/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 ***