhesion contract, which comprises the "What You Need to Know about Overdrafts and Overdraft Fees" document. The practice also breaches Defendant's duty of good faith and fair dealing, unjustly enriches Defendant to the detriment of its customers, including Plaintiff, says the suit. In addition, the Plaintiff alleges that because Defendant provided inaccurate and untruthful overdraft information to Plaintiff and the Classes regarding the overdraft practice, under Regulation E, Defendant was not authorized to assess OD Fees to consumers for debit card and non-recurring debit card charges. However, Defendant did charge its customers $35 overdraft fees for ATM and debit card charges, the Plaintiff asserts. Rhode Island Credit Union is a credit union with more than $400 million in assets, and its principal place of business is in Providence, Rhode Island.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK 1307 Chalkstone Avenue Providence, RI 02908 Telephone: (401) 831-7730 Facsimile: (401) 861-6064 E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com - and - Sophia G. Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 950 Gilman Street, Suite 200 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 280-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielgold.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq. JOHNSON FIRM 610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 372-1300 E-mail: chris@yourattorney.com tyler@yourattorney.com RUSH SYSTEM: Kurowski Alleges Medical Privacy Rights Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- MARGUERITE KUROWSKI and BRENDA MCCLENDON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RUSH SYSTEM FOR HEALTH d/b/a RUSH UNIVERSITY SYSTEM FOR HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-05380 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 30, 2022) is a class action for breach of implied duty of confidentiality and invasion of privacy, and for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant discloses Plaintiffs' and Class members' personally identifiable patient data, including their status as patients and the contents of their communications with Rush, to third parties including Facebook, Google, and a digital advertising company called "Bidtellect." Despite its ethical and legal obligations and its patients' reasonable expectations of privacy, Rush systematically violated the medical privacy rights of its patients by causing the contemporaneous unauthorized interception and transmission of personally identifiable patient data, and re-direction and disclosure of the precise content of patient communications with Rush to third parties without patient knowledge, consent, authorization, or any affirmative action, says the suit. Rush System for Health, d/b/a Rush University System for Health, is an Illinois non-profit corporation which provides health care services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. Nada Djordjevic, Esq. Sharon Cruz, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLC Ten North Dearborn St., Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 Facsimile: (312) 253-1443 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com akeller@dicellolevitt.com ndjordjevic@dicellolevitt.com scruz@dicellolevitt.com - and - David A. Straite, Esq. Corban Rhodes, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLC 485 Lexington Ave., 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 933-1000 Facsimile: (646) 494-9648 E-mail: dstraite@dicellolevitt.com crhodes@dicellolevitt.com - and - Jason Barnes, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC 112 Madison Ave., 7th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 784-6400 Facsimile: (212) 213-5949 E-mail: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com S AND L FLOWER COMPANY: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against S and L Flower Company. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. S and L Flower Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-08383 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 30, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. S and L Flower Company is a flower shop located in Scottsdale, Arizona.[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 SALTWATER INC: Norman Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- William Norman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SALTWATER, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00210-SLG (D. Alaska, Sept. 30, 2022), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Alaska Wage and Hour Act as a result of the Defendant's policy and practice of failing to pay the Plaintiff sufficient overtime wages under the FLSA and the AWHA within the applicable statutory limitations period. The Defendant misclassified the Plaintiff as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA and AWHA. The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff 1.5x his regular hourly rate for hours worked over 40 each week. The Plaintiff regularly worked over 40 hours per week during their employment with the Defendant. The Defendant was responsible for setting the Plaintiff's and other Biologists' schedule. The Defendant knew or should have known that the Plaintiff worked hours over 40 in some weeks. The Defendant has deprived the Plaintiff of wages for all hours worked, including overtime compensation for all of the hours worked over forty per week. The Defendant knew or showed reckless disregard for whether its actions violated the FLSA and the AWHA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Biologist from November of 2002 until June of 2021. The Defendant's primary business is to monitor fisheries and collect data for its customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Colby Qualls, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AK 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: colby@sanfordlawfirm.com - and - Daniel I. Pace, Esq. PACE LAW OFFICES 101 East 9th Avenue, Suite 7A Anchorage, AL 99501 Phone: (907) 222-4003 Facsimile: (907) 222-4006 Email: dan@pacelawoffices.com SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Newbery Sues Over Failure to Secure Data ------------------------------------------------------------- Jorge Newbery and Holly Ringling, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-05325 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 29, 2022), is brought arising out of the Defendant's failure to implement and maintain adequate security and safeguards with respect to its collection and maintenance of highly sensitive and confidential personal information of its customers, including name, contact and demographic information, date of birth, and product registration information. The Defendant's insufficient and unreasonable data security practices caused, facilitated, and exacerbated the data breach and its impact on Plaintiffs and Class members. By Defendant's own admission, in late July 2022, an unauthorized third party acquired information from some of Samsung's U.S. systems (the "Data Breach"). According to Defendant, on or around August 4, 2022, Defendant determined through its ongoing investigation that personal information of its customers was affected. Although Defendant identified the incident as early as August 4, 2022, Defendant did not warn those most at risk––Plaintiffs and Class members, until September 2, 2022. The Data Breach exposed Plaintiffs' and Class members' personally identifiable information to criminals, including, but not limited to, name, contact and demographic information, date of birth, and product registration information ("PII"). The PII that unauthorized persons accessed on Defendant's systems can be used by criminals alone, and in conjunction with other pieces of information, to perpetrate crimes against the Plaintiffs and Class members that can result in significant liability and damage to their money, property, creditworthiness, reputation, and their ability to pay current loans, improve their credit, and/or obtain loans on favorable terms in the future. The Plaintiffs and Class members entrusted Defendant with their sensitive PII. The Defendant understands the importance of protecting such information. The Defendant's representations concerning privacy practices and data security were false. The Defendant does not state the date that it began investigating the incident, only that on or around August 4, 2022, the Defendant determined that its customers' information was acquired in the Data Breach that occurred in late July 2022. Criminals breached the Defendant's inadequately defended systems, and accessed and acquired electronic files containing the PII of the Plaintiffs and Class members. The criminals gained unauthorized access by thwarting, circumventing, and defeating the Defendant's unreasonably deficient data security measures and protocols. Defendant did not start notifying the Plaintiffs and other Class members of the Data Breach until on or around September 2, 2022. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief in the form of compliant data security practices, full disclosure regarding the disposition of the information in the Defendant's systems, and monitoring and audits of the Defendant's security practices going forward because the Defendant continues to collect, maintain, and store the Plaintiffs' and Class members' PII, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs provide their PII to the Defendant. Samsung is a leader in the global market for high-tech computers and electronics manufacturing and digital media.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. Sharon A. Harris, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 440-0020 Email: firm@attorneyzim.com Web: www.attorneyzim.com - and - Marc E. Dann, Esq. Brian D. Flick, Esq. DANNLAW 15000 Madison Avenue Lakewood, OH 44107 Phone: (216) 373-0539 Email: notices@dannlaw.com SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Rollins Sues Over Failure to Protect PII ------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Rollins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-05767-WJM-CLW (D.N.J., Sept. 29, 2022), is brought against Defendant due to its failure to protect the sensitive and confidential Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") of millions of customers--including first and last names, dates of birth, postal addresses, precise geolocation data, email addresses, and telephone numbers. On September 2, 2022, the Plaintiff, and the public, were first notified of the data breach by Samsung and that cybercriminals had illegally accessed and stolen confidential customer data from millions of Samsung customers' accounts. In addition, the Plaintiff received an e-mail on September 2, 2022 from Samsung notifying Plaintiff that his Personally Identifiable Information was among the confidential data that cybercriminals illegally accessed and stole from Samsung's servers. As a direct and proximate result of the breach, the Plaintiff has made reasonable efforts to mitigate the impact of the breach, including but not limited to: conducting research concerning this data breach; discussing the breach with his family; reviewing credit reports and financial account statements for any indication of actual or attempted identity theft or fraud; and freezing his credit report. This is valuable time the Plaintiff otherwise could have spent on other activities. the Plaintiff is very concerned about identity theft as well as the consequences of such identity theft and fraud resulting from the data breach. the Plaintiff has received an increased number of phishing emails and spam telephone calls since July 2022, from entities including pharmacies, solar businesses, and extended warranties. Such emails and calls trick consumers into providing sensitive and valuable personal information to scammers and, in turn, increases the risk of Plaintiff suffering from monetary or identity theft, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased a Samsung Galaxy S10 device that is covered by Samsung's Manufacturer's Warranty and uses applications on his Samsung device to monitor personal and confidential health information. Samsung is "recognized globally as an industry leader in technology."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. Catherine B. Derenze, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: (973) 623-3000 Facsimile: (973) 623-0858 Email: jdepalma@litedepalma.com cderenze@litedepalma.com - and - James Pizzirusso, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th St., Ste 300 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 540-7200 Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com - and - Steven Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (646) 357-1100 Email: snathan@hausfeld.com - and - Amy Keller, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 214-7900 Email: akeller@dicellolevitt.com SENTARA RMH MEDICAL: Swartzendruber Files Suit in W.D. Virginia --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sentara RMH Medical Center, et al. The case is styled as Michael J. Swartzendruber, for himself and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Sentara RMH Medical Center, RMH Medical Group, LLC, United Healthcare Insurance Company, United Healthcare of the Mid-Atlantic, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-00055-MFU (W.D. Va., Sept. 30, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Racketeer/Corrupt Organization for Racketeering (RICO) Act. Sentara Healthcare -- https://www.sentara.com/ -- is a not-for-profit healthcare organization serving Virginia and northeastern North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Dean Domonoske, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 12515 Warwick Boulevard, Suite 201 Newport News, VA 23606 Phone: (540) 442-7706 Fax: 442-7706 Email: tom@clalegal.com - and - Timothy Earl Cupp, Esq. SHELLEY CUPP SCHULTE, P.C. 1951 Evelyn Byrd Avenue, Suite D Harrisonburg, VA 22803 Phone: (540) 432-9988 Fax: (540) 432-9557 Email: cupp@scs-work.com SHAMROCK FOODS: Valdez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled GEORGE VALDEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHAMROCK FOODS COMPANY, an Arizona Corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CVRI2203273, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Riverside to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Sept. 30, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-01719 to the proceeding. The complaint purports to state causes of action on behalf of Plaintiff and the putative class members under the California Labor Code for: (1) failure to pay meal and rest period compensation; (2) waiting time penalties; (3) failure to pay compensation for all hours worked and minimum wage violation; (4) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and (5) unfair competition pursuant to Cal. Business and Professions Code. Shamrock Foods Company produces and supplies food products.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Andrew J. Sommer, Esq. Megan S. Shaked, Esq. CONN MACIEL CAREY LLP 100 Oceangate Avenue, 12th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (415) 268-8894 Facsimile: (415) 268-8889 E-mail: asommer@connmaciel.com mshaked@connmaciel.com THULE INC: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thule, Inc. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Thule, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-08402 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Thule, Inc. -- https://www.thulegroup.com/en -- is a Swedish company that owns of a collection of brands related to outdoor and transportation products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly G. Marks, Esq. THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC 155 East 55th St., Ste. 6a New York, NY 10022 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: brad@markslawpc.com TRANSFORM SR HOLDING: Tyson Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled LARRY TYSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSFORM SR HOLDING MANAGEMENT, LLC doing business as KMART, Defendant, Case No. 2022 CH 08270, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 28, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-05282 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings federal law claims under the Video Privacy Protection Act. Transform SR Holding Management, LLC owns and operates department stores.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Kristine Rinella, Esq. Claire C. Kossmann, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 233 South Wacker Drive Suite 8000 Chicago, IL 60606-6448 Telephone: (312) 460-5000 Facsimile: (312) 460-7000 E-mail: kargentine@seyfarth.com ckossmann@seyfarth.com U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL: Telford Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ---------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Telford, an individual, and on behalf of classes of similarly situated individuals v. U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-01475-WQH-MSB (S.C. Cal., Sept. 29, 2022), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information ("PII") for past and current customers of the Defendant, including, but not limited to, name, date of birth, and driver's license number or state identification number. Prior to April 5, 2022, Defendant obtained the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, including the PII of Plaintiff, who was a customer of Defendant, and stored that PII, unencrypted, in an Internet-accessible environment on Defendant's network. On August 1, 2022, Defendant learned of a data security incident on its network (the "Data Breach"). Defendant determined that, during the Data Breach, an unknown actor compromised two unique passwords for accessing Defendant's contract search tool and accessed the contracts of Defendant's past and current customers, including Plaintiff and Class Members. On September 9, 2022, the Defendant began notifying the Plaintiff and Class Members of the Data Breach. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII of the Plaintiff and Class Members, the Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The Defendant admits that the unencrypted PII accessed by an unauthorized actor included name, date of birth, and driver's license number or state identification number. The exposed PII of the Plaintiff and Class Members can be sold on the dark web. Hackers can access and then offer for sale the unencrypted, unredacted PII to criminals. The Plaintiff and Class Members now face a lifetime risk of identity theft, which is heightened here by the loss of driver's license numbers or state identification number, and the sharing and detrimental use of their sensitive information. The PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and the failure to protect the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members. In addition to the Defendant's failure to prevent the Data Breach, Defendant waited several months after the Data Breach occurred to report it to the SEC and affected individuals. The Defendant has also purposefully maintained secret the specific vulnerabilities and root causes of the breach and has not informed the Plaintiff and Class Members of that information. As a result of this delayed response, the Plaintiff and Class Members had no idea their PII had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm, including the sharing and detrimental use of their sensitive information. The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided and entrusted Defendant with sensitive and confidential information. The Defendant is "is an American moving truck, trailer, and self-storage rental company, based in Phoenix, Arizona, that has been in operation since 1945."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. Lirit A. King, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP 31365 Oak Crest Dr., Ste. 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361-5600 Phone: 805-270-7100 Fax: 805-270-7589 Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com lking@bradleygrombacher.com UNIQLO USA: Licea Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping of Conversations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Licea, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNIQLO USA LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-01489-BEN-MSB (C.D. Cal., Oct. 2, 2022), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act as a result of the Defendant who secretly wiretaps the private conversations on its Website without warning visitors or obtaining their consent. The Defendant secretly wiretaps the private conversations of everyone who communicates through the chat feature at www.uniqlo.com (the "Website"); and allows at least one third party to eavesdrop on such communications in real time to harvest data for financial gain. The Defendant does not obtain visitors' consent to either the wiretapping or the eavesdropping. As a result, the Defendant has violated the CIPA in numerous ways. To enable the wiretapping, Defendant has covertly embedded code into its chat feature that automatically records and creates transcripts of all such conversations. To enable the eavesdropping, Defendant allows at least one independent third-party (on information and belief, "Salesforce Live Chat" and/or "LivePerson LiveChat") to secretly intercept in real time, eavesdrop upon, and store transcripts of Defendant's chat communications with unsuspecting website visitors--even when such conversations are private and deeply personal. The Defendant neither informs visitors of this conduct nor obtains their consent to these intrusions, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of California. Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company that owns, operates, and/or controls the www.uniqlo.com website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Bar No. 202091 PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com UNIVERSAL 3D INNOVATION: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Universal 3D Innovation, Inc. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Universal 3D Innovation, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-08374 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 30, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 3D innovation -- https://www.3d-innovation.com/ -- is a leading & largest manufacturer of 3D laser etched crystals.[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 WALMART INC: Brunts Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Nicholas Brunts, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Walmart Inc., Does 1 through 10, Case No. 22SL-CC03829 was removed from the Circuit Court for St. Louis County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on Sept. 29, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-01043-RWS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability for Breach of Contract. Walmart Inc. -- https://corporate.walmart.com/ -- is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets (also called supercenters), discount department stores, and grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel F. Harvath, Esq. HARVATH LAW GROUP LLC 75 W. Lockwood, Suite 1 St. Louis, MO 63119 Phone: (314) 550-3717 Email: dharvath@harvathlawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael Kevin Underhill, Esq. SHOOK HARDY LLP - San Francisco 555 Mission Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 544-1900 Fax: (415) 391-0281 Email: kunderhill@shb.com WELLS FARGO: Levin Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JON LEVIN, individually and on behalf of all others purportedly similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 30-2022-01274819-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Sept. 28, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-01777-JWH-JDE to the proceeding. The complaint asserts class claims for relief against Wells Fargo arising out of Plaintiff's employment with Wells Fargo as a Home Mortgage Consultant. Specifically, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant failed to pay proper wages and waiting time penalties. The Plaintiff also asserts breach of contract, and unjust enrichment under the California Labor Code. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. operates as a bank.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Thomas R. Kaufman, Esq. Paul Berkowitz, Esq. Raymond J. Nhan, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6055 Telephone: (310) 228-3700 Facsimile: (310) 228-3701 E-mail: tkaufman@sheppardmullin.com pberkowitz@sheppardmullin.com rnhan@sheppardmullin.com WEST VIRGINIA: Files Certiorari Bid in Child Welfare Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- JIM JUSTICE, et al. filed on September 12, 2022, a petition for writ of certiorari - which was assigned Case No. 22-240 - asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case captioned as Jim Justice, Governor of West Virginia, et al., Petitioners vs. Jonathan R., Minor, By Next Friend Sarah Dixon, et al., Case No. 21-1868. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this action, brought on behalf of thousands of West Virginia's foster children, challenges the State's administration of child welfare services. The Plaintiffs describe an ineptly structured program, beleaguered city employees trying their best to provide necessities while plagued with unmanageable caseloads, staff shortages, budgetary constraints, and the resultant tragedies for West Virginia's children relegated to entire childhoods in foster-care drift. The Plaintiffs seek, among others: increases in staffing so that caseloads do not exceed 15 children per case worker, development of detailed plans for recruiting foster homes, and prompt submissions of individualized case plans to the appropriate state court. They also propose three subclasses, to reflect foster populations they believe require more nuanced reform: A Kinship Subclass for children placed with relatives who lack resources and general know-how of raising children with developmental difficulties, an ADA Subclass for children with physical and mental disabilities, and an Aging-Out Subclass for children approaching adulthood and in need of special transition planning. They also request a neutral monitor to oversee the Department's compliance with district-court orders. The Plaintiffs clarified that they object only to Department practices that have resulted in severe delays, inadequate care, and outright abuse on grounds that they violate the Due Process Clause, the First Amendment "right to familial association," the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 670 et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12132, and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 705(20), 794. J.A. 165-74. On November 26, 2019, the Defendant moved to dismiss the case. The Defendant urged two procedural grounds: Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rooker-Feldman and Younger abstention, both on the theory that Plaintiffs impermissibly "seek federal review and ongoing oversight over" West Virginia's courts' quarterly foster-care hearings. The Defendant also argued that, substantively, all five of the Plaintiffs' counts failed to state a claim. Soon after the Defendant filed its motion, COVID-19 arrived in the United States. By the time the district court picked the motion back up in July 2021, six of the named Plaintiffs had left foster care, and the Defendant had filed additional motions to dismiss their claims as moot. The District Court sided with Defendant. Starting with mootness, the Court found "no dispute that these six Plaintiffs are no longer in the Department's custody" and so concluded they "lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the case." The Plaintiffs asked the court to consider the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception, but on court's view, the marginal probability that the six Plaintiffs would reenter foster care was not enough to qualify the claims as such. It, thus, dismissed the six Plaintiffs' claims as moot. Because six other Plaintiffs remained, the Court then turned to the Defendant's Younger contentions. It found the case to resemble Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415 (1979), where the Supreme Court abstained from resolving a foster-care dispute over parental rights. Like Moore, the case concerns "state civil proceedings that are akin to criminal prosecutions," the Court explained. And beyond the mere similarity in form, the District Court found traditional justifications for abstention compelled it to follow Moore's course. The Court, thus, granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss, without reaching the State's arguments about Rooker-Feldman or failure to state a claim and without ruling on class certification. The Plaintiffs appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit reversed the ruling saying that principles of federalism not only do not preclude federal intervention, they compel it. The Plaintiffs bring federal claims, and federal courts "are obliged to decide" them in all but "exceptional" circumstances. And the case presents none of those circumstances. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit remanded the case so that the District Court can consider the Defendant's substantive arguments for dismissal and, if appropriate, the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. [BN] Defendants-Petitioners JIM JUSTICE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Lindsay Sara See, Esq. Office of the West Virginia Attorney General State Capitol Complex Building 1, Room E-26 Charleston, WV 25305 E-mail: lindsay.s.see@wvago.gov Plaintiffs-Respondents JONATHAN R., et al., are represented by: Kelsi Brown Corkran, Esq. Institute for Constitutional Advocacy & Protection 600 New Jersey Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20001 E-mail: kbc74@georgetown.edu [*] 1st Annual Complex Litigation Ethics Conference - Register Now ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Center For Litigation and Courts, UC Hastings Law, and Huntington National Bank invite you to the first annual Complex Litigation Ethics Conference. This program will bring together luminaries in the field -- judges, scholars, lawyers, and others -- to discuss a cutting-edge topic that is of critical importance to our justice system. The event will be held on campus and virtually on Saturday, October 22, 2022, from 8:45 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. Pacific Time at UC Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. 7.0 Ethics CLE Credits are available. Expert panelists will discuss important industry topics including: * Adapting Ethics to Complex Litigation * Ethics in Funding Complex Litigation * Diversity, Equity, and Inclusivity in Complex Litigation * Communications with Absent Class Members The program will also include a special presentation of an inaugural Annual Award for Excellence in Ethics in Complex Litigation. The honoree will be recognized for accomplishments in promoting ethics in class actions, MDLs, or other complex litigation. Capacity is limited, so please register today at https://bit.ly/3rpycs7 View the agenda at https://bit.ly/3Cv2tMv ********* 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 ***