/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230505.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, May 5, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 91
Headlines
17 EDUCATION: Continues to Defend Zhang Securities Class Suit
3M COMPANY: Cox Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Crawford Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Desoto Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Elliott Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Frazier Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
A1 PROTECTIVE: Jones Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ADT PIZZA: Seeks More Time to File Conditional Cert Bid Response
ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN LP: Continues to Defend ERISA Class Suit in NY
AMEC FOSTER: Filing of Class Status Bid Due August 25
AMERICAN WATER: Continues to Defend Jeffries Class Suit
ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Continues to Defend Javelin Consolidated Suit
BELLS EMPLOYMENT: Faces Owens Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
BHP BILLINGTON: Bid to Quash Rule 30 Subpoena Tossed in Pennington
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Lead Plaintiff Files Bid for Class Certification
CARRIER GLOBAL: Dismissal of Darnis Suit Under Appeal
CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Wilson Class Cert. Bid Referred to Mag. Judge
CENTERRA GROUP: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Lamas, Daboub Claim
CEREBRAL INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Thomas Suit Alleges
CIGNA CORP: Amara Files Writ of Certiorari in ERISA Suit
CITADEL SALISBURY: Hooker, et al., Lose Class Certification Bid
COMERICA BANK: Faces Sparkman Suit Over Uncredited Stolen Funds
COMMUNITY PROVIDER: Faces Bennetti Suit Over ERISA Violations
CORECIVIC INC: Barrientos, et al., Seek to Unseal Restricted Docs
CORTEVA INC: Class Cert Bid Denied as Moot in Cockerill Action
CORTEVA INC: Cockerill Suit Seeks Class Certification
CSX CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Antitrust Class Suits
DAVITA INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bowling Suit Alleges
ESSEX COUNTY, NJ: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought
ESTEE LAUDER: Faces Licea Suit Over Live Chat Recording
FLORIDA POWER: Velez Trial Set for November 2023
FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Class Cert Response in Eubanks Suit Due May 8
FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Class Cert Response in Flowers Suit Due May 8
FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Class Cert Response in Oliger Suit Due May 8
FORD MOTOR: Deadline to File Class Certification Bid Vacated
GEICO GENERAL: Deadline to Submit Joint Status Report Extended
GEICO: Hart, et al., Must File Class Cert Bid by May 22
GOYA FOODS: Mejias Must File Class Certification Bid by June 20
GRAB HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit
GRAPEVINE OF NORTH: Collective Action Settlement Gets Final Nod
HAYT HAYT: Pinson Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practice
HESAI GROUP: Pacella Securities Class Suit Ongoing in E.D.N.Y.
HIPHUGGER LLC: Faces Frazier Suit Over Worker Misclassification
HOP ENERGY: Filing of Prelim. Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 19
HORIZON BANCORP: Key Sues Over Misleading Financial Statements
IT'S JUST LUNCH: Hearing on Class Status Bid Set for June 5
JACK RABBIT: Zakheim Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
JANUS HOMECARE: Fails to Pay Overtime Premiums, Garcia Suit Claims
JASON LEWIS: Godwin Class Cert. Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
JUBILANT HOLLISTERSTIER: Goodard Suit Remanded to Wash. Super. Ct.
KIRKLAND LAKE: May 22 Extension to File Class Cert Reply Sought
KNIGHT HAWK: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Dye Suit Alleges
KPC HEALTHCARE: Gamino Appeals Summary Judgment in ERISA Suit
LINKEDIN CORP: Court Junks Easterbrook Class Suit
MDL 2936: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Eight Focused-State Classes
MENZIES AVIATION: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due May 22
METROPOLITAN LIFE: McHugh Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial
N. FRANCOWITZ INC: Gomez Sues Over Wrongful Termination
NATURAL ENERGY: Hartley Seeks Proper OT Pay for Welding Inspectors
NORTH MISSISSIPPI: Wood Case Removed from July 2023 Trial Calendar
NORTHEAST WORK: Obermeier Files Bid for Conditional Certification
PAYSIGN INC: Discovery Plan Denied w/o Prejudice in Shi Class Suit
PER SE GROUP: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Lambert Suit Alleges
POINT PICKUP: Medeiros Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration
PROMEDICA HEALTH: Wisner Sues Over Therapists' Unpaid Overtime
RAEL INC: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 18
RECEIVABLE PERFORMANCE: Powers Must File Class Cert Bid by June 2
RYDER: Securities Suit Discovery Ongoing, Trial Starts June 2024
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA: Leave to File Docs Under Seal Approved
SELECT REHABILITATION: Court Modifies Classes in McLaughlin Suit
SMITTY'S SUPPLY: Plaintiffs Allowed to File Exhibits Under Seal
ST. LOUIS, MO: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
STATE FARM: Baldwin Seeks to Amend First Amended Complaint
STOP & SHOP: Wipes' Flushable Label "Misleading," Schotte Claims
TALLGRASS ENERGY: Fails to Properly Pay Workers, Rivera Suit Says
TAMKO BUILDING: Seeks to Seal Confidential Materials
TEAM ENTERPRISES: Cipolla Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes
TEGRIA HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Chery Alleges
TORRANCE MEMORIAL: Appeals Remand Order in Heard Suit
TRANSPERFECT TRANSLATIONS: Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class
TRINET GROUP: Continues to Defend ERISA Class Suit in Florida
TRINSEO PLC: Helfrich Sues Over Alleged Securities Law Violations
TRUE RENEWABLE: Frias Sues Over Illegal Recording of Phone Calls
UNION PACIFIC: Continues to Defend Fleury Class Suit
UNITED PARCEL: Court Narrows Claims in Goins Class Action
UNITED SERVICES: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by August 10
UNITED STATES: Court Tosses Bran's Bid to Appoint Counsel
UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Ninivaggi
VERIZON COMM: Portions of Jacobs Summary Judgment Papers Stricken
VERMONT MUTUAL: Martins Appeals Case Dismissal to 1st Cir.
VOYAGER 888: Allowed Leave to Correct Opposition Inaccuracies
WAKE FOREST: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due May 26
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: May 8 Extension to File Reply Brief Sought
WELLPET LLC: Brown Bid for Class Certification Denied w/o Prejudice
WEST HILLS : Faces Glahn Suit Over Securities Law Violations
WEST TECHNOLOGY: Petersen Sues Over Compromised Customers' Info
WOW RESTAURANT: Chen Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Domtar Corp. Defends Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Faces Product Liability Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Whittaker Clark Files Ch. 11 After Deluge of Suits
*********
17 EDUCATION: Continues to Defend Zhang Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
17 Education & Technology Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F
Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Zhang securities class
suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.
The Company and certain of its officers and directors have been
named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on
July 19, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, captioned Zhang v. 17 Educ. & Tech. Grp. Inc. et
al,. No. 2:22-cv-04937. The action was purportedly brought on
behalf of a class of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a
result of alleged misstatements and omissions in the Company's IPO
prospectus and registration statement, allegedly in violation of
the Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of
1933. On October 24, 2022, the Court appointed Lead Plaintiffs and
Lead Counsel.
On November 18, 2022, the case was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption Zhang
v. 17 Educ. & Tech. Grp. Inc. et al,. No. 1:22-cv-09843.
On January 31, 2023, Lead Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint.
The Company filed its motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
March 31, 2023.
The case remains in its preliminary stage. The Company is currently
unable to estimate the outcome of this lawsuit or any possible loss
or range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution thereof.
In the event that the Company's initial defense of this case is
unsuccessful, there can be no assurance that it will prevail in any
appeal. It may also face new legal proceedings, claims and
investigations in the future.
The existence of such cases and any adverse outcome of these cases,
including any plaintiff's appeal of a judgment, could have a
material adverse effect on our business, reputation, financial
condition, results of operations, cash flows as well as the trading
price of our ADSs. Resolution of these matters may utilize a
significant portion of its cash resources and divert management's
attention from the day-to-day operations of our company, all of
which could harm its business.
17 Education & Technology Group Inc. is an education technology
company in the People's Republic of China which provides K-12
education services.[BN]
3M COMPANY: Cox Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Cox, and other similarly situated 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.); Case No. 2:23-cv-01280-RMG (D.S.C., March 31,
2023), is brought for 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"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. 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, the 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 binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. 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.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff 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.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
with 3M and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of
exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: 205-879-5000
Facsimile: 205-879-5901
3M COMPANY: Crawford Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Crawford, and other similarly situated 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.); Case No. 2:23-cv-01281-RMG (D.S.C., March 31,
2023), is brought for 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"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. 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, the 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 binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. 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.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff 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.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: 205-879-5000
Facsimile: 205-879-5901
3M COMPANY: Desoto Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
--------------------------------------------------------
Donald Desoto, and other similarly situated 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.); Case No. 2:23-cv-01283-RMG (D.S.C., March 31,
2023), is brought for 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"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. 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, the 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 binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. 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.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff 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.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: 205-879-5000
Facsimile: 205-879-5901
3M COMPANY: Elliott Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------
Tricia Talley Elliott as, Personal
Representative/Administrator/Executor of the Estate of Raymond
Houston Elliot II, deceased, and other similarly situated 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.); Case No. 2:23-cv-01271-RMG
(D.S.C., March 31, 2023), is brought for 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"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. 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, the 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 binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. 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.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff 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.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is the duly-appointed personal
representative/administrator/executor of the Estate of Raymond
Houston Elliot II. Decedent regularly used, and was thereby
directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires
during his working career as a military and/or civilian
firefighter. Prior to death, Decedent was diagnosed with pancreatic
cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products.
Decedent's diagnosis caused and/or contributed to his death.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Frazier Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------
Delbert Frazier, and other similarly situated 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.); Case No. 2:23-cv-01293-RMG (D.S.C., March 31,
2023), is brought for 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"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. 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, the 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 binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. 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.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff 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.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
kidney cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: 205-879-5000
Facsimile: 205-879-5901
A1 PROTECTIVE: Jones Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A1 Protective
Services LLC. The case is styled as JOHN RUDY JONES JR., on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public, Plaintiff v. A1 PROTECTIVE SERVICES LLC and DOES
1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC23606029 (Cal. Super.,
April 24, 2023).
The suit is brought as class action under other non exempt
complaints type.
A1 Protective Service Inc. is a privately held company in San
Diego, California, categorized under guard and protection
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Otkupman, Esq.
OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC
5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 123
Westlake Village, CA 91362-7310
Telephone: (818) 293-5623
Facsimile: (888) 850-1310
E-mail: roman@olfla.com
ADT PIZZA: Seeks More Time to File Conditional Cert Bid Response
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FAIQA MIRZAI, et al., V.
ADT PIZZA LLC, et al, Case No. 3:23-cv-00124-RNC (D. Conn.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion
for a second extension of time through and including May 8, 2023,
within which to respond to plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective
Action.
The plaintiffs have brought an action against the defendants
alleging a willful failure to compensate them and similarly
situated individuals with minimum wages as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and unjust enrichment.
The allegations in the Complaint are directed at 180 Pizza Hut
franchises owned and operated by the defendants in nine states,
(Texas, Louisiana, Ohio, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida).
A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LBO3yA at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Richard J. Buturla, Esq.
BERCHEM MOSES PC
75 Broad Street
Milford, CT 06460
Telephone: (203) 783-1200
Facsimile: (203) 878-2235
E-mail: rbuturla@berchemmoses.com
ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN LP: Continues to Defend ERISA Class Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
AllianceBernstein LP disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend Itself from the ERISA class suit in the the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
On December 14, 2022, four individual participants in the Profit
Sharing Plan for Employees of AllianceBernstein L.P., (the "Plan")
filed a class action complaint (the "Complaint") in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against AB,
current and former members of the Compensation Committee, and the
Investment and Administrative Committees under the Plan.
Plaintiffs, who seek to represent a class of all participants in
the Plan from December 14, 2016 to the present, allege that
defendants violated their fiduciary duties and engaged in
prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), by including
proprietary collective investment trusts as investment options
offered under the Plan.
The Complaint seeks unspecified damages, disgorgement and other
equitable relief. AB is prepared to defend itself vigorously
against these claims.
AllianceBernstein provides investment management and research
services.[BN]
AMEC FOSTER: Filing of Class Status Bid Due August 25
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lisa A. Wadley v. AMEC
Foster Wheeler USA Corporation, et al., Case No.
5:23-cv-00224-SSS-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine S. Sykes
entered a scheduling order regarding the parties' joint 26(f)
report [dkt. 24] and class
certification motion and hearing deadlines:
The Court has reviewed the Parties' Joint Rule 26(f) Report and
Discovery Plan. The Court sets the deadlines below for the
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and will set a case
management conference regarding the remaining deadlines after the
Court decides Plaintiff’s Class Certification Motion.
Event Deadline
-- Deadline to Complete Class Aug. 25, 2023
Certification Discovery:
-- Deadline to File Motion for Class Aug. 25, 2023
Certification:
-- Deadline to File Opposition to Oct. 27, 2023
Motion for Class Certification:
-- Deadline to File Reply to Motion Nov. 17, 2023
for Class Certification:
-- Class Certification Hearing Dec. 15, 2023
Amec Foster was a British multinational consultancy, engineering
and project management company headquartered in London, United
Kingdom.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VaHYfH at no extra charge.[CC]
AMERICAN WATER: Continues to Defend Jeffries Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
American Water Works Co. Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Jeffries class suit in
the West Virginia Circuit Court in Kanawha Count.
On the evening of June 23, 2015, a 36-inch pre-stressed concrete
transmission water main, installed in the early 1970s, failed. The
water main is part of the West Relay pumping station located in the
City of Dunbar, West Virginia and owned by the Company's West
Virginia subsidiary ("WVAWC"). The failure of the main caused water
outages and low pressure for up to approximately 25,000 WVAWC
customers. In the early morning hours of June 25, 2015, crews
completed a repair, but that same day, the repair developed a leak.
On June 26, 2015, a second repair was completed and service was
restored that day to approximately 80% of the impacted customers,
and to the remaining approximately 20% by the next morning. The
second repair showed signs of leaking, but the water main was
usable until June 29, 2015, to allow tanks to refill. The system
was reconfigured to maintain service to all but approximately 3,000
customers while a final repair was being completed safely on June
30, 2015. Water service was fully restored by July 1, 2015, to all
customers affected by this event.
On June 2, 2017, a complaint captioned Jeffries, et al. v. West
Virginia-American Water Company was filed in West Virginia Circuit
Court in Kanawha County on behalf of an alleged class of residents
and business owners who lost water service or pressure as a result
of the Dunbar main break.
The complaint alleges breach of contract by WVAWC for failure to
supply water, violation of West Virginia law regarding the
sufficiency of WVAWC's facilities and negligence by WVAWC in the
design, maintenance and operation of the water system.
The Jeffries plaintiffs seek unspecified alleged damages on behalf
of the class for lost profits, annoyance and inconvenience, and
loss of use, as well as punitive damages for willful, reckless and
wanton behavior in not addressing the risk of pipe failure and a
large outage.
In February 2020, the Jeffries plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
class certification on the issues of breach of contract and
negligence, and to determine the applicability of punitive damages
and a multiplier for those damages if imposed.
In July 2020, the Circuit Court entered an order granting the
Jeffries plaintiffs' motion for certification of a class regarding
certain liability issues but denying certification of a class to
determine a punitive damages multiplier.
In August 2020, WVAWC filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition in
the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia seeking to vacate or
remand the Circuit Court's order certifying the issues class.
In January 2021, the Supreme Court of Appeals remanded the case
back to the Circuit Court for further consideration in light of a
decision issued in another case relating to the class certification
issues raised on appeal.
On July 5, 2022, the Circuit Court entered an order again
certifying a class to address at trial certain liability issues but
not to consider damages.
On August 26, 2022, WVAWC filed another Petition for Writ of
Prohibition in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
challenging the West Virginia Circuit Court's July 5, 2022 order.
The Writ Petition has been supported by an amicus brief filed by
certain water and utility industry trade groups.
On February 9, 2023, the Supreme Court of Appeals accepted the Writ
Petition by issuing a Rule to Show Cause and scheduling oral
argument for April 26, 2023.
The Company and WVAWC believe that WVAWC has valid, meritorious
defenses to the claims raised in this class action complaint.
WVAWC is vigorously defending itself against these allegations.
American Water Works company, Inc. is a water and wastewater
utility company based in New Jersey.
ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Continues to Defend Javelin Consolidated Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Armour Residential REIT Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Javelin consolidated
class suits in Maryland court.
Nine putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection
with the tender offer (the "Tender Offer") and merger (the
"Merger") for JAVELIN. The Tender Offer and Merger are collectively
defined herein as the "Transactions." All nine suits name ARMOUR,
the previous members of JAVELIN’s board of directors prior to the
Merger (of which eight are current members of ARMOUR's board of
directors) (the "Individual Defendants") and JMI Acquisition
Corporation ("Acquisition") as defendants. Certain cases also name
ACM and JAVELIN as additional defendants. The lawsuits were brought
by purported holders of JAVELIN’s common stock, both individually
and on behalf of a putative class of JAVELIN's stockholders,
alleging that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties owed to the plaintiffs and the putative class of JAVELIN
stockholders, including claims that the Individual Defendants
failed to properly value JAVELIN; failed to take steps to maximize
the value of JAVELIN to its stockholders; ignored or failed to
protect against conflicts of interest; failed to disclose material
information about the Transactions; took steps to avoid competitive
bidding and to give ARMOUR an unfair advantage by failing to
adequately solicit other potential acquirors or alternative
transactions; and erected unreasonable barriers to other
third-party bidders.
The suits also allege that ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and Acquisition
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
Individual Defendants. The lawsuits seek equitable relief,
including, among other relief, to enjoin consummation of the
Transactions, or rescind or unwind the Transactions if already
consummated, and award costs and disbursements, including
reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses. The sole Florida lawsuit
was never served on the defendants, and that case was voluntarily
dismissed and closed on January 20, 2017.
On April 25, 2016, the Maryland court issued an order consolidating
the eight Maryland cases into one action, captioned In re JAVELIN
Mortgage Investment Corp. Shareholder Litigation (Case No.
24-C-16-001542), and designated counsel for one of the Maryland
cases as interim lead co-counsel.
On May 26, 2016, interim lead counsel filed the Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
asserting consolidated claims of breach of fiduciary duty, aiding
and abetting the breaches of fiduciary duty, and waste.
On June 27, 2016, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for failing to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.
A hearing was held on the Motion to Dismiss on March 3, 2017, and
the Court reserved ruling.
The Court has deferred ruling on the Motion to Dismiss several
times.
On October 25, 2022, the court deferred the Order of Dismissal
until May 1, 2023, and if the case is not fully disposed of by that
date, the clerk shall enter on the docket "dismissed for lack of
prosecution without prejudice."
Each of ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and the Individual Defendants intends
to defend the claims made in these lawsuits vigorously; however,
there can be no assurance that any of ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM or the
Individual Defendants will prevail in its defense of any of these
lawsuits to which it is a party.
Armour Residential REIT, Inc. is an investment advisor based in
Maryland.
BELLS EMPLOYMENT: Faces Owens Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
COREY OWENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BELLS EMPLOYMENT AGENCY, INC. d/b/a BELLS
STAFFING SERVICES and BELLS HOMECARE, INC. d/b/a BELLS STAFFING
SERVICES, Defendants, Case No. 708667/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens
Cty., April 26, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
failure to pay wages for all hours worked in violation of the New
York State Labor Law, the New York Code of Rules and Regulations,
the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act, and the New York City
Administrative Code.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt hourly
employee from approximately March 2022 through April 2023.
Bells Employment Agency, Inc., doing business as Bells Staffing
Services, is a staffing agency based in New York, New York.
Bells Homecare, Inc., doing business as Bells Staffing Services, is
a staffing agency based in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Gaylord, Esq.
BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP
357 Veterans Memorial Highway
Commack, NY 11725
Telephone: (516) 742-4949
E-mail: mark@bglawny.com
BHP BILLINGTON: Bid to Quash Rule 30 Subpoena Tossed in Pennington
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAN LARRY PENNINGTON, et
al, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Others Similarly
Situated v. BHP BILLINGTON PETROLEUM (FAYETTEVILLE) LLC, AND MMGJ
ARKANSAS UNSTREAM, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-00178-LPR (E.D. Ark.), the
Court entered an order denying Flywheel's motion to quash or modify
the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition subpoena.
The Court said, "Flywheel does not claim that plaintiff seeks
information that is privileged; it claims instead that providing
testimony regarding subject matters 6 – 15 would subject it to an
undue burden. The Court does not doubt that compliance with the
subpoena would be burdensome and gives special weight to this
factor in evaluating whether the subpoena should be quashed or
modified."
However, the Court also believes that the requested information is
relevant as defined with regard to discovery issues. Additionally,
it is undisputed that Flywheel is the only entity that can provide
the requested information – plaintiff cannot obtain such
information from any other source. The Plaintiff, who has the
burden of proof, represents that the requested information is
necessary to prove damages suffered by the thousands of putative
plaintiffs and to address defenses asserted by the defendants.
The Plaintiff also represents that the estimated underpayment of
royalties amounts to more than twenty million dollars. The Court is
convinced that the requested discovery is important and necessary
for the plaintiff to be able to determine damages for the putative
class members, and that the heavy burden of compliance on Flywheel
is outweighed by its likely benefit.
Flywheel is the operator of the natural gas wells in issue in this
litigation and has been since 2019. Flywheel has been and is
responsible for producing, marketing, and selling the natural gas
produced from these wells.
The Plaintiff is seeking class certification on behalf of other
similarly situated lessors.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Liveiu at no extra charge.[CC]
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Lead Plaintiff Files Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Boston Scientific Corporation
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:20-cv-12225-DPW (D. Mass.), the
Lead Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying this action to proceed as a class action pursuant
to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule) 23(a) and 23(b)(3);
2. appointing Lead the Plaintiff as Class Representative; and
3. appointing Lead Counsel Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g).
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 21, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oTnVXe at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq.
Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
Michael D. Blatchley, Esq.
Lauren A. Ormsbee, Esq.
Alexander T. Payne, Esq.
Emily A. Tu, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER &
GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
E-mail: salvatore@blbglaw.com
markl@blblgaw.com
michaelb@blbglaw.com
lauren@blbglaw.com
alex.payne@blbglaw.com
emily.tu@blbglaw.com
- and -
T. Christopher Donnelly, Esq.
Peter E. Gelhaar, Esq.
Peter K. Levitt, Esq.
DONNELLY, CONROY & GELHAAR LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1600
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 720-2880
Facsimile: (617) 720-3554
E-mail: tcd@dcglaw.com
peg@dcglaw.com
pkl@dcglaw.com
CARRIER GLOBAL: Dismissal of Darnis Suit Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------
Carrier Global Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2023, that oral arguments on
appeal for the Darnis class suit is set for June 29, 2023 before
the Second Circuit.
On August 12, 2020, several former employees of UTC or its
subsidiaries filed a putative class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut against
Raytheon Technologies Corporation, Carrier, Otis Worldwide
Corporation, the former members of the UTC Board of Directors and
the members of the Carrier and Otis Boards of Directors (Geraud
Darnis, et al. v. Raytheon Technologies Corporation, et al.).
The Complaint challenged the method by which UTC equity awards were
converted to UTC, Carrier and Otis equity awards following the
Separation and the Distribution.
Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint.
Plaintiffs amended their Complaint on September 13, 2021 (the
"Amended Complaint").
The Amended Complaint, with Raytheon, Carrier and Otis as the only
defendants, asserted that the defendants are liable for breach of
certain equity compensation plans and for breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
The Amended Complaint also sought specific performance.
The Company believes all plaintiffs' claims against it are without
merit.
Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint.
On September 30, 2022, the court dismissed the case against all
defendants, with prejudice.
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Oral arguments on the appeal is scheduled to occur before the
Second Circuit on June 29, 2023.
Carrier Global Corporation is a provider of building and cold chain
solutions based in Florida.
CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Wilson Class Cert. Bid Referred to Mag. Judge
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wilson, et al., v. Centene
Management Company, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00484 (W.D. Tex.,
Filed May 5, 2020), the Hon. Judge Robert Pitman entered an order
referring the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class to United States
Magistrate Judge Dustin Howell for a report and recommendation
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(B), Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72, and Rule 1(d) of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
The nature of suit states Diversity-Insurance Contract
Centene is a managed care company based in St. Louis,
Missouri.[CC]
CENTERRA GROUP: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Lamas, Daboub Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAMIRO LAMAS and SELIN DABOUB, on behalf of themselves all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CENTERRA GROUP, LLC; CENTERRA
INTEGRATED FLEET SERVICES, LLC; CONSTELLIS HOLDINGS, LLC; and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02984 (C.D.
Cal., April 20, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, and the
California Business and Professions Code.
Plaintiff Lamas was employed by the Defendants as an automotive
mechanic from approximately Nov. 1, 2021, to April 29, 2022, in
Santa Clarita, California. On the other hand, Plaintiff Daboub was
employed by Defendants as a lead technician from approximately Nov.
1, 2021, to Aug. 1, 2022, in Lancaster, California. Allegedly, the
Defendants violated the federal and state laws by, among other
things, failing to pay all overtime wages owed to Plaintiffs and
failing to provide and make available meal periods and true and
accurate itemized wage statements, says the Plaintiff.
Centerra Group is part of the safety and security services
industry. Centerra Group provides companies with which it contracts
across the U.S., including California, with services including,
inter alia, fire and emergency services, facilities management,
de-mining, and armed and unarmed security services. It is the
parent company of Centerra Integrated, which provides automotive
mechanical and electrical repair and maintenance services. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
Ori Edelstein, Esq.
Philippe Gaudard, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
pgaudard@schneiderwallace.com
CEREBRAL INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Thomas Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHERRI THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CEREBRAL INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-03086-GW-RAO (C.D. Cal., April 24, 2023) is an action
against the Defendant for its unauthorized transmission and
disclosure of the Plaintiff's and the Class's highly sensitive and
confidential personally identifiable information ("PII") and
protected health information ("PHI") (collectively referred to
herein as "Private Information") to Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta
("Facebook") and/or Google LLC d/b/a Google ("Google") and/or
TikTok Inc. ("TikTok") via a tracking pixel (the "Tracking Pixel"
or "Pixel") installed on Defendant's website, www.cerebral.com (the
"Website"), which the Defendant owns and controls.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that despite the Defendant's
acknowledgment that it would not share Plaintiff's and Class
Members' Private Information, Defendant, in fact, did share
Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information via the Pixel.
Specifically, the Defendant transmitted and disclosed Plaintiff's
and Class Members' Private Information to third parties, like
Facebook, Google, and TikTok, without Plaintiff's and Class
Members' consent or written permission, says the suit.
CEREBRAL INC. provides health care software solutions. The Company
offers platform which gives access to on-demand mental health and
wellness support which includes behavioral health coaching, talk
therapy, medication management, and personalized content. Cerebral
serves patients in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kyle McLean, Esq.
Mason A. Barney, Esq.
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
700 S. Flower Street, Ste. 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: 213-376-3739
Email: kmclean@sirillp.com
mbarney@sirillp.com
tbean@sirillp.com
CIGNA CORP: Amara Files Writ of Certiorari in ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Janice C. Amara, et al., filed with the Supreme Court of
United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
styled Janice C. Amara, et al., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Petitioners vs. Cigna Corporation, et
al., Respondent, Case No. 22-999.
Response is due on May 15, 2023.
The Plaintiffs petition for a writ of certiorari to review the
judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit in the case titled Amara, et al. v. CIGNA Corporation, Case
Nos. 20-202, 20-3219. This petition arises from the District
Court's Ruling Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Accounting dated
August 6, 2020, and Order Denying Motion for Clarification dated
September 10, 2020.
This case began in 2001 when Plaintiff Janet C. Amara, on behalf of
herself and those similarly situated, brought suit against
Defendants Cigna Corporation and the Cigna Pension Plan
(collectively, "Cigna"), alleging that they had violated the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 when switching from
a defined benefit pension plan ("Part A") to a cash balance plan
("Part B"). Among the remedies requested was the appointment of a
class action administrator or special master "to oversee
implementation of remedies, with authority to make an accounting
and take necessary steps to bring the Plan into compliance" and the
ordering of an accounting of "over 9,700 participant records."
The Plaintiffs seek an "accounting by the Cigna Defendants" to both
the class and the Court "showing that the Cigna Defendants have
fully satisfied the judgment entered against them." The Plaintiffs
assert that an "accounting is required in equity for the discharge
of fiduciary duties." In their reply brief, Plaintiffs elaborate
that they need not show that Defendant breached some duty, as the
"fiduciary has an independent duty to account." The Plaintiffs also
assert that an accounting is appropriate here, because "even though
there are at least $112 million in unpaid retirement benefits, the
fiduciaries are only providing information related to
implementation to entities and persons to whom no fiduciary duties
are owed while refusing to supply the same information to the trust
beneficiaries."[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners Janice C. Amara, individually,
and on behalf of other similarly situated, et al., are represented
by:
Christopher J. Wright, Esq.
HWG LLP
1919 M Street NW, Fl. 8
Washington, DC 20036
E-mail: cwright@hwglaw.com
CITADEL SALISBURY: Hooker, et al., Lose Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SONYA HOOKER, SYBIL
RUMMAGE, DONNA DEAL, KENNETH MICHAEL DEAL, and BETTY DEAL,
individually and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated,
v. THE CITADEL SALISBURY LLC, SALISBURY TWO NC PROPCO LLC,
ACCORDIUS HEALTH LLC, THE PORTOPICCOLO GROUP, LLC, SIMCHA HYMAN,
and NAFTALI ZANZIPER, Case No. 1:21-cv-00384-TDS-JLW (M.D.N.C.),
the Hon. Judge Thomas D. Schroeder entered an order denying the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification:
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs present a sympathetic case that
elderly residents of a skilled nursing facility were subjected to
deficient service, contrary to that for which they allegedly
contracted. Whatever difficulties The Citadel experienced,
moreover, may well have been exacerbated during the Covid-19
pandemic, which inflicted a particularly severe toll on congregate
managed care facilities. However, Plaintiffs' uniquely tailored
claim for damages for breach of contract based on aggregate
staffing hours is not readily amenable to class relief."
This class action lawsuit, in which Plaintiffs seek damages arising
out of alleged nursing home understaffing prior to and through the
COVID-19 pandemic, returns to the court on Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3) and, alternatively, Rule 23(c)(4).
The Plaintiffs are former residents of The Citadel Salisbury
nursing home: Sybil Rummage, along with her sponsor, Sonya Hooker;
and Betty Deal, along with her sponsors Donna Deal and Kenneth
Michael Deal.
According to the amended complaint, the Plaintiffs Rummage and Deal
were residents of a nursing home facility located at 710 Julian
Road. Prior to 2020, when each Plaintiff entered the facility, it
was known as "Salisbury Center" and was owned and operated by
Genesis
Healthcare.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 20, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LaIsxT at no extra charge.[CC]
COMERICA BANK: Faces Sparkman Suit Over Uncredited Stolen Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
PAULA SPARKMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COMERICA BANK and CONDUENT BUSINESS
SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-02028-DMR (N.D. Cal.,
April 26, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and the California
Unfair Competition Law and for breach of contract.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and other
Californians who have reported unauthorized transactions but have
not received those funds back because the Defendants could not
confirm the fraud occurred based on shoddy investigation practices
and failure to communicate effectively with account holders who
dispute unauthorized charges. The Defendants promised that
Mastercard's Zero Liability Protection assures account holders do
not lose any funds if card is lost or stolen. However, when Ms.
Sparkman promptly reported her card stolen, the Defendants denied
her claim because they could not confirm the fraud occurred and
claimed to have received conflicting information. The Defendants
have not credited any of the stolen funds back to Ms. Sparkman's
account, the Plaintiff asserts.
Comerica Bank is a Texas state chartered commercial bank, with its
corporate headquarters in Dallas, Texas.
Conduent Business Services, LLC is a business process outsourcing
(BPO) solutions company, with its corporate headquarters in Florham
Park, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
Blythe H. Chandler, Esq.
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103-8869
Telephone: (206) 816-6603
Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
bchandler@terrellmarshall.com
- and -
Sophia M. Rios, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
401 B. Street, Suite 2000
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 489-0300
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: srios@bm.net
- and -
Daniel A. Schlanger, Esq.
SCHLANGER LAW GROUP LLP
80 Broad Street, Suite 1301
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 500-6114
Facsimile: (646) 612-7996
E-mail: dschlanger@consumerprotection.net
COMMUNITY PROVIDER: Faces Bennetti Suit Over ERISA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT BENNETTI; LINDA MARIANO; and LINKI PEDDY, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MARK G.
MONSON; DAVID JOHNSON; DOUGLAS ZIMMERMAN; ALBERTO J. TARAJANO; and
DOES 1-25, Defendants, and COMMUNITY PROVIDER OF ENRICHMENT
SERVICES, INC. EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN AND TRUST, Nominal
Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00193-RCC (D. Ariz., April 24, 2023)
alleges violation of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974.
This class action complaint for Violation of ERISA arises out of
information that Plaintiffs and 92 other Community Provider of
Enrichment Services, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan and Trust
(the "CPES ESOP" or the "Plan") participants learned during the
CPES Bankruptcy Proceeding, namely, that the valuation of CPESAZ
Liquidating, Inc. ("CPES-AZ") and the CPES ESOP's assets as of
December 31, 2018, was improperly and intentionally inflated,
contained mistakes, inappropriately changed valuation methodologies
and instead used incorrect valuation methodologies, and was
incorrect and that, as a result, distributions to certain CPES ESOP
participants were made at improperly inflated values, to the
detriment of the CPES ESOP, says the suit.
Also, CPES-AZ, then the Plan Administrator of the CPES ESOP and the
corporate sponsor of the CPES ESOP, acting though one or more of
the Defendants, failed to provide proper disclosures required by
ERISA, the suit adds.
COMMUNITY PROVIDER OF ENRICHMENT SERVICES, INC. provides community
services. The Company offers services such as in-home support,
early childhood intervention, consultation, assessment, employment
services, day support, and transportation to individuals and
families. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregory Stoltz, Esq.
G STOLTZ LAW, LLC
530 Main Street, Suite B
Tucson, AZ 85701
Telephone: (520) 428-4734
Email: greg@gstoltzlaw.com
CORECIVIC INC: Barrientos, et al., Seek to Unseal Restricted Docs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILHEN HILL BARRIENTOS, et
al., v. CORECIVIC, INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-00070-CDL (M.D. Ga.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order that the undisputed
documents and the disputed documents be unsealed.
The public has a right to access the information contained in both
the Undisputed Documents and the Disputed Documents, with narrow
agreed-upon redactions, and there is no good cause to redact the
information in dispute in the Disputed Documents, the Plaintiffs
contend.
The information CoreCivic seeks to seal does not constitute trade
secrets, and even if it does, the public's interest in disclosure
outweighs CoreCivic's interest in secrecy.
CoreCivic has asserted two categories of information that should be
redacted from public documents due to purported security concerns:
photographs of the segregation cells at SDC found in the report of
one of the Plaintiffs' experts and information regarding
CoreCivic's staffing numbers.
CoreCivic is a real estate investment trust (REIT) that provides
corrections and detention management services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 21, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Vg6ImA at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rebecca M. Cassler, Esq.
Meredith B. Stewart, Esq.
Sharada Jambulapati, Esq.
Cassandra Charles, Esq.
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
1101 17th St. NW, Ste. 705
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (404) 521-6700
Facsimile: (877) 349-7039
E-mail: rebecca.cassler@splcenter.org
meredith.stewart@splcenter.org
sharada.jambulapati@splcenter.org
cassandra.charles@splcenter.org
- and -
Azadeh Shahshahani, Esq.
Priyanka Bhatt, Esq.
PROJECT SOUTH
9 Gammon Avenue SE
Atlanta, GA 30315
Telephone: (404) 622-0602
Facsimile: (404) 622-4137
E-mail: azadeh@projectsouth.org
priyanka@projectsouth.org
- and -
Alan B. Howard, Esq.
Emily B. Cooper, Esq.
Jessica L. Everett-Garcia, Esq.
John H. Gray, Esq.
Jessica Tseng Hasen, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
1155 Avenue of the Americas
22nd Floor
New York, NY 10036-2711
Telephone: (212) 262-6900
Facsimile: (212) 977-1649
E-mail: AHoward@perkinscoie.com
ECooper@perkinscoie.com
jeverettgarcia@perkinscoie.com
jhgray@perkinscoie.com
jhasen@perkinscoie.com
CORTEVA INC: Class Cert Bid Denied as Moot in Cockerill Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT F. COCKERILL et
al., v. CORTEVA, INC. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-03966-MMB (E.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge Michael M. Baylson entered an order that the
prior motion to certify class and motion for clarification or, in
the alternative, motion for reconsideration are denied as moot.
1. The Defendants shall respond to the amended motion to certify
class within 14 days.
2. The Plaintiffs may file a reply brief within 10 days.
3. Counsel shall discuss whether any additional discovery shall
take place.
Corteva provides agricultural products. The Company offers seeds
and crop protection products, as well as software solutions and
digital services.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 25, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LGVu7G at no extra charge.[CC]
CORTEVA INC: Cockerill Suit Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT F. COCKERILL,
CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM NEWTON and OLIVER MAJOR, individually and as
representatives on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons,
v. CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT SPECIALTY PRODUCTS USA, LLC; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC.; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; THE PENSION AND
RETIREMENT PLAN; THE BENEFIT PLANS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Case
No. 2:21-cv-03966-MMB (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting their motion class certification.
The Plaintiffs seek to represent the class of participants under
the Pension and Retirement Plan whose employment with DowDuPont or
any of its subsidiaries ended as of May 31, 2019 as a result of the
spin-off, who continued to be employed by DuPont after May 31,
2019, who were not yet age 50 and had at least 15 years of service
as of that date, and who have been or will be denied an Early
Retirement, Optional Retirement or a Rule of 85 unreduced early
retirement benefit.
The Plaintiffs also seek to represent a sub-class of participants
which consists of all Plan participants whose employment with E.I.
DuPont de Nemours and Company or any of its subsidiaries ended as
of May 31, 2019, as a result of the spin-off, who continued to be
employed by DuPont after May 31, 2019, and who were age 50 or older
with at least 15 years of service as of that date, and who have
been or will be denied an Optional Retirement benefit.
Corteva is a major American agricultural chemical and seed
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/424xnFn at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Susan L. Meter, Esq.
Elizbeth Hopkins, Esq.
Jaclyn Conover, Esq.
KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP
19839 Nordhoff Street
Northridge, CA 91324
Telephone: (877) 783-8686
Facsimile: (253) 285-1849
E-mail: ehopkins@kantorlaw.net
smeter@kantorlaw.net
jconover@kantorlaw.net
- and –
Edward S. Stone, Esq.
EDWARD STONE LAW, P.C.
175 West Putnam Ave., 2nd Floor
Greenwich, CT 06830
Telephone: (203) 504-8425
E-mail: eddie@edwardstonelaw.com
- and –
Daniel Feinberg, Esq.
Nina Wasow
FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN
& WASOW LLP
2030 Addison St., Suite 500
Berkeley, CA 94704
Telephone: (510) 269-7998
Facsimile: (510) 269-7994
E-mail: dan@feinbergjackson.com
nina@feinbergjackson.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Cory A. Thomas, Esq.
Nipun J. Patel, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
Cira Centre, 2929 Arch Street, Suite 800
Philadelphia, PA 19104
E-mail: Cory.thomas@hklaw.com
Nipun.patel@hklaw.com
- and –
Todd D. Wozniak, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
1180 West Peachtree Street N.W., Suite 1800
Atlanta, GA 30309
E-mail: Todd.wozniak@hklaw.com
CSX CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Antitrust Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal period
ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 20, 2023, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the antirust class suits in the federal court in the
District of Columbia.
In May 2007, class action lawsuits were filed against CSXT and
three other U.S.-based Class I railroads alleging that the
defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract and
unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in
violation of antitrust laws.
The class action lawsuits were consolidated into one case in
federal court in the District of Columbia. In 2017, the District
Court issued its decision denying class certification.
On August 16, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
affirmed the District Court's ruling.
The consolidated case is now moving forward without class
certification.
Although the class was not certified, individual shippers have
since brought claims against the railroads, which have been
consolidated into a separate case.
CSXT believes that its fuel surcharge practices were arrived at and
applied lawfully and that the case is without merit.
Accordingly, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously.
CSX Corporation together with its subsidiaries provides rail-based
transportation services including traditional rail service, the
transport of intermodal containers and trailers, as well as other
transportation services such as rail-to-truck transfers and bulk
commodity operations.
DAVITA INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bowling Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
JAMES BOWLING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DAVITA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-01035 (D. Col., April 24, 2023) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Bowling was employed by the Defendant as nurse.
DAVITA INC. provides a variety of health care services. The Company
provides kidney dialysis services for patients suffering from
chronic kidney failure. DaVita serves patients worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
WAGE AND HOUR FIRM, LLP
400 North Saint Paul Street, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
Facsimile: (469) 399-1070
Email: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com
marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com
- and -
Germaine Jones, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC
400 North Saint Paul Street, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
Facsimile: (469) 399-1070
Email: gjones@foresterhaynie.com
ESSEX COUNTY, NJ: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT GREENE and RYAN
CONNELL, v. COUNTY OF ESSEX, Case No. 2:23-cv-00572-JMV-CLW
(D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an Order:
(1) Conditionally certifying a collective action composed of
Essex
County Correctional Police Officers and their superiors who
worked in their role at any time from February 1, 2020, to
the
present;
(2) granting the issuance of court-authorized notice to the
members
of the conditionally certified collective action, and
(3) compelling the production of names, job titles, dates of
employment, addresses, telephone numbers, personal email
addresses, work email addresses, locations of employment,
employee I.D. numbers, and last four digits of social
security
numbers of such prospective collective action members for
the
effective dissemination of notice as soon as possible.
Essex County is a primarily rural county in Southwestern Ontario,
Canada comprising seven municipalities.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oSxk0U at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Valerie Palma Deluisi, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF NICHOLAS
J. PALMA, P.C.
1425 Broad Street, 2nd Floor
Clifton, NJ 07013
Telephone: (973) 471-1121
Facsimile: (973) 472-0032
E-mail: vpd@palmalawfirm.com
- and -
Catherine Elston, Esq.
C. ELSTON & ASSOCIATES, LLC
309 Morris Ave., Suite #
Spring Lake, NJ 07762
Telephone: (732) 280-6911
Facsimile: (732) 280-6955
E-mail: cmelston@elstonlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Peter Frances, Berk, Esq.
Yostina Mishriky, Esq.
GENOVA BURNS LLC
494 Board Street
Newark, NJ 07102-3230
Telephone: (973) 230-2071
E-mail: pberk@genovaburns.com
ymishriky@genovaburns.com
ESTEE LAUDER: Faces Licea Suit Over Live Chat Recording
-------------------------------------------------------
Jose Licea, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ESTEE LAUDER INC., ELC ONLINE INC., and DOES
1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00726-L-JLB (S.D.
Cal., April 20, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' violations of
the Federal Wiretap Act, the California Penal Code, the California
Invasion of Privacy Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law.
On or about August 2022, Plaintiff accessed Defendants' website,
www.esteelauder.com, from his cellular telephone and used the live
chat function on the website to communicate and ask questions about
the Defendants' services from a customer representative. However,
the Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with a recording
advisory at the outset of the recorded conversation. They also
failed to obtain consent from the Plaintiff that his incoming
and/or outgoing conversations via the chat feature on Defendants'
website were being recorded, says the suit.
Estee Lauder Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
in New York and does business and affects commerce within the state
of California and with California residents. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21031 Ventura Blvd, Suite 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
FLORIDA POWER: Velez Trial Set for November 2023
------------------------------------------------
Florida Power & Light Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2023, that the trial for Velez
class suit is set for November 2023 in the Miami-Dade County
Circuit Court.
Florida Power & Light Co. is the defendant in a purported class
action lawsuit (Velez, et al. v. Florida Power & Light Company)
filed in February 2018 that seeks from FPL unspecified damages for
alleged breach of contract and gross negligence based on service
interruptions that occurred as a result of Hurricane Irma in 2017.
The trial of this matter is set for November 2023 in the Miami-Dade
County Circuit Court.
The trial court certified the case as a class action and FPL's
appeal of that decision was denied by Florida's Third District
Court of Appeal (3rd DCA) in March 2023.
FPL filed a motion on March 31, 2023, for rehearing with the 3rd
DCA claiming that the opinion upholding the class certification
contains several errors that should be reheard by the full 3rd DCA.
The motion is pending.
FPL does not believe that the plaintiffs’ claims should be
meritorious on a class, individual or appellate basis, but
management is unable to predict with certainty the outcome of the
lawsuit.
Florida Power & Light Company the principal subsidiary of NextEra
Energy Inc., is the largest power utility in Florida. [BN]
FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Class Cert Response in Eubanks Suit Due May 8
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Eubanks, et, al., v.
Flywheel Energy Production LLC et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00329 (E.D.
Ark.), the Hon. Judge Lee P. Rudofsky entered an order granting
motion for extension of time to respond to motion for class
certification.
-- Response due is by May 8, 2023.
The nature of suit states Breach of Contract.
Flywheel operates as an oil and gas exploration and production
company.[CC]
FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Class Cert Response in Flowers Suit Due May 8
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Flowers, et al., v.
Flywheel Energy Production LLC, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00330
(E.D. Ark., Filed April 21, 2021), the Hon. Judge Lee P. Rudofsky
entered an order granting motion for extension of time to respond
to motion for class certification.
-- Response due is by May 8, 2023.
The nature of suit states Breach of Contract.
Flywheel operates as an oil and gas exploration and production
company.[CC]
FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Class Cert Response in Oliger Suit Due May 8
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Oliger, et al., v.
Flywheel Energy Production LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-01146 (E.D. Ark.),
the Hon. Judge Lee P. Rudofsky entered an order granting motion for
extension of time to respond to motion for class certification.
-- Response due is by May 8, 2023.
The nature of suit states Breach of Contract.
Flywheel operates as an oil and gas exploration and production
company.[CC]
FORD MOTOR: Deadline to File Class Certification Bid Vacated
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM LESSIN and CAROL
SMALLEY, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and DOES
1-10, Case No. 3:19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Allison H. Goddard entered an order:
(1) setting deadline to lodge discovery status report with the
court;
(2) setting follow-up status conference; and
(3) vacating deadlines to complete class discovery and to file
motion for class certification.
The Court held a Discovery Conference in this matter on April 20,
2023 to discuss the status of discovery.
If the Discovery Conference proceeds, it shall take place via Zoom,
and chambers staff will circulate a Zoom invitation to all counsel
who participated in the April 20 Discovery Conference no later than
one day before the conference.
Pending resolution of the parties' outstanding discovery issues,
the Court vacates the class discovery cutoff deadline of May 19,
2023, and the class certification motion filing deadline of July 7,
2023. The Court will reset those deadlines based on the outcome of
the parties' meet-and-confer efforts between now and the follow-up
Discovery
Conference.
Ford Motor is an American multinational automobile manufacturer.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40KrdZY at no extra charge.[CC]
GEICO GENERAL: Deadline to Submit Joint Status Report Extended
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMOND WILLIAMS, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Maryland Corporation, CCC
INTELLIGENT SOLUTIONS INCORPORATED, a Delaware Corporation, Case
No. 3:19-cv-05823-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Benjamin H.
Settle entered an order extending deadline to submit joint status
report.
On July 29, 2021, the Court entered an Order staying the case and
ordering the Parties to provide the Court with a joint written
status report and proposed case schedule within ten days after the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its mandate in Lundquist v.
First Nat'l Ins. Co. of Am., Case No. 21-35126 (9th Cir. 2021).
On February 11, 2022, the Ninth Circuit filed its opinion in Lara
affirming Judge Bryan's denial of class certification in Lundquist
v. First Nat'l Insurance Co. of Am., Case No. 3:18-cv-05301-RJB.
On March 28, 2022, the plaintiffs-appellants in Lara petitioned for
rehearing and rehearing en banc. On May 10, 2022, the Ninth Circuit
denied the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc in Lara.
On June 7, 2022, the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate in Lara.
Accordingly, the deadline for the Parties to submit their joint
status report was initially June 17, 2022.
GEICO offers vehicle, property, motorcycle, boat, homeowners,
flood, mobile home, general liability, and pet insurance.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40Iel6A at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Robert B. Carey, Esq.
John M. DeStefano, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
rob@hbsslaw.com
johnd@hbsslaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Kathleen M. O’Sullivan, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 583-8888
Facsimile: (206) 583-8500
E-mail: KOSullivan@perkinscoie.com
- and -
Marguerite M. Sullivan, Esq.
Jason R. Burt, Esq.
Steven J. Pacini, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
555 11th Street NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 637-2200
E-mail: marguerite.sullivan@lw.com
jason.burt@lw.com
steven.pacini@lw.com
- and -
Dan W. Goldfine, Esq.
Brian J. Hembd, Esq.
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
1850 N Central Ave., Suite1400
Phoenix, AZ 85004
- and -
Vanessa S. Power, Esq.
STOEL RIVES LLP
600 University Street, Suite 3600
Seattle, WA 98101
GEICO: Hart, et al., Must File Class Cert Bid by May 22
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN OLIVIA HART, et al.,
v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a Geico, Case No.
4:21-cv-00859-MWB (Court), the Hon. Judge Matthew W. Brann entered
an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to extend the time for
filing a motion for class certification.
-- The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be
considered timely filed.
-- As per the Court's March 17, 2023, Order, GEICO's opposition
to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be
filed
on or before May 22, 2023.
-- The Plaintiff may file a reply on or before June 21, 2023.
Government Employees is a private American auto insurance company.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HIu5Qz at no extra charge.[CC]
GOYA FOODS: Mejias Must File Class Certification Bid by June 20
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEJIAS et al v. GOYA
FOODS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-12365 (D.N.J.), the Hon.
Judge Jose R. Almonte entered an order that:
-- The parties shall meet and confer concerning Plaintiffs motion
to
strike at ECF No. 96 and shall file a letter by April 27,
2023,
informing the Court whether they have resolved this dispute.
-- The briefing schedule for Plaintiffs motion for class
certification shall be extended.
-- The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification
on
or before June 20, 2023.
-- The Defendants' opposition shall be filed by August 1, 2023.
-- The Plaintiffs reply, if any, shall be filed by September 1,
2023.
-- As discussed during the April 20, 2023 status conference,
however, if the parties can resolve their dispute as to
the motion to strike at ECF No. 96, the parties shall jointly
submit a proposed briefing schedule that provides for a sooner
filing and briefing of the motion for class certification.
The suit alleges labor related violations.
Goya Foods is an American producer of a brand of foods sold in the
United States and many Spanish-speaking countries.[CC]
GRAB HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Grab Holdings Ltd. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 26, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from a putative shareholder class suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Beginning in March 2022, various putative shareholder class action
lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its officers
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
On June 7, 2022, the Court appointed Lead Plaintiffs and
consolidated all actions under the caption In re Grab Holdings
Limited Securities Litigation, No. 1:22-cv-02189-VM.
On August 22, 2022, Lead Plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint against the Company, certain of its officers and
directors, and certain officers and directors of Altimeter Growth
Corp. The class action is purportedly brought on behalf of various
classes of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of
alleged misstatements and omissions regarding our proxy and
registration statements, reported financials, business operations,
and future prospects, in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the
U.S. Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9
promulgated thereunder.
On November 18, 2022, the Company and the other defendants filed a
joint motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Briefing on the
motion to dismiss was completed on February 27, 2023, and a
decision on the motion to dismiss is currently pending.
The case otherwise remains in its preliminary stage. Although the
Company considers the allegations to be without merit and intend to
contest them vigorously, it cannot assure that the outcome of these
proceedings will be favorable, and involvement in securities
litigation against the Company could result in substantial costs
and divert management's attention from other business concerns,
which could seriously harm its business.
Grab Holdings Ltd. operates as a holding company.
GRAPEVINE OF NORTH: Collective Action Settlement Gets Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BAKARI H. GLYMPH-DOZIER
and SOLOMON HILL, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated persons, v. GRAPEVINE OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. d/b/a
GRAPEVINE DISTRIBUTORS OF THE CAROLINAS, and SCOTT A. COHEN, Case
No. (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Catherine C. Eagles entered an order
that:
1. The joint motion for final approval of the class and
collective
action settlement is granted.
2. The classes and collective actions provisionally certified in
the preliminary approval order, are finally certified.
3. The proposed settlement agreement for the classes and
collectives, is approved as fair, adequate, and reasonable to
the parties.
4. The proposed settlement agreements for George Bostick, and
Jarrett Grier, are approved as fair, adequate, and
reasonable.
5. The attorney's fees and costs for work performed on behalf of
the classes and collectives and for work performed on behalf
of
George Bostick and Jarrett Grier are approved as fair and
reasonable.
6. Payment shall be made under the terms of the Final Settlement
Agreements.
7. Robert Willis shall provide a letter to counsel for the
defendants within 15 days of mailing the settlement checks
verifying that he has distributed the settlement checks and
the
service awards as set forth in Section 8.3 of the Final
Settlement Agreement.
8. The claims are dismissed with prejudice.
In September 2021, the plaintiffs Bakari Glymph-Dozier and Solomon
Hill filed FLSA and state wage-and-hour claims and claims for
unauthorized wage deductions under state law against the defendants
Grapevine of North Carolina, Inc. d/b/a Grapevine Distributors of
the Carolinas (Grapevine) and Scott A. Cohen. Doc. 1.
Grapevine is a closely-held corporation owned by the Cohen family,
including defendant Scott Cohen. Grapevine sells wine and
distributes wine to retailers in North and South Carolina. The
plaintiffs both worked as delivery drivers for Grapevine in North
Carolina and Mr. Hill also worked in South Carolina.
The plaintiffs claim that the defendants violated the FLSA, the
North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA), and the South Carolina
Payment of Wages Act (SCPWA) by paying their employees a regular
weekly lump sum regardless of the number of hours worked and by not
paying time-and-a-half for overtime.
As to the North Carolina employees, the plaintiffs have two
additional claims. First, they allege the defendants deducted $8
per week from employee wages for the cost of providing
employer-required company uniforms, which the plaintiffs contend
violates North Carolina law.
Second, they allege that the defendants deducted from employee
wages for alleged breakage of wine products without complying with
applicable North Carolina laws requiring advance written notice and
limiting deductions for breakage to deliberate destruction.
Grapevine of North Carolina operates as a distributor of alcoholic
beverages.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nee0Lm at no extra charge.[CC]
HAYT HAYT: Pinson Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practice
-------------------------------------------------------------
CLAUDIA PINSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HAYT HAYT & LANDAU PL, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-00293 (M.D. Fla., April 26, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in unlawful
debt collection practice by failing to comply with the validation
period requirements on the collection letter that it sent to the
Plaintiff. The Defendant incorrectly calculated the end of the
validation period, shortening the length of the validation period,
says the suit.
Hayt Hayt & Landau PL is a law firm, with its principal place of
business located in Miami, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas Patti, Esq.
Victor Zabaleta, Esq.
PATTI ZABALETA LAW GROUP
3323 Northwest 55th Street
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309
Telephone: (561) 542-8550
E-mail: Victor@pzlg.legal
Tom@pzlg.legal
HESAI GROUP: Pacella Securities Class Suit Ongoing in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hesai Group disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal period
ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 20, 2023, that the Pacella securities class
suit is ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York.
On April 7, 2023, the Company and certain of its officers,
directors, authorized U.S. representatives, and IPO underwriters
were named as defendants in a putative securities class action
filed in federal court, captioned Pacella v. Hesai Group, et al.,
No. 1:23-cv-02634 (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York).
Plaintiff, in this case, alleges, in sum and substance, that
Company’s registration statement and prospectus filed in
connection with its February 2023 initial public offering contained
false or misleading statements in violation of U.S. federal
securities laws.
As the case is still in its preliminary stage, the Company cannot
predict its timing, outcome, potential damages, or expenses that
may be incurred.
Hesai Group purports to be the global leader in three-dimensional
light detection and ranging (LiDAR) solutions.[BN]
HIPHUGGER LLC: Faces Frazier Suit Over Worker Misclassification
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMY MICHELE FRAZIER, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. THE HIPHUGGER, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00685-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind., April 20, 2023) alleges
that the Defendant violated the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Indiana Wage Payment Statute.
During the period 2017 through the date of Plaintiff's voluntary
resignation in or about May 2022, Plaintiff was employed by
Defendant to work or perform as an exotic dancer for the
entertainment of Defendant's customers at Defendant's Hiphugger
Gentlemen's Club in Kokomo, Indiana. Allegedly, Defendant
misclassified its exotic dancers as non-employee "independent
contractors". The misclassification resulted in Defendant's failure
to pay Plaintiff full and timely payment of minimum wage
compensation and retention of earned tips as required by the FLSA
and IWPS, says the suit.
The Hiphugger, LLC is a limited liability company, formed under the
laws of the State of Indiana, operating as the Hiphugger
Gentlemen's Club, an adult entertainment establishment located in
Kokomo, IN, featuring female exotic dancers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Es.
HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER, LLP
100 Cherry Street
Terre Haute, IN 47807
Telephone: (812) 232-9691
E-mail: kondras@hkmlawfirm.com
- and -
Gregg C. Greenberg, MD, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 587-9373
E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com
HOP ENERGY: Filing of Prelim. Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 19
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN CALLERY, v. HOP
ENERGY, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-03652-CMR (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
Cynthia M. Rufe entered a scheduling order as follows:
1. The Parties shall exchange disclosures April 26, 2023
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(a) on or before:
2. The Parties may add or drop claims May 20, 2023
or parties on or before:
3. All fact discovery shall be completed Aug. 20, 2023
on or before:
4. The Plaintiff's expert reports, Aug. 20, 2023
if any, shall be served on or before:
5. The Defendant's expert reports, Sept. 19, 2023
if any, shall be served on or before:
6. Motions for preliminary class Sept. 19, 2023
certification shall be filed on
or before:
7. All dispositive motions shall be filed Oct. 19, 2023
on or before:
HOP Energy is a full-service energy company.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HIuClx at no extra charge.[CC]
HORIZON BANCORP: Key Sues Over Misleading Financial Statements
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHAD KEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HORIZON BANCORP, INC., CRAIG M. DWIGHT, and
MARK E. SECOR, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02961 (E.D.N.Y., April
20, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5.
Allegedly, between March 9, 2022 and March 10, 2023, the Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the Company maintained deficient internal
accounting controls relating to its classification of certain loan
balances and securities; (ii) as a result of the foregoing
deficiencies, throughout 2022 the Company issued quarterly
financial statements containing errors that would require
subsequent revision; (iii) restatement of the foregoing financial
statements would hinder the Company's ability to timely file its
annual report for 2022; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times, says the suit.
On March 10, 2023, after trading hours, Horizon filed a notice of
the Company's inability to timely file its Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended Dec. 31, 2022 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, announcing receipt of a notice from NASDAQ as
a result of failing to timely file its annual report, as well as
disclosing that it had identified material weaknesses in its
internal controls. On this news, Horizon's stock price fell $1.43
per share, or 10.96%, to close at $11.62 per share on March 13,
2023. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and
the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the suit added.
Horizon operates as the bank holding company for Horizon Bank,
which provides a range of commercial and retail banking services.
It is an Indiana corporation with principal executive offices
located at 515 Franklin Street, Michigan City, IN. Horizon's common
stock trades in an efficient market on the NASDAQ under the ticker
symbol "HBNC". [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com
- and –
Leslie F. Portnoy, Esq.
PORTNOY LAW FIRM
Century Park East Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 692-8883
E-mail: lesley@portnoylaw.com
IT'S JUST LUNCH: Hearing on Class Status Bid Set for June 5
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSANNE VRUGTMAN, TAMMY
GILLINGWATER, and NICOLE KRUZICK, individually, and for all others
similarly situated, v. IT'S JUST LUNCH INTERNATIONAL LLC, IJL US
LLC, IJL CANADA INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-02352-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered an order on the Parties'
joint stipulation for an amended scheduling order regarding motion
for class certification and motion for summary judgment:
1. The briefing and hearing schedules on a motion for class
certification are as follows:
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs to file a Motion for Class
Certification: April 17, 2023.
-- Deadline for Defendants to file any Opposition to Motion
for
Class Certification: May 1, 2023.
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Reply in support of Motion
for Class Certification: May 15, 2023.
-- Hearing on Motion for Class Certification: June 5, 2023,
at
9:00 a.m.
2. The filing deadlines and hearing schedule on a motion for
Summary judgment or other dispositive motion are as follows:
-- Deadline for the filing of any Motion for Summary Judgment
or
other dispositive motion: May 15, 2023.
-- Deadline for the filing of any Opposition to Motion for
Summary Judgment and/or dispositive motion: May 30, 2023.
-- Deadline to file any Reply in support of a Motion for
Summary
Judgment: June 12, 2023.
-- Hearing on any Motion for Summary Judgment: June 26, 2023,
at
9:00 a.m.
It's Just Lunch provides online dating services.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LE3HJX at no extra charge.[CC]
JACK RABBIT: Zakheim Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL ZAKHEIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JACK RABBIT, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-23-012980 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty., April
26, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of
the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in telephonic
sales calls to consumers, including the Plaintiff, in an attempt to
promote its goods and services without having secured prior express
written consent. As a result, the Plaintiff and similarly situated
consumers are harmed, including violations of their statutory
rights, statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of
their privacy, says the suit.
Jack Rabbit, LLC is a provider of heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) products and services, headquartered in
Sunrise, Florida. [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 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
JANUS HOMECARE: Fails to Pay Overtime Premiums, Garcia Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
RAQUEL GARCIA, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
and the Class, Plaintiff, v. JANUS HOMECARE AGENCY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-03321 (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2023),
arises out of the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
From or about May 20, 2020, until or about Feb. 27, 2023, Plaintiff
Garcia was employed by Defendant as a home attendant. The Defendant
would assign Plaintiff in various locations in New York. Throughout
Plaintiff's entire period of employment, the Defendant always
rounded down her paid time to the nearest hour. The time recorded
on her weekly paystubs was always hourly, which could not have
occurred naturally as a result of when Plaintiff would clock in and
out. Through this impermissible rounding down of hours, the
Defendant categorically reduced their employees' compensable hours
every week. In addition, the Defendant failed to pay overtime
premiums and to provide accurate wage statements, says the suit.
Janus Homecare Agency, Inc. is a homecare services company
organized under the laws of the State of New York with its
principal place of business and address for service of process at
2825 Third Avenue, Bronx, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
JASON LEWIS: Godwin Class Cert. Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Goodwin v. Jason
Lewis, Michele Buckner and Cheryl Edington, Case No. 6:23-cv-03033
(W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Beth Phillips entered an order denying
the Plaintiff's motion to certify class action without prejudice as
Plaintiff, a pro se litigant, may bring claims only on behalf of
himself.
To the extent Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel, the motion is
denied without prejudice because the record is not sufficiently
developed to determine whether appointment of counsel is
warranted., the Court says.
The Plaintiff is advised that "there is no constitutional right to
appointed counsel in civil cases." Phillips v. Jasper County Jail,
437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006). Rather, "in civil rights matters
the court may, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915, 'request' an
attorney to represent a party if, within the court's discretion,
the circumstances are such that would properly justify such a
request," the Court adds.
The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus --
Prison Condition.[CC]
JUBILANT HOLLISTERSTIER: Goodard Suit Remanded to Wash. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN GODDARD and ERIC
SMITH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. JUBILANT HOLLISTERSTIER, LLC, a Delaware corporation, d/b/a
Hollister-Stier Laboratories, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00004-TOR (E.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge Thomas O. Rice entered an order that:
1. The Plaintiffs' motion for remand is granted.
2. The action is remanded to Spokane County Superior Court.
3. Each party to bear their own costs and fees.
The Defendant asserts that the parent company, Jubilant Pharma,
"provides ultimate direction, control, and strategy for the
business activities of [Defendant], including governing oversight
of [Defendant’s] local administration, management, and
operations" out of Pennsylvania.
The Defendant alleges that the administrators in Spokane who
perform the day-to-day operational oversight of the business
"ultimately report to Jubilant Pharma's CEO".
However, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant cannot solely rely on
the location and activities of its parent company. While the burden
remains on the Defendant, the Plaintiffs allege Defendant operates
a facility in Washington, maintains a separate company entity from
Jubilant Pharma, is registered with the Washington Secretary of
State which lists the office mailing address, registered agent,
Governor identity and location in Washington, and many of the
higher-level management employees are located in Spokane, according
to Defendant's organizational chart.
The Defendant failed to meet its burden in establishing minimal
diversity jurisdiction. As this finding is dispositive to remand,
the Court declines to reach the remaining arguments as to
timeliness. The Plaintiffs' motion to Remand is granted, the Court
says.
This putative class action concerns employment disputes at a
pharmaceutical manufacturing plant in Spokane County, Washington.
On June 19, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed suit in the Superior Court
of Washington for Spokane County.
Jubilant manufactures medical products. The Company offers sterile
and non-sterile products.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41InBcn at no extra charge.[CC]
KIRKLAND LAKE: May 22 Extension to File Class Cert Reply Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: KIRKLAND LAKE GOLD LTD. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-04953-JPO D (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order requesting a 14-day extension to
file the Plaintiff's reply in support of the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.
This would extend the deadline for the reply from May 8, 2023 to
May 22, 2023. This extension is necessary in light of the increased
page limit permitted by the Court as well as the fact that one of
the principal attorneys responsible for drafting the reply is
currently out of town.
The Defendants do not oppose this request. This is the first
request by the Plaintiff for an extension of time to reply to the
Defendants' opposition.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 21, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oNVUQD at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrea Farah, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100,
White Plains, NY 10601-4459
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
KNIGHT HAWK: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Dye Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
TOBY DYE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KNIGHT HAWK COAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-01329 (S.D. Ill., April 24, 2023) is an action against the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Plaintiff Dye was employed by the Defendant as a miner.
KNIGHT HAWK COAL, LLC provides coal mining services. The Company
produces and delivers chlorine coal. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7034 Braucher Street, NW, Suite B
North Canton, OH 44720
Telephone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
Email: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
hans@ohlaborlaw.com
KPC HEALTHCARE: Gamino Appeals Summary Judgment in ERISA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Danielle Gamino filed an appeal from the District Court's
August 15, 2022 Order entered in the lawsuit entitled Danielle
Gamino v. KPC Healthcare Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No.
5:20-cv-01126-SB-SHK, in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, Riverside.
Plaintiff Gamino alleges that Defendant SPCP Group participated in
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)
violations committed by Defendants Kali Pradip Chaudhuri (Dr.
Chaudhuri) and Alerus Financial, N.A. (Alerus) in connection with a
debt-leveraged purchase of Defendant KPC stock by its employee
stock ownership plan (ESOP). The Court previously granted
Plaintiff's motion for class certification against Alerus and KPC
but denied Plaintiff's request to amend her complaint to add SPCP
as a defendant.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 29, 2022, the
Hon. Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr., entered an order granting the
plaintiff's motion for class certification against SPCP.
On August 15, 2022, Judge Blumenfeld signed an order granting SPCP
GROUP, LLC's motion for summary judgment. Judge Blumenfeld held
that "There is no triable issue of fact as to whether Defendant
SPCP Group, LLC ("SPCP") had actual or constructive knowledge of
the circumstances that rendered the 2015 ESOP Transaction
unlawful."
The appellate case is captioned as Danielle Gamino v. KPC
Healthcare Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-55347, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 14,
2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Danielle Gamino Mediation Questionnaire was due on
April 21, 2023;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by May 15, 2023;
-- Transcript is due on June 14, 2023;
-- Appellant Danielle Gamino opening brief is due on July 24,
2023;
-- Appellees Alerus Financial, N.A., Kali Pradip Chaudhuri, Kali
Priyo Chaudhuri, Amelia Hippert, KPC Healthcare Holdings, Inc., KPC
Healthcare, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, KPC Healthcare,
Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan Committee, William E. Thomas and
Lori Van Arsdale answering brief is due on August 24, 2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant DANIELLE GAMINO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Robert Joseph Barton, Esq.
BARTON & DOWNES, LLP
1633 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 200
Washington, DC 20009
Telephone: (202) 734-5458
- and -
Richard E. Donahoo, Esq.
DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES
440 W. First Street
Tustin, CA 92780
Telephone: (714) 953-1010
- and -
Daniel Mark Feinberg, Esq.
FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW LLP
2030 Addison Street, Suite 500
Berkeley, CA 94704
Telephone: (510) 269-7998
Defendants-Appellees KPC HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC., et al., are
represented by:
Julian Lucien Andre, Esq.
Christopher Anthony Braham, Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY, LLP
2049 Century Park, E Suite 3200
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 277-4110
- and -
Theodore M. Becker, Esq.
191 North Upper Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
LINKEDIN CORP: Court Junks Easterbrook Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIE EASTERBROOK, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. LINKEDIN
CORPORATION, Case No. 6:22-cv-01108-MC (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge
Michael McShane entered an order that:
-- LinkedIn's motion to dismiss is granted.
-- The Plaintiff's UTPA claims are dismissed with prejudice.
-- The Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim is dismissed without
prejudice.
-- The Plaintiff is granted thirty days to file an amended
complaint.
The Court said, "To the extent that Plaintiff has separate grounds
for her unjust enrichment claim, she has not adequately pled them
in her Complaint. And regardless of the basis of her unjust
enrichment claim, Plaintiff fails to allege whether she actually
used LinkedIn Premium while she was paying for the service. If
Plaintiff used the service, it is not "unjust" for LinkedIn to keep
the revenue from her subscription."
Though Plaintiff may be able to cure these deficiencies in an
amended complaint, the Court is concerned that her unjust
enrichment claim is not suitable for class certification. This
claim requires factual inquiries for each potential class member,
including whether subscribers knew they were signing up for a paid
membership and whether they actually used the service. This issue,
however, is predicated on whether Plaintiff can first cure her
pleading deficiencies, the Court adds.
The Plaintiff Easterbrook brings this action on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated against LinkedIn for violating
the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA). LinkedIn moves to
dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (FAC) for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
LinkedIn is a professional networking website that offers free
features as well as paid premium memberships (LinkedIn Premium).
Users interested in LinkedIn Premium can directly purchase a
monthly or annual subscription or take advantage of LinkedIn's free
trial
period, which automatically converts to a paid subscription after
one month.
Around February 25, 2019, LinkedIn automatically renewed
Plaintiff’s subscription and charged her $29.99. LinkedIn
continued to automatically renew Plaintiff's subscription every
month for the next two years, "with the most recent charge
occurring on or around March
29, 2022. "
For the first year of her LinkedIn Premium membership, Plaintiff
was unaware that LinkedIn was charging her every month. It was not
until January or February 2021, two years after she began her
membership, that Plaintiff noticed the subscription charges. Upon
learning of the charges, Plaintiff attempted to cancel her LinkedIn
Premium subscription. Her first attempt was unsuccessful. Around
May 2021, Plaintiff attempted to cancel a second time, which was
also unsuccessful.
Finally, in late March or early April 2022, the Plaintiff
successfully
canceled her LinkedIn Premium subscription. The Plaintiff filed
this action on July 29, 2022.
LinkedIn is a business and employment-focused social media platform
that works through websites and mobile apps.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oNFasM at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2936: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Eight Focused-State Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Smitty's/Cam2 303 Tractor Hydraulic
Fluid Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation
(MDL 2936), Case No. 4:20-MD-02936-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order certifying state-wide classes in
the eight focus states of Arkansas, California, Kansas, Kentucky,
Minnesota, Missouri, New York, and Wisconsin, to appoint the
Plaintiffs as class representatives for members in their respective
states, and to appoint class counsel.
The Plaintiffs from each state bring claims on behalf of themselves
and others against Smitty's Supply, Inc. and Cam2 International LLC
arising from defendants’ marketing and sale of products labeled
Super S Super Trac 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid, Super S 303 Tractor
Hydraulic Fluid, Cam2 Promax 303 Tractor Hydraulic Oil, and Cam2
303 Tractor Hydraulic Oil.
The Plaintiffs assert that although labeled and sold as tractor
hydraulic fluid, suitable for tractors and equipment manufactured
by leading companies that would provide numerous performance
benefits, 303 THF in fact lacked properties needed for tractor
hydraulic fluid, met no specifications, did not provide represented
performance benefits, and was not actual tractor hydraulic fluid at
all. Rather, it was a worthless waste product composed of
ingredients like flush
oil, line wash, used transformer oil, used turbine oil, and/or
other waste oil, without an additive package, not only unsuitable
for but damaging to all tractors and equipment in which it was
used.
The Plaintiffs seek certification of eight state-wide classes such
that there will be no variation in law applicable to each class and
propose three subclasses to accommodate statutory definitions of
who may bring a claim for consumer act violations in California,
Kansas, and Missouri.
The specific classes and subclasses sought are as follows:
-- Arkansas
"All persons and entities who purchased Super S Supertrac 303
Tractor Hydraulic Fluid, Super S 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid,
Cam2 ProMax 303 Tractor Hydraulic Oil, and/or Cam2 303 Tractor
Hydraulic Oil in Arkansas at any point in time from December
1,
2013 to present."
-- California
"All persons and entities who purchased Super S Supertrac 303
Tractor Hydraulic Fluid, Super S 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid,
Cam2 ProMax 303 Tractor Hydraulic Oil, and/or Cam2 303 Tractor
Hydraulic Oil in California at any point in time from December
1,
2013 to present."
-- CLRA Subclass
"All individuals who purchased Super S Supertrac 303 Tractor
Hydraulic Fluid, Super S 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid, Cam2
ProMax
303 Tractor Hydraulic Oil, and/or Cam2 303 Tractor Hydraulic
Oil
in California for personal, family, or household purposes at
any
point in time from December 1, 2013, to present."
-- Kansas
"All persons and entities who purchased Super S Supertrac 303
Tractor Hydraulic Fluid, Super S 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid,
Cam2 ProMax 303 Tractor Hydraulic Oil, and/or Cam2 303 Tractor
Hydraulic Oil in Kansas at any point in time from December 1,
2013 to present."
-- KCPA Subclass
"All individuals, husbands and wives, sole proprietors, or
family
partnerships who purchased Super S Supertrac 303 Tractor
Hydraulic Fluid, Super S 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid, Cam2
ProMax
303 Tractor Hydraulic Oil, and/or Cam2 303 Tractor Hydraulic
Oil
in Kansas for personal, family, household, business or
agricultural purposes at any point in time from December 1,
2013
to present."
-- Kentucky
"All persons and entities who purchased Super S Supertrac 303
Tractor Hydraulic Fluid, Super S 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid,
Cam2 ProMax 303 Tractor Hydraulic Oil, and/or Cam2 303 Tractor
Hydraulic Oil in Kentucky at any point in time from December
1,
2013 to present."
-- Minnesota
"All persons and entities who purchased Super S Supertrac 303
Tractor Hydraulic Fluid, Super S 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid,
Cam2 ProMax 303 Tractor Hydraulic Oil, and/or Cam2 303 Tractor
Hydraulic Oil in Minnesota at any point in time from December
1,
2013 to present."
-- Missouri
"All persons and entities who purchased Super S 303 Tractor
Hydraulic Fluid, Cam2 ProMax 303 Tractor Hydraulic Oil, and/or
Cam2 303 Tractor Hydraulic Oil in Missouri at any point in
time
from December 1, 2013 to present."
-- MMPA Subclass:
"All persons and entities who purchased Super S 303 Tractor
Hydraulic Fluid, Cam2 ProMax 303 Tractor Hydraulic Oil, and/or
Cam2 303 Tractor Hydraulic Oil in Missouri primarily for
personal, family, household, purposes at any point in time
from
December 1, 2013 to present."
-- New York
"All persons and entities who purchased Super S Supertrac 303
Tractor Hydraulic Fluid, Super S 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid,
Cam2 ProMax 303 Tractor Hydraulic Oil, and/or Cam2 303 Tractor
Hydraulic Oil in New York at any point in time from December
1,
2013 to present."
-- Wisconsin
"All persons and entities who purchased Super S Supertrac 303
Tractor Hydraulic Fluid, Super S 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid,
Cam2 ProMax 303 Tractor Hydraulic Oil, and/or Cam2 303 Tractor
Hydraulic Oil in Wisconsin at any point in time from December
1,
2013 to present."
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 21, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HkHUnL at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Thomas V. Bender, Esq.
Dirk Hubbard, Esq.
HORN AYLWARD & BANDY, LLC
2600 Grand Boulevard, Ste. 1100
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 421-0700
Facsimile: (816) 421-0899
E-mail: tbender@hab-law.com
dhubbard@hab-law.com
- and -
Bryan T. White, Esq.
WHITE, GRAHAM, BUCKLEY,
& CARR, L.L.C
19049 East Valley View Parkway
Independence, Missouri 64055
Telephone: (816) 373-9080
Facsimile: (816) 373-9319
E-mail: bwhite@wagblaw.com
- and -
Clayton Jones, Esq.
CLAYTON JONES, ATTORNEY AT LAW
405 W. 58 Hwy.
Raymore, MO 64083
Telephone: (816) 318-4266
Facsimile: (816) 318-4267
E-mail: clayton@claytonjoneslaw.com
- and -
Don M. Downing, Esq.
Gretchen Garrison, Esq.
GRAY RITTER GRAHAM
701 Markey Street, Suite 800
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 241-5620
Facsimile: (314) 241-4140
E-mail: ddowning@grgpc.com
ggarrison@grgpc.com
MENZIES AVIATION: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due May 22
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DORA PATRICIA AMAYA, an
individual; and BRAYAN LOZANO GONZALEZ, an individual; on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, v. MENZIES AVIATION
(USA), INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-05915-MCS-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Mark C. Scarci entered an order granting stipulation for
further two-week extension of class certification deadlines to
accommodate the Defendant's
managers' available deposition schedule:
-- Deadline to file a motion for Class May 22,
2023
Certification:
-- Deadline to file an opposition to June 12,
2023
The motion for class certification:
-- Deadline to file a reply in support of July 3,
2023
The motion for class certification:
-- Hearing date on motion for class July 24,
2023
Certification:
Menzies Aviation was founded in 2000. The company's line of
business includes arranging passenger transportation such as
airline and bus ticket offices.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41ZQmki at no extra charge.[CC]
METROPOLITAN LIFE: McHugh Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Barbara McHugh, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Order dated March 31, 2023 entered in the lawsuit
entitled BARBARA McHUGH, CHARLES PATRICK McHUGH, JOHN ELLSWORTH and
all others similarly situated v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a New York Corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-06152-SB-AS, in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Los Angeles.
The suit was removed from the Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County, to the U.S. District Court for Central District of
California on Aug. 30, 2022.
The Plaintiff seeks compensation and other relief arising from
fraud, breaches of contract and other misconduct committed by Met
Life in connection with the pricing, marketing, and sale of Met
Life's individual long-term care insurance policies.
According to the complaint, Met Life's "5% Automatic Compound
Inflation Protection Rider" 10 and "5% Automatic Simple Benefit
Increase Rider" -- which Met Life sold as additional benefits with
long-term care insurance policies -- falsely and misleadingly
promised policyholders, such as Plaintiffs, that their "benefit
amounts will automatically increase each year with no corresponding
increase in premium."
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 6, 2023, the
Plaintiffs asked the Court to enter an order (1) certifying a
class; (2) naming Plaintiffs as Class representatives; (3)
appointing Robert R. Duncan of Duncan Law Group, LLC, Thomas C.
Cronin of Cronin Co., Ltd., and James H. Podolny of Duncan Law
Group, LLC, as Class counsel; and (4) providing any other relief
that is just.
On March 31, 2023, Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. entered an Order
denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The appellate case is captioned as Barbara McHugh, et al. v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Case No. 23-80031, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on
April 14, 2023.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners BARBARA MCHUGH, CHARLES PATRICK MCHUGH, and
JOHN ELLSWORTH, and all others similarly situated, are represented
by:
Robert R. Duncan, Esq.
DUNCAN LAW GROUP, LLC
161 N. Clark Street, Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 202-3283
Defendant-Respondent METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a New
York Corporation, is represented by:
Michael J. Duvall, Esq.
SNR DENTON US LLP
One Metropolitan Square Bldg.
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 241-1800
- and -
Sandra Hauser, Esq.
DENTONS, LLP
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 768-6802
N. FRANCOWITZ INC: Gomez Sues Over Wrongful Termination
-------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL GOMEZ, an individual and on behalf of similarly situated
aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. N. FRANCOWITZ, INC., dba AMY'S
PASTRY, a California Corporation, NANCY FRANKEL, an individual, and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV03815
(Cal. Sup. Ct., April 20, 2023) arises out of the Defendants'
wrongful constructive termination against Plaintiff and its
violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business
and Professions Code.
Plaintiff Crystal Gomez began working for the Defendants on or
about September 2017 as a pastry cook at a pay rate of $18.00 per
hour and was terminated on or about Nov. 26, 2022. Allegedly, the
Defendants failed to pay Gomez at an overtime rate for her overtime
hours worked, but Defendants also failed to pay Gomez at her
double-overtime rate for any work done in excess of 12 hours in a
single work day.
N. Francowitz, Inc was and is a California corporation doing
business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. It
owned and/or operated a food service corporation. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan P. LaCour, Esq.
Lisa Noveck, Esq.
Jameson Evans, Esq.
Amanda M. Thompson, Esq.
EMPLOYEES FIRST LABOR LAW P.C.
1 S. Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 200
Pasadena, CA 91105
Telephone: (310) 853-3461
Facsimile: (949) 743-5442
E-mail: jonathanl@pierrelacour.com
lisan@pierrelacour.com
jamesone@pierrelacour.com
amandat@pierrelacour.com
NATURAL ENERGY: Hartley Seeks Proper OT Pay for Welding Inspectors
------------------------------------------------------------------
JERRY HARTLEY, JR., individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. NATURAL ENERGY FIELD SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 5:23-cv-00119-GFVT (E.D. Ky., April 20, 2023) arises out of the
Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment
and Collection Law.
Mr. Hartley worked for Natural Energy Field Services, LLC (NEFS) as
a welding inspector assigned to provide services to NEFS’s
client, Talen, in Pennsylvania from approximately July 2022 until
November 2022. Allegedly, NEFS's uniform day rate pay scheme
violated the FLSA, the PMWA, and the WPCL by depriving Hartley and
the welding inspectors of overtime pay when they work more than 40
hours in a workweek.
NEFS is a Kentucky limited liability company that maintains its
headquarters in Lexington, Kentucky. This company provides
construction inspection and quality control personnel to oil and
gas industry clients across the country, including in Pennsylvania.
It hires inspectors to perform pipeline inspection services for its
clients, including Discovery Natural Resources. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Corey Asay, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
333 W. Vine Street, Suite 1200
Lexington, KY 40507
Telephone: (859) 286-8368
Facsimile: (859) 286-8384
E-mail: casay@forthepeople.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
NORTH MISSISSIPPI: Wood Case Removed from July 2023 Trial Calendar
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wood, et al., v. North
Mississippi Medical Center, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00042
(N.D. Miss.), the Hon. Judge Taylor B. Mcneel entered an order that
the case is removed from the July 2023 trial calendar in light of
any renewed motions for summary judgment to be filed, as well as
the pending motion to certify class.
The Court said, "Trial will be reset, if necessary, after summary
judgment is ruled upon or another opinion is issued. No further
written order shall issue from the court."
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.
NMMC operates as a non-profit health care organization.[CC]
NORTHEAST WORK: Obermeier Files Bid for Conditional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID OBERMEIER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
NORTHEAST WORK & SAFETY BOATS, LLC, and JACK CASEY and LINDA CASEY,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00046-SVN (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order:
1. Conditionally certify a collective of all current and former
employees of the Defendant Northeast Work & Safety Boats, LLC
who operated or otherwise worked on a boat as a Boat
Operator,
Captain, Deckhand or similar position within the last three
years (the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective);
2. Conditionally certify a sub-collective of all employees who
opt
into the FLSA Collective and who were employed by defendant
Company on any New Jersey bridge project during the last six
years and was not paid the applicable prevailing wage for all
hours worked on such bridge projects in accordance with the
New
Jersey Prevailing Wage Act (the NJPWA Sub-Collective);
3. Conditionally certify a sub-collective of all employees who
opt
into the FLSA Collective and who were employed by the
Defendant
Company on any Pennsylvania bridge project during the last
six
months and was not paid the applicable prevailing wage for
all
hours worked as required by the Pennsylvania Prevailing Wage
Act
(the PPWA Sub-Collective, and together with the FLSA
Collective
and NJPWA Sub-Collective, the Collectives);
4. Directing the Defendants to produce to the Plaintiff's
Counsel
the names, last known addresses, cellphone numbers, and email
addresses of all potential members of the FLSA Collective
within
ten days of the date of the Order;
5. Permitting the Plaintiff to issue notice to all potential
members of the FLSA Collective by first-class mail, email and
text message, informing them of their right to opt into this
case, regardless of any improper communications that the
Defendants (specifically the Defendant Jack Casey) may have
made
to any putative Collective Members;
6. Directing an opt-in period of 90 days, beginning from the
date
of the Plaintiff's first issuance of notice;
7. Allowing the Plaintiff to send reminder notices by
first-class
mail, email and text message to all potential members of the
FLSA Collective who have not yet responded to notice within
45
days of the first issuance of notice; and
8. Approving the Plaintiff's proposed form of notice, and the
Plaintiff's proposed Opt-In Consent Form, to be included with
the issuance of notice.
Northeast Work provides rescue, inspection work boats and work
platforms and barges.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 21, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ADM06V at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan P. McCarthy, Esq.
James E. Goodley, Esq.
GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC
1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 394-0541
E-mail: james@gmlaborlaw.com
ryan@gmlaborlaw.com
- and -
Stephen M. Bourtin, Esq.
BOURTIN LAW, PLLC
68 Southfield Avenue, Suite 100
Stamford, CT 06902
Telephone: (203) 350-3671
E-mail: sbourtin@bourtinlaw.com
- and -
Franklin J. Rooks, Jr., Esq.
MORGAN ROOKS, PC
525 Route 73 North, Suite 104
Marlton, NJ 08053
Telephone: (856) 874-8999
E-mail: fjrooks@morganrooks.com
PAYSIGN INC: Discovery Plan Denied w/o Prejudice in Shi Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shi v. Paysign, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00553-GMN-DJA (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge
Daniel J. Albregts entered an order denying the parties' discovery
plan without prejudice.
The parties shall file a renewed stipulated discovery plan
addressing the issues outlined in this order on or before May 11,
2023, the Court says.
Paysign provides payment services. The Company develops and manages
payment solutions, prepaid card programs, and customized payment
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oNTEZR at no extra charge.[CC]
PER SE GROUP: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Lambert Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW LAMBERT, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. PER SE GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-02501
(N.D. Ill. April 20, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's violations
of the California Labor Code and the California Business and
Professions Code.
Mr. Lambert worked for Per Se Group as a control room operator in
Oxnard, California from approximately September 2020 until
September 2022. Allegedly, the Defendant has implemented a 10/2 pay
scheme in which it will only pay Lambert overtime wages at one and
a half times of his hourly rate after he works 10 hours in a
workday. This pay scheme denied Lambert overtime pay for his 8th
and 9th hours of work in a day in violation of California wages
laws. In addition, the Defendant also failed to provide Plaintiff
with compliant meal and rest periods, says the Plaintiff.
Per Se Group is a domestic corporation that maintains its
headquarters in Wheaton, Illinois It is a staffing company that
claims itself as a leading workforce solution to the energy and
industrial markets across the country, including in California.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Maureen A. Salas
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
msalas@flsalaw.com
- and –
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713)352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and –
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
POINT PICKUP: Medeiros Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOMINIC MEDEIROS, SHEILA
MARCIL, v. POINT PICKUP TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No.
3:21-cv-01056-OAW (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Omar A. Williams
entered a ruling on the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration.
The Court, "The Plaintiffs have agreed to arbitrate their claims
against Defendant by executing MDRA. The FAA, which is applicable
to the MDRA, requires the court to "stay the trial of the action
until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of
the agreement." Accordingly, Defendant's motion to compel
arbitration on an individual basis and stay the action is granted.
In light of this order, the Plaintiff's motion to certify the class
hereby is denied as moot. This action hereby is stayed pending
arbitration."
While Plaintiffs argue that the waiver is unenforceable under
Massachusetts law, their argument is limited to the applicability
of the Massachusetts Arbitration Act in the event the FAA does not
apply.
The Plaintiffs are former retail and grocery store delivery drivers
for Point Pickup. They bring this action on behalf of a putative
class against the Defendant, which owns and operates the mobile
phone application through which drivers accept orders to deliver
groceries and merchandise to residential and business customers.
The Plaintiffs allege unpaid wages and unpaid overtime pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Massachusetts wage and hour
laws, as well as claims of unjust enrichment and unfair trade
practices.
The Plaintiffs allege that drivers typically rely on the quoted
number of miles when selecting a delivery job, but Defendant's
quoted mileage often is incorrect.
The Defendant classifies its Pickup Partners as independent
contractors, but the Plaintiffs allege that the "drivers are
actually [Defendant's] employees."
Point Pickup is a Connecticut-based delivery company that delivers
products from retail and grocery stores such as Wal-Mart, GameStop,
and Shaw's Supermarket.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ay52LZ at no extra charge.[CC]
PROMEDICA HEALTH: Wisner Sues Over Therapists' Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTINA WISNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROMEDICA HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00853 (N.D. Ohio, April 24, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards
Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
Ms. Wisner worked for ProMedica as a Registered Respiratory
Therapist at a facility in Toledo, Ohio from approximately May 1982
until January 2022.
ProMedica Health System, Inc. is a healthcare provider,
headquartered in Toledo, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL LLC
1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER B URCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
RAEL INC: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 18
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH BLANSETTE, v. RAEL,
INC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00006-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood
S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order setting the following deadlines
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and Civil Local Rule
16-10:
Event Deadline
-- Amendment of Pleadings/ Joinder: July 10, 2023
-- Close of Fact Discovery: Sept. 4, 2023
-- Exchange Opening Expert Reports: Sept. 18, 2023
-- Motion for Class Certification: Sept. 18, 2023
-- Exchange Rebuttal Expert Reports: Oct. 16, 2023
-- Opposition to Class Certification: Oct. 16, 2023
-- Reply in Support of Class Certification: Oct. 30, 2023
-- Close of Expert Discovery: Nov. 13, 2023
-- Class Certification Hearing: Nov. 16, 2023
Rael provides personal care products. The Company offers menstrual
and feminine wellness care products made of natural and organic
ingredients.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mVg6Q7 at no extra charge.[CC]
RECEIVABLE PERFORMANCE: Powers Must File Class Cert Bid by June 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Powers v. Receivable
Performance Management, LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-12125 (D. Mass.), the
Hon. Judge Margaret R. Guzman entered an order granting consent
motion for extension of Time by Stephanie Powers.
-- The Plaintiff must move for class certification by June 2,
2023,
and dispositive motions to be filed by July 3, 2023.
The nature of suit states Contract -- Other Contract.
Receivables Performance provides financial and accounts receivables
management services. The Company offers outsourcing, and
telemarketing.[CC]
RYDER: Securities Suit Discovery Ongoing, Trial Starts June 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryder Systems Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2023, that the discovery is
ongoing for a securities class suit and trial is to start in June
2024.
On May 20, 2020, a putative class action on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's securities who purchased or otherwise acquired their
securities between July 23, 2015 and February 13, 2020, inclusive
(Class Period), was commenced against Ryder and certain of its
current and former officers in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida (the "Securities Class Action").
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
misrepresented Ryder's depreciation policy and residual value
estimates for its vehicles during the Class Period in violation of
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks to recover, among
other things, unspecified compensatory damages and attorneys' fees
and costs.
On August 3, 2020, the State of Alaska, Alaska Permanent Fund, the
City of Fort Lauderdale General Employees' Retirement System, and
the City of Plantation Police Officers Pension Fund were appointed
lead plaintiffs.
On October 5, 2020, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
On December 4, 2020, Ryder and the other named defendants in the
case filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint.
On May 12, 2022, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss.
The court entered a case management schedule on June 27, 2022,
which, among other things, provides that discovery shall be
completed by October 2023 and the commencement of trial in June
2024.
Ryder System, Inc. is a logistics and transportation company based
in Florida.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA: Leave to File Docs Under Seal Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARLON JOHNSON;
CHRISTOPHER CROWELL; JANE DOE (ZAHIDA SHARIEF); SHAUNA LEE LANDIS;
JANIELLE GUZMAN; GERALD WAYNE CRUTCHER; RAFAEL DIAZ; and all others
similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; SAN BERNARDINO
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; SHERIFF JOHN MCMAHON, individually; PAUL
WYNN, individually; JOE BILLINGS, individually; RICK BESSINGER,
individually; ROBERT GUILLEN, individually; Does 1 through 10, Case
No. 5:18-cv-01121-GW-AFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge George H. Wu
entered an order granting application for leave to conditionally
file documents under seal in support of the plaintiffs' second
motion for class certification.
San Bernardino is a county located in the southern portion of the
U.S. state of California and is located within the Inland Empire
area.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 20, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LE46Mt at no extra charge.[CC]
SELECT REHABILITATION: Court Modifies Classes in McLaughlin Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE MCLAUGHLIN,
CRYSTAL VANDERVEEN, and JUSTIN LEMBKE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, V. SELECT REHABILITATION, LLC,
Case No. 3:22-cv-00059-HES-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Harvey
E. Schlesinger entered an order modifying classes to reflect the
dates:
-- CLASS A:
"All Program Managers and Directors of Rehab All persons
currently or formerly employed by Select Rehabilitation,
LLC,
from April 13, 2019, to the present, in the position of
Program Manager, Director of Rehab, or other persons
performing similar hourly, non-exempt management or
supervisory positions under various job titles who elect to
opt-in to this action pursuant to section 216(b)."
-- CLASS B:
"All persons currently or formerly employed by Select
Rehabilitation, LLC, from April 13, 2019 to the present, in
The position of Occupational Therapist, Physical
Therapists,
Certified Occupational Therapy Assistant, Physical
Therapist
Assistant, Speech Language Pathologist, or other persons
performing similar hourly, non-exempt positions under
various
job titles who elect to opt-in to this action pursuant to
section 216(b)."
The Court approves Plaintiffs' proposed class notice and Consent to
Join form.
Within 5 days of the Order, the Plaintiffs will select a
third-party administrator and notify this Court of their selection.
Plaintiffs will bear the costs of the third-party administrator.
Within 15 days of the Order, Select will deliver to Plaintiffs'
counsel a list containing the full name, address (with city, state,
and zip code), personal email addresses, dates of employment, and
the last four digits of the social security number, of the putative
class members in an Excel spreadsheet or .CSV format.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41OHyxS at no extra charge.[CC]
SMITTY'S SUPPLY: Plaintiffs Allowed to File Exhibits Under Seal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Smitty's/Cam2 303 Tractor Hydraulic
Fluid Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation,
Case No. 4:20-md-02936 (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough
entered an order on Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file certain
exhibits under seal.
-- The Plaintiffs may file Exhibits 1, 4-5, 17, 22, 33, 37, and
45-
46 to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under
seal.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Fraud.[CC]
ST. LOUIS, MO: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Derrick Jones, Jerome
Jones, and Darnell Rusan,, et al., v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al.,
Case No. 4:21-cv-00600-HEA (E.D. Mo.), the Defendants ask the Court
to enter an order granting their motion for extension of time to
respond to the Plaintiffs' renewed motion to certify class pursuant
to Rule 6(b)(1)(A) Fed. R. Civ. Pro.
-- On April 7, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Motion Pursuant to
Fed.
R .Civ. Pro. 23(c)(1)(C) Proposing Narrowed Class Definitions
and Renewing Motion for Class Certification.
-- The Defendants have previously filed a motion incorrectly
stating the date of Defendants' response was April 17, 2023,
and
requested an extension to April 21, 2023. Doc. 292. The Court
granted an extension to April 21, 2023.
-- The Defendants response was originally due on April 21, 2023,
14 days after the Plaintiffs' April 7, 2023, filing.
-- Due to the press of business within the City of St. Louis
Counselor's Office and undersigned counsel being out of the
country until April 17, 2023, Defendants require additional
time
to properly respond to Plaintiffs' motion up to and including
Friday April 28, 2023.
-- The Plaintiffs' have consented to the short, seven day
extension.
St. Louis is a major city in Missouri along the Mississippi River.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 20, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AobLbd at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Adriano Martinez, Esq.
ASSOCIATE CITY COUNSELOR
1200 Market St., City Hall, Rm 314
St. Louis, MO 63103
Telephone: (314) 622-3361
Facsimile: (314) 622-4956
E-mail: Martineza@stlouis-mo.gov
STATE FARM: Baldwin Seeks to Amend First Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHILLIP S. BALDWIN,
Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Phillip
D. Baldwin, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, STATE FARM CLASS
ACTION FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, PATRICK CAMPBELL INSURANCE AGENCY
INC., and PATRICK CAMPBELL, a registered agent, Case No.
4:23-cv-00008-BSM (E.D. Ark.), the Plaintiff move the Court for
leave to amend his First Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2):
On November 2, 2022, this class action lawsuit was filed in Grant
County Circuit Court, Arkansas. On December 22, 2022, Plaintiffs
amended their pleading with the filing of their First Amended
Complaint.
On January 4, 2023, State Farm Mutual and State Farm Fire removed
this action here and asserted subject matter jurisdiction under the
Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). On April 4, 2023, the E.D. Ark.
Court determined it had jurisdiction under CAFA, and denied
Plaintiffs' motion to remand to the state court in Grant County.
On April 5, 2023, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed State Farm
Mutual and the Court ordered its dismissal that same day. Thus,
Defendants State Farm Fire, Patrick Campbell Insurance Agency,
Inc., and Patrick Campbell are the remaining named Defendants.
Previously, on January 11, 2023, State Farm Fire moved to dismiss
or, alternatively, to strike the class allegations asserted in the
First Amended Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
(FRCP) 12(f) and 23(c).
However, when the First Amended Complaint was pled, it was pled for
state court under the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure (ARCP), and
specifically. ARCP 23 and class certification precedent of the
Arkansas Supreme Court and the Arkansas Court of Appeals.
Importantly, the class certification rule and class certification
precedent are different in federal court from the state courts in
Arkansas.
State Farm offers insurance products for auto, motorcycles, sport
and leisure vehicle, home, renters, condo, health, disability, and
professional liability.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 20, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Vd8vZI at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Poynter, Esq.
POYNTER LAW GROUP, PLLC
407 President Clinton Ave., Suite 201
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 812-3943
E-mail: scott@poynterlawgroup.com
- and -
Paul Byrd, Esq.
Patrick Kirby, Esq.
Jonathan Hutto, Esq.
PAUL BYRD LAW FIRM, PLLC
415 North McKinley, Suite 210
Little Rock, AR 72205
Telephone: (501) 420 3050
Facsimile: (501) 420 3128
E-mail: Paul@PaulByrdLawFirm.com
Patrick@PaulByrdLawFirm.com
Jonathan@PaulByrdLawFirm.com
STOP & SHOP: Wipes' Flushable Label "Misleading," Schotte Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK SCHOTTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE STOP & SHOP SUPERMARKET COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-10897 (D. Mass., April 26, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendant for violation of the
Massachusetts Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices Act, breach
of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment,
and fraud.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
Stop & Shop-branded and Always My Baby-branded flushable cleansing
wipe products. The Defendant markets and sells the Wipes as
"flushable" wipe products but they are not flushable, in that they
do not break apart or disperse in a reasonable period of time after
flushing, resulting in clogs or other sewage damage. The Plaintiff
and Class Members would not have paid to purchase or would not have
paid as much as they did to purchase them had they known that they
are not, in fact, "flushable," says the suit.
The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company, LLC is a supermarket company,
with its principal place of business in Quincy, Massachusetts.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq.
REARDON SCANLON LLP
45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 955-9455
Facsimile: (860) 920-5242
E-mail: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com
- and -
Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
Matthew A. Girardi, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com
TALLGRASS ENERGY: Fails to Properly Pay Workers, Rivera Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TALLGRASS ENERGY, LP, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-00460-UNA (D. Del., April 26, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the Plaintiff
and similarly situated workers overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Mr. Rivera worked for Tallgrass as a utility inspector, chief
inspector, and construction manager in Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming,
and Oklahoma from approximately April 2020 until April 2022.
Tallgrass Energy, LP is an energy and infrastructure company,
headquartered in Leawood, Kansas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sue L. Robinson, Esq.
Brain E. Farnan, Esq.
Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
FARNAN LLP
919 N. Market St., 12th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 777-0300
Facsimile: (302) 777-0301
E-mail: srobinson@farnanlaw.com
bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
TAMKO BUILDING: Seeks to Seal Confidential Materials
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN MELNICK, BETH
MELNICK, LIA LOUTHAN, and SUMMERFIELD GARDENS CONDOMINIUM, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TAMKO
BUILDING PRODUCTS LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-02630-JAR-KGG (D. Kan.),
the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion
to seal and/or redact certain materials from plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.
The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification – and many of the
attached exhibits– contain sensitive trade secret and other
highly confidential information regarding Heritage roofing shingles
manufactured by defendant TAMKO Building Products LLC in this
litigation.
The disclosure of these documents could significantly harm TAMKO's
business interests and cause irreparable injury. No less
restrictive means of protection exists other than sealing or
partially redacting these sensitive materials.
On March 31, 2023, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification.
Beyond their incorporation of sensitive design, manufacturing and
testing data, Exhibits 21 and 22 should also be redacted because
they include highly valuable sales data and proprietary business
"information regarding TAMKO's warranty claims experience," which
"is another closely guarded trade secret that TAMKO goes to great
lengths to protect from disclosure."
Relatedly, Tamko requests that corresponding redactions be required
in plaintiffs' Memorandum.
Tamko Building is a leading independent manufacturer of residential
roofing shingles.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 21, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3n9fxlI at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Kara T. Stubbs KS, Esq.
BAKER STERCHI COWDEN & RICE LLC
2400 Pershing Road, Suite 500
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 471-2121
Facsimile: (816) 472-0288
E-mail: stubbs@bakersterchi.com
- and –
Jessica Davidson, Esq.
Richard T. Bernardo, Esq.
Thomas E. Fox, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM
LLP
One Manhattan West
New York, NY 10001-8602
Telephone: (212) 735-3000
Facsimile: (212) 735-2000
E-mail: jessica.davidson@skadden.com
richard.bernardo@skadden.com
thomas.fox@skadden.com
TEAM ENTERPRISES: Cipolla Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FELICIA CIPOLLA, ALEXIS
WOOD, BERNADETTE BLANCHARD, and SHIRIN LESSAN, DENNIS FISHER, and
JAMIE ARIAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. TEAM ENTERPRISES, LLC; NEW TEAM LLC, doing business as
TEAM ENTERPRISES, Case No. 3:18-cv-06867-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge entered an order:
1. Certifying a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure
23(b)(3);
2. Authorizing notice be sent to all current and former
employees
of Team Enterprises, LLC and New Team, LLC in California with
the title "promotional specialist," or the functional
equivalent however titled, who worked at any time from
January
1, 2015 through the present and who signed an arbitration
agreement on or after February 15, 2019; and,
3. Requiring the Defendants to produce a computer-readable data
file containing the names, last known residence address, last
known telephone numbers, last known cell phone numbers, last
known email addresses and social security numbers of all such
potential class members so that notice may be implemented.
The Plaintiff brings this motion for class certification on behalf
of a class of current and former employees of the defendants, who
are or were employed as "promotional specialists" in California at
any time from January 1, 2015, to the present and who signed an
arbitration agreement on or after February 15, 2019.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have violated the
California Labor Code by failing to pay for all hours worked,
failing to provide meal and rest breaks, failing to properly pay
meal and rest period premiums, and failing to reimburse for
reasonable and necessary business expenses.
The Plaintiff's claims for wage statement violations, waiting time
penalties and unfair business practices are ancillary and
derivative of the identified wage and expense claims. On January 1,
2015, Team reclassified all of its promotional specialists from
independent contractors to employees. Although Team began issuing
W-2's instead of 1099's, it did not change how it effectively
treated the promotional specialists. The independent contractor
mindset is so baked into how Team treated its promotional
specialists, that it continued to pay its promotional specialists
as if they were still independent contractors.
Team Enterprises provides plumbing, heating, air-conditioning, and
similar work.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 21, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oSxy8g at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Edward J. Wynne, Esq.
George R. Nemiroff, Esq.
WYNNE LAW FIRM
80 E. Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Suite 3G
Larkspur, CA 94939
Telephone: (415) 461-6400
Facsimile: (415) 461-3900
E-mail: ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com
gnemiroff@wynnelawfirm.com
- and -
Bryan J. McCormack, Esq.
MCCORMACK LAW FIRM
1299 4th Street, Suite 505A
San Rafael, CA 94901
Telephone: (415) 925-5161
Facsimile: (415) 651-7837
E-mail: bryan@bmcclaw.com
TEGRIA HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Chery Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
RICARDO CHERY; MARCUS MCFARLAND; and JASMINE SIGGERS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
TEGRIA HOLDINGS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00612 (W.D. Wash.,
April 24, 2023) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay
the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as software
trainers.
TEGRIA HOLDINGS LLC provides health care services. The Company
offers consulting and technology services and revenue cycle
management (RMC) solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Subit, Esq.
FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS LLP
705 Second Avenue, Suite 1200
Seattle, WA 98104-1798
Telephone: (206) 682-6711
Facsimile: (206) 682-0401
Email: msubit@frankfreed.com
-and-
Harold Lichten, Esq.
Matthew Patton, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com
mpatton@llrlaw.com
TORRANCE MEMORIAL: Appeals Remand Order in Heard Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Torrance Memorial Medical Center filed an appeal from the District
Court's March 13, 2023 Order entered in the lawsuit entitled Angela
Heard, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated v. Torrance Memorial Medical Center, Case No.
2:22-cv-09466-DSF-JPR, in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, Los Angeles.
The complaint, filed on December 30, 2022, is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of all California residents who
had their personally identifiable information and/or protected
health information improperly disclosed to Facebook as a result of
accessing Defendant's website -- www.torrancememorial.org.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles County,
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on December 30, 2022.
On January 27, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the
case to Los Angeles Superior Court which the Court granted on March
13, 2023 through an Order entered by Judge Dale S. Fischer.
The appellate case is captioned as Angela Heard v. Torrance
Memorial Medical Center, Case No. 23-55345, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 14, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Torrance Memorial Medical Center Mediation
Questionnaire was due on April 21/2023;
-- Appellant Torrance Memorial Medical Center opening brief is
due on June 12, 2023;
-- Appellee Angela Heard answering brief is due on July 12,
2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant TORRANCE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, a Nonprofit
Corporation, is represented by:
Dyanne J. Cho, Esq.
Teresa Carey Chow, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
Telephone: (310) 979-8418
- and -
Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq.
BAKER HOSTETLER LLP
1801 California Street
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 764-4013
- and -
James Morrison, Esq.
Alexander Vitruk, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
999 3rd Avenue, Suite 3900
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 332-1108
Plaintiff-Appellee ANGELA HEARD, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated, is represented by:
Jaclyn L. Anderson, Esq.
Graham B. LippSmith, Esq.
MaryBeth LippSmith, Esq.
LIPPSMITH, LLP
555 S Flower Street, Suite 4400
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 344-1820
TRANSPERFECT TRANSLATIONS: Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELE METCALF and HANNAH
LAWSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. TRANSPERFECT TRANSLATIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case
No. 1:19-cv-10104-ER-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order:
1. Certifying a class of TransPerfect Translations
International,
Inc. salaried employees in New York City that were paid
$1,125.00 per week or less from December 31, 2018 to
September
2019 and were not paid overtime for all hours worked over
forty
in a workweek.
2. Appointing the Plaintiffs Michelle Metcalf and Hannah Lawson
as
class representatives;
3. Appointing the Plaintiffs’ counsel as class counsel;
4. Authorizing the Plaintiffs to disseminate notice to the
class
consistent with the notice plan described in the Plaintiffs'
Memorandum of Law in Support; and
5. Providing such relief that the Court deems just and proper.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 19, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40EGxXQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
Andrew C. White, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP,
FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
One North Broadway, Suite 900
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 298-3281
E-mail: jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com
awhite@fbfglaw.com
TRINET GROUP: Continues to Defend ERISA Class Suit in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trinet Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the ERISA class suit in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
On September 29, 2020, a class action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against
the directors of certain TriNet subsidiaries and other TriNet
employees on behalf of a putative class of participants in two
retirement plans available to TriNet's eligible worksite employees,
the TriNet 401(k) Plan and the TriNet Select 401(k) Plan. The
complaint is similar to claims recently brought against a number of
employers including PEOs and generally alleges that the defendants
violated certain fiduciary obligations to Plan participants under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 with respect to
overseeing plan investment and recordkeeping fees.
On October 21, 2022, the court issued an order declining to certify
a class with respect to claims against the TriNet 401(k) Plan, but
certified a class with respect to claims against the TriNet Select
401(k) Plan.
On April 26, 2023, the court entered an order granting TriNet's
motion for summary judgment on all claims.
At this time, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate any
possible loss, or range of loss, with respect to this matter. It
believes the claims are without merit.
Trinet Group, Inc. is a provider of HR expertise, payroll
services,
employee benefits, employment risk mitigation services and human
capital management software for small and medium-size businesses
based in California.
TRINSEO PLC: Helfrich Sues Over Alleged Securities Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JONNIE HELFRICH, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRINSEO PLC, FRANK A. BOZICH, and DAVID
STASSE, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01525 (E.D. Pa., April 20,
2023) arises out of the Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Allegedly, the Defendants released statements that were materially
false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to
disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, which were known to Defendants
or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
the Company's Bristol, Pennsylvania plant had a troubled safety
record while under prior ownership and continued to be unsafe after
the Company acquired it; Defendants did not sufficiently disclose
specific risks related to conducting operations at that plant;
Operating a chemical plant with an unsafe history and presently
unsafe operations exposed the Company to a heightened risk of a
chemical spill or other adverse events; and as a result,
Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all times, says the suit.
On March 27, 2023, The Philadelphia Inquirer released an article
entitled "Bristol plant that spilled chemicals into Philly's water
supply had other mishaps over the last decade." The article stated
that the toxic spill was caused at a chemical plant owned by
Trinseo and located in Bristol, PA, and stated, in pertinent part,
"throughout its history the site has been subject to frequent
monitoring by government regulators. Over the past decade, the US
Coast Guard twice before detected releases of acrylates from the
Bristol facility into the Delaware. On this news, Trinseo's stock
fell $1.09 per share on March 27, 2023, or 5.2%, damaging
investors. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions,
and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
common shares, Plaintiff and the other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the suit alleges.
Trinseo purports to be a specialty material solutions provider with
a focus on partnering with companies to bring ideas to life in an
imaginative, smart, and sustainability-focused manner. Its products
are incorporated into a wide range of its customers' products
throughout the world, including products for automotive
applications, consumer electronics, appliances, medical devices,
packaging, footwear, carpet, paper and board, building and
construction, and wellness, among others. The company is
incorporated in Ireland and its head office is located at 440 East
Swedesford Road, Suite 301, Wayne, Pennsylvania. Trinseo's common
stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol
"TSE." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW
101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
Jenkintown, PA 19046
Telephone: (215) 600-2817
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com
- and -
Phillip Kim, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW
275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
TRUE RENEWABLE: Frias Sues Over Illegal Recording of Phone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS FRIAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRUE RENEWABLE ENERGY, INCORPORATED d/b/a
EVERGREEN ENERGY, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of
them, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01991 (Cal. Super., Stanislaus
Cty., April 24, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
invasion of privacy in violation of the California Penal Code.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in illegal
actions by employing and/or causing to be employed certain
recording equipment in order to record telephone conversation/s
with the Plaintiff without his knowledge or consent, thereby
invading his privacy. On or around November 17, 2022, the Plaintiff
entered into an independent contractor agreement with Evergreen
Energy to be a customer engagement specialist. The Plaintiff placed
calls on behalf of Defendant in excess of 20 times per day. At no
time did Evergreen Energy inform the Plaintiff that it was
recording her calls, says the suit.
True Renewable Energy, Incorporated, doing business as Evergreen
Energy, is a solar energy company in Livermore, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
twheeler@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
UNION PACIFIC: Continues to Defend Fleury Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Fleury putative class suit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.
As provided in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2022, and filed on October 20, 2022, in December 2019, truck driver
David Fleury (Fleury) filed a putative class action complaint
against Union Pacific Railroad Company in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the District
Court) raising claims under the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq. (the Act). Members of the
putative class are third-party truck drivers who gained access to
Union Pacific intermodal terminals in Illinois by verifying their
identity using finger-scan technology. The complaint alleges Union
Pacific's use of the finger scan system violated the Act by
capturing Fleury's biometric information.
The parties are currently engaged in the discovery process and no
class has been certified.
While the Company believes that it has strong defense to the
complaint and will vigorously defend the case, there is no
assurance regarding the ultimate outcome.
Union Pacific Corporation, through its subsidiary, Union Pacific
Railroad Company, engages in the railroad business in the United
States. Union Pacific Corporation was founded in 1862 and is
headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska.
UNITED PARCEL: Court Narrows Claims in Goins Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GALENA GOINS, et al., v.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC, Case No. 4:21-cv-08722-PJH (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton entered an order granting in
part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss and/or
strike second amended complaint.
-- The court grants defendant's motion to strike class
allegations.
-- The plaintiffs fail to acknowledge the variety of problems
with
their class definition that render maintenance of such class
implausible.
The case is a putative class action alleging employment
discrimination. The Plaintiffs and putative class representatives
include a mix of women in union and non-union roles employed at the
defendant company, including supervisors, sorters, drivers,
loaders, and associates located in California, Arkansas,
Washington, and Nevada.
UPS is a global transportation and logistics company.
The named plaintiffs seek to bring a nationwide class action on
behalf of all female employees of UPS for purported gender, age,
and disability discrimination against UPS.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VdzbcU at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED SERVICES: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by August 10
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAROLD J. DAVIDSON, a
married man, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, a Texas
Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00527-JWH-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge entered an order granting joint stipulation to extend case
schedule as follows:
1. The Plaintiffs shall file any class certification motion no
later than August 10, 2023.
2. The Defendant shall file its response to the Plaintiff's
class
certification motion by October 12, 2023.
3. The Plaintiff shall file any reply in support of his motion
for
class certification by November 9, 2023.
4. The hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
is set for December 1, 2023.
5. All discovery, including discovery motions shall be filed and
have been heard by Nov. 16, 2023.
6. The deadline for dispositive motion hearing is January 19,
2024.
7. The Parties shall have until November 20, 2023, to conduct
settlement proceedings.
United Services is an American financial services group of
companies including a Texas Department of Insurance-regulated
reciprocal inter-insurance exchange and subsidiaries offering
banking and insurance to people and families who serve, or served,
in the United States Armed Force.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oSuYz6 at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Court Tosses Bran's Bid to Appoint Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE BRAN, v. UNITED
STATES, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00755-KM (M.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Karoline Mehalchick entered an order denying Bran's motion to
appoint counsel.
In addition, the motion for class certification, motion to
amend/correct, motions for joinder, and "motion to consider,
contract degree [and] notice announcement with affidavit" are
deemed withdrawn.
Bran has failed to timely support his motion for class
certification, motion to amend/correct, motions for joinder with
briefs, and "motion to consider, contract degree [and] notice
announcement with affidavit."
A copy of the Court's order dated April 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NlIKV8 at no extra charge.[CC]
UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Ninivaggi
---------------------------------------------------------------
The University of Delaware filed an appeal from the District
Court's March 31, 2023 Order entered in the lawsuit entitled PENNY
NINIVAGGI et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE,
Defendant, Case No. 1-20-cv-01478, in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all people who paid tuition and
fees for the Spring 2020 academic semester and who, because of the
Defendant's response to COVID-19 pandemic, lost the benefit of the
education for which they paid for, and/or the services for which
their fees were paid, without having their tuition and fees
refunded to them.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jul 20, 2022, the
Plaintiffs moved the Court under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure for an Order certifying a class defined as: "All
undergraduate students enrolled in classes at the University of
Delaware during the Spring 2020 semester who paid tuition."
The Plaintiffs also moved for the Court to appoint them as class
representatives and their counsel as class counsel.
On March 31, 2023, Judge Stephanos Bibas entered an Order granting
Plaintiffs' motion to certify the class and appointing Plaintiffs
to serve as class representatives.
The appellate case is captioned as Penny Ninivaggi, et al. v.
University of Delaware, Case No. 23-8019, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on April 14,
2023.[BN]
Defendant-Petitioner UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE is represented by:
Marisa R. De Feo, Esq.
Jessica M. Jones, Esq.
James D. Taylor, Jr., Esq.
SAUL EWING
1201 N Market Street, Suite 2300
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 421-6834
- and -
Patrick F. Nugent, Esq.
SAUL EWING
1500 Market Street
Centre Square West, 38th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 972-7134
- and -
Jonathan A. Singer, Esq.
SAUL EWING
1001 Fleet Street, 9th Floor
Baltimore, MD 21202
Plaintiffs-Respondents PENNY NINIVAGGI, et al., individually and on
behalf of all otherssimilarly situated, are represented by:
Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Esq.
Scott M. Tucker, Esq.
CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH
2711 Centerville Road, Suite 201
Wilmington, DE 19808
- and -
Christopher P. Simon, Esq.
Michael L. Vild, Esq.
CROSS & SIMON
1105 N Market Street
Suite 901, P.O. Box 1380
Wilmington, DE 19899
Telephone: (302) 777-4200
VERIZON COMM: Portions of Jacobs Summary Judgment Papers Stricken
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELINA N. JACOBS, On
Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. VERIZON
COMMUNICATIONS INC.; VERIZON INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT CORP.; THE
VERIZON EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE; MARC C. REED; MARTHA
DELEHANTY; ANDREW H. NEBENS; CONNIA NELSON; SHANE SANDERS; ROBERT
J. BARISH; DONNA C. CHIFFRILLER, Case No. 1:16-cv-01082-PGG-RWL
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Gardephe entered an order
granting the Defendants' motion to strike portions of Plaintiff's
summary judgment opposition papers.
-- The Defendants' motion to exclude Plaintiff's experts is
denied.
-- The Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied.
-- The Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's jury demand is
granted.
-- The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions.
The Plaintiff has offered substantial evidence that the Global
Opportunity Fund underperformed several comparators by a
substantial amount, during both the periods between the Fund's
inception and the end of 2009, and between the Fund’s inception
and the end of 2016. To the extent that Defendants dispute
Plaintiff's calculations and comparisons, they have shown merely
material issues of fact, and not a right to judgment as a matter of
law.
The Plaintiff Jacobs brings this class action pursuant to Section
502(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA). The Plaintiff claims that Verizon Defendants breached
their fiduciary duty to monitor the investment options offered by
the Verizon Savings Plan for Management Employees (the Savings
Plan), and to remove imprudent investment options.
The Plaintiff worked at Verizon from 2014 until 2018, was a
participant in the Savings Plan, and invested in a target date fund
that included allocations to, inter alia, the Global Opportunity
Fund.
Verizon Communications is a holding company, which engages in the
provision of communications, information, and entertainment
products and services.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 20, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oPMIva at no extra charge.[CC]
VERMONT MUTUAL: Martins Appeals Case Dismissal to 1st Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff JONATHAN MARTINS filed an appeal from the District
Court's March 13, 2023 Order entered in the lawsuit captioned
JONATHAN MARTINS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. VERMONT MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
1:17-cv-12360-FDS, in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, Boston.
In this complaint, Mr. Martins alleges that Defendant Vermont
improperly failed to pay damages for the "inherent diminution in
value" of his automobile after an accident caused by one of its
insureds. "Inherent diminution in value" refers to the fact that a
vehicle involved in an accident typically has a lower market value,
even after repairs have been made, due to a stigma attaching to
such vehicles. Martins contends that an insurer is required to
compensate for such a loss under Part 4 of the 2008 Standard
Massachusetts Automobile Policy.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge F. Dennis
Saylor IV entered an order on March 13, 2023, (i) denying the
plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint; (ii) denying
the plaintiff's motion for class certification; (iii) denying the
plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; and (iv) granting the
defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Also on March 13, 2023, Judge Saylor signed an Order dismissing the
case.
The appellate case is captioned as Martins v. Vermont Mutual
Insurance Company, Case No. 23-1332, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on April 14, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Appearance
form, Docketing Statement, and Transcript Report/Order form were
due May 3, 2023.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JONATHAN MARTINS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Michael C. Forrest, Esq.
Robert E. Mazow, Esq.
FORREST LAMOTHE MAZOW MCCULLOUGH YASI & YASI PC
2 Salem Green, Ste 2
Salem, MA 01970
Telephone: (617) 231-7829
- and -
Kevin John McCullough, Esq.
MAZOW MCCULLOUGH PC
10 Derby Sq., 4th Fl
Salem, MA 01970
Telephone: (978) 744-8000
- and -
David Relethford, Esq.
LAMOTHE MCNIFF RELETHFORD LLC
2 Margin St., Ste 4526
Salem, MA 01970
Telephone: (617) 532-1074
Defendant-Appellee VERMONT MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY is represented
by:
Michael Scott Batson, Esq.
Michael C. Kinton, Esq.
CLYDE & CO US LLP
265 Franklin St., Ste 701
Boston, MA 02110-3113
Telephone: (617) 728-0050
VOYAGER 888: Allowed Leave to Correct Opposition Inaccuracies
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KING, et al., v. VOYAGER
888, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00991 (D.D.C., Filed April 9,
2021), the Hon. Judge Robin M. Meriweather entered an order
granting the Defendants' unopposed motion for leave to correct
factual inaccuracies in its opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification and for appointment of class counsel.
The Court notes that, while Defendants' motion suggests that the
Court will rule on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
within 45 days of the close of the class opt-in period, this is an
incorrect interpretation of the Court's order.
Read accurately, the relevant provision of the Order states only
that the parties shall participate in a mediation within 45 days of
the later of the conclusion of the class opt-in period, or the
issuance of the Court's Order on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.
The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Equal
Pay Act.[CC]
WAKE FOREST: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due May 26
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARNICK, et al., v. WAKE
FOREST UNIVERSITY BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-00454 (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge William L. Osteen, Jr.,
entered an class certification order as follows:
-- Motion for Class Certification due by: May 26, 2023
-- Response to Motion due by: June 30, 2023
-- Replies due by: July 21, 2023
The nature of suit states Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.[CC]
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: May 8 Extension to File Reply Brief Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER NELSON, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. WAL-MART
ASSOCIATES, INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
3:21-cv-00066-MMD-CLB (D. Nev.), the Parties stipulated and agreed
that:
1) The deadline for the Defendant to provide the list of
putative
class members to the Plaintiff be continued from April 19,
2023
to May 3, 2023;
2) The deadline for the Plaintiff to file a reply brief in
support
of his Rule 23 class certification motion be continued from
April 24, 2023 to May 8, 2023;
3) The deadline for the Plaintiff to mail the Notice, Consent to
Join form, and a postage prepaid return envelope to all
putative
class members identified by the Defendant be continued from
April 26, 2023, to May 10, 2023.
On March 17, 2023, the Court issued an order setting the briefing
schedule on the opposition and reply to the Plaintiff's Fed. R.
Civ. Proc. 23 motion for class certification as follows:
On March 20, 2023, the Court issued an order approving the FLSA
notice, allowing the Defendant 30 days (up to April 19, 2023) to
provide the Plaintiff's counsel a list of the: (a) full name; (b)
current home address or last known address; (c) telephone number;
(d) email address; and (e) Social Security number of each person
who falls into the approved FLSA Dry Section and FLSA Perishable
Section classes.
Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores in the United States, headquartered in Bentonville,
Arkansas.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 19, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3V4tKNg at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
Leah L. Jones, Esq.
Joshua R. Hendrickson, Esq.
THIERMAN BUCK LLP
7287 Lakeside Drive
Reno, NV 89511
The Defendant is represented by:
Anthony L. Martin, Esq.
Dana B. Salmonson, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
10801 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite 500
Las Vegas, NV 89135
Telephone: (702) 369-6800
Facsimile: (702) 369-6888
E-mail: anthony.martin@ogletreedeakins.com
dana.salmonson@ogletreedeakins.com
WELLPET LLC: Brown Bid for Class Certification Denied w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES BROWN, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. WELLPET LLC., Case
No. 3:21-cv-00576-HAB-SLC (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Holly A.
Brady entered an order adopting the Magistrate Judge's findings and
report and recommendation:
a. The Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Amend/Correct Response to
Motion is granted;
b. The Defendant's Motion to Strike Improper Supplemental Expert
Report of Mark Cal is granted as to the impermissible legal
conclusions reached in the second sentence of paragraph 9,
the
first portion of paragraph 10, the last sentence of paragraph
24, and the last portion of paragraph 35; the motion is
otherwise denied;
c. The Defendant's Motion to Exclude Plaintiff's Expert, Dr.
Mark
P. Cal is denied;
d. The Plaintiff's motion to exclude Defendant's Expert, Tony
Schroeder is denied; and
e. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied
without
prejudice.
The Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging claims of
private nuisance, public nuisance, and negligence against
Defendant, Wellpet, LLC., a pet food manufacturer operating in
Mishawaka, Indiana.
Brown contends that his residential home, located a mile from
Wellpet's manufacturing facility, is repeatedly and continuously
invaded by noxious odors emitted from the facility. These
emissions, he alleges, interfere with his use and enjoyment of his
property and cause diminished property values for homeowners.
Wellpet produces and supplies pet food products.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3neUrCv at no extra charge.[CC]
WEST HILLS : Faces Glahn Suit Over Securities Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN CLIFFORD GLAHN, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WEST HILLS CAPITAL, LLC and JOSEPH UNGER,
Defendants, Case No. 6:23-cv-01064 (D. Kan., April 20, 2023)
alleges the Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5.
This securities class action is brought on behalf of all persons
and entities who entered into a Silver Deposit Account Lease
Agreement or substantively similar agreement with West Hills
Capital, LLC. (WHC) during the time period of April 20, 2018,
through the present, selected FSDC as the depository for assets
subject to the Silver Lease Program and lost all or part of those
assets. Allegedly, WHC and CEO Joseph Unger did not disclose to
Glahn and other WHC customers that WHC was acting as a middleman
between them and Argent. More than that, WHC actively concealed the
very existence of Argent and WHC's relationship with that entity.
WHC caused customers to believe it maintained effective control
and/or oversight of ASEs that customers leased to WHC as part of
the Silver Lease Program. In reality, WHC had little or no control
or oversight over ASEs that customers leased to WHC as part of the
Silver Lease Program because WHC immediately leased those ASEs to
Argent. Unbeknownst to WHC's customers, WHC was relying on Argent
to safeguard WHC's customers' assets, says the suit.
WHC is a limited liability company organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Wyoming with a principal place of business at
100 N. Broadway, Wichita, KS. The company specializes in the sale
and promotion of precious metals as an investment vehicle,
including for individuals wishing to invest in precious metals
individual retirement accounts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David L. Marcus, Esq.
BARTLE & MARCUS, LLC
4700 Belleview Avenue Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 256-4699
Facsimile: (816) 222-0534
E-mail: dmarcus@bmlawkc.com
WEST TECHNOLOGY: Petersen Sues Over Compromised Customers' Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE PETERSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WEST TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 4:23-cv-03072-JMG-MDN (D. Neb., April 26, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for negligence, invasion of privacy,
breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory
judgment.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit against the
Defendant for its failure to adequately safeguard the personal
identifiable information (PII) of its customers following a data
breach between November 25, 2022 and December 1, 2022. The
Defendant failed to properly monitor its computer network and
systems that housed the Plaintiff's and Class members' PII. Had the
Defendant properly monitored its networks, it would have discovered
the data breach sooner. As a result, the Plaintiff and Class
members are at increased risk of suffering ascertainable losses in
the form of identity theft and other fraudulent misuse of their
PII, says the Plaintiff.
West Technology Group, LLC is a global technology company,
headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vincent M. Powers, Esq.
POWERS LAW
411 South 13th Street, Suite 300
Lincoln, NE 68508
Telephone: (402) 474-8000
E-mail: powerslaw@me.com
- and -
Mason A. Barney, Esq.
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com
tbean@sirillp.com
WOW RESTAURANT: Chen Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YANHONG CHEN, and LUTONG
YANG, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. WOW RESTAURANT TH LLC d/b/a Yaki Sushi Grill BBQ;
TRINH HUYNH, Case No. 8:22-cv-02774-VMC-MRM (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
(1) conditional certification pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards
Act;
(2) court-authorized notice to similarly situated individuals;
and
(3) disclosure of contact information for notice to potential
opt-
ins.
The Plaintiffs have alleged wage violations perpetrated against
over a period of many years at the Defendants restaurant doing
business as Yaki Sushi Grill BBQ; and owned and operated by
Individual the Defendant Trinh Huynh.
The Plaintiffs further allege that it is the Defendants widespread
common policy of understating and underpaying their employees’
overtime payment, and willfully paying less than minimum wages as
required by the FLSA. As stated in the Amended Complaint, the
Plaintiff Yanhong Chen worked approximately from August 1, 2020,
through about April 30, 2022, and Lutong Yang worked approximately
from July 1, 2019, through about April 30, 2022.
Grill BBQ is a restaurant owned and operated by Owner/Operator the
Defendant Trinh Huynh.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 19, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44cYyjg at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 103
Flushing, NY 11355
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Domtar Corp. Defends Exposure Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Domtar Corporation is involved in a number of asbestos-related
lawsuits filed primarily in U.S. state courts, including certain
cases involving multiple defendants, according to the Company's
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These lawsuits principally allege direct or
indirect personal injury or death resulting from exposure to
asbestos-containing premises. While we dispute the plaintiffs'
allegations and intend to vigorously defend these claims, the
ultimate resolution of these matters cannot be determined at this
time. These lawsuits frequently involve claims for unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, and we are unable to reasonably
estimate a range of possible losses, which may not be covered in
whole or in part by our insurance coverage. However, unfavorable
rulings, judgments or settlement terms could materially impact our
Consolidated Financial Statements. Hearings for certain of these
matters are scheduled to occur in the next twelve months."
A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://bit.ly/40ZpPTh
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Faces Product Liability Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc., is involved in a number of lawsuits and
claims, both actual and potential, including some that it has
asserted against others, in which substantial monetary damages are
sought, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
These lawsuits and claims may relate to contract, patent,
environmental, product liability, asbestos exposure, antitrust,
employment, securities and other matters arising out of the conduct
of PPG's current and past business activities.
As of both March 31, 2023 and December 31, 2022, the Company's
asbestos-related reserves totaled $51 million.
The Company believes that, based on presently available
information, the total reserves of $51 million for asbestos-related
claims will be sufficient to encompass all of the Company's current
and estimable potential future asbestos liabilities. These
reserves, which are included within Other liabilities on the
accompanying consolidated balance sheets, involve significant
management judgment and represent the Company's current best
estimate of its liability for these claims.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3HuyhmL
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Whittaker Clark Files Ch. 11 After Deluge of Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dietrich Knauth, writing for Reuters.com, reports that Defunct talc
supplier Whittaker, Clark & Daniels has filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy, citing a "deluge" of lawsuits alleging that its talc
products caused asbestos exposure and cancer.
Whittaker operated one of the largest talc and industrial compound
supply and distribution businesses in the U.S. in the 1970s and
1980s, but it ceased operations in 2004, according to court
documents filed on Thursday in New Jersey bankruptcy court. Its
corporate existence since then has largely been devoted to
resolving a growing wave of legal claims related to its
decades-long production of talc and industrial chemicals.
Whittaker has limited remaining assets, and the litigation is
draining its funds faster than its investment income can keep up,
according to the company.
More than 2,700 individuals have sued Whittaker alleging its talc
products exposed them to asbestos. The firm had recently been
spending $1 million a month on legal defense, it said in its court
filing.
Whittaker said that it was forced to seek bankruptcy protection
after a recent $29 million verdict in South Carolina led to
appointing a receiver to take over its operations. The company
argues that its assets should be equitably distributed among all
talc claimants rather than being seized by the receiver.
Whittaker sold its equity to the Berkshire Hathaway-affiliated
National Indemnity Company and Ringwalt & Liesche Co. in 2007.
Berkshire Hathaway said Thursday that its subsidiaries were not
involved in Whittaker's past operations and did not issue any
insurance to the company.
Litigation has driven other talc suppliers into bankruptcy in
recent years, including Cyprus Mines and Imerys Talc. Johnson &
Johnson is currently attempting to resolve its talc liabilities
through the bankruptcy of a subsidiary company, LTL Management.
*********
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 2023. 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 ***