/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230509.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, May 9, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 93
Headlines
2WITH DELI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dougherty Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Oswald Suit Claims
3M COMPANY: Dickmann Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Exposed Civilian Firefighters to PFAS, June Suit Says
3M COMPANY: Mazique Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Mrozek Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Nanoy Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Osborne Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Smallwood Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Strawn Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Strickland Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: West Sues Over AFFF Products' Risk to Human Health
707 STREET: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Mackey Suit Claims
ABBVIE INC: Camargo Sues Over Prescription Drug Pricing Scheme
ACE HARDWARE: Sprowls Sues Over Illegal Possession of Biometrics
ADIDAS AG: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
AK INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Campos Suit Alleges
ALLIANCE DATA: Saxena White Files New Securities Class Action
ALLSTATE CORP: Cutrone Plaintiffs Win Leave to Take 20 Depositions
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: James Sues Over Communications Wiretapping
AMAZON WEB SERVICES: Trio Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
AMAZON.COM INC: Perry Files Suit in C.D. California
AMAZON.COM INC: Sued Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Voice Print
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Agrees to Settle Shareholders' Class Action Suit
ANTHEM COMPANIES: Learing Seeks Rule 23 Class Action Certification
ASSURANCE WIRELESS: Denial of Arbitration in Diplacido Suit Upheld
AT&T MOBILITY LLC: Trimble Files Suit in W.D. North Carolina
BACKSLIDERS LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bernal Suit Alleges
BELLE FOUNTAIN: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Drumm Suit Alleges
BIG THINK: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due August 31
BYLINE BANK: Faces Wychesit Suit Over Bank Employees' Unpaid OT
CAFE VICO: Alarcon Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida
CAFFE PANNA: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
CENTENE CORP: Styles' Claim Under State Wage and Hour Laws Tossed
CEREBRAL INC: Suit Filed in C.D. California
CEREBRAL MEDICAL: Sanders Sues Over Failure to Secure PII and PHI
CLALLAM COUNTY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Britt Suit Alleges
CLEVELAND COUNTY, NC: Employees Get FLSA Conditional Certification
COMMUNITY HOSPICE: Faces Wage & Hour Class Action in Calif.
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Boaden Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
CORE SCAFFOLD: Angel Seeks Conditional Collective Certification
CORTEC PRECISION: Padilla Sues Over Illegal Employment Practices
DAVE AND MATT VANS: Gutierrez Suit Removed to C.D. California
DEVON ENERGY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Bond Suit Alleges
DOLEX DOLLAR EXPRESS: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California
ENZO BIOCHEM: Sued Over Improper Sale of Assets to Affiliates
EXTREME MOTOR SPORTS: Olvera Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
FARMERS INSURANCE: Ruffulo Files FLSA Suit in C.D. California
FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
FORD MOTOR: Faces Another Class Suit Over Automatic Transmission
FORIS DAX: Massel Sues Over Unlawful Collections of Biometric Data
FORTRA LLC: Butts Files Suit in D. Minnesota
FORTRA LLC: Taylor Files Suit in D. Minnesota
FRANK KENDALL: Parties Seek to Certify Settlement Class
FRONTLINE ASSET: Gonzales Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
FULCRUM THERAPEUTICS: Celano Sues Over Drop in Share Price
FULCRUM THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Discloses Class Action
FULFILLMENT LAB: Court Grants Withdrawal of Counsel in Sihler Suit
GATE CITY BANK: Churlik Suit Removed to D. Minnesota
GRAY GLOVE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Berger Suit Alleges
GUARDIAN ANALYTICS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Dywer Alleges
H.F. COX INC: Weaver Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
HONDA MOTOR: Car Owners Sue Over "Sticky" Electric Power Steering
HOPPER USA: N.D. Illinois Refuses to Dismiss Acosta Class Suit
HORIZON BANCORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 20
INDEPENDENT LIVING: Basulto Files Suit in S.D. Florida
INDUS COSMECEUTICALS: Firato Sues Over Dangerous Eyebrow Dye
INTELSAT SA: Insider Trading Suit Falls Flat for Shareholders
JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: Parker Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
JPMORGAN: Financier Victim in Fraud Suit Asks Class Action Status
JUNIPER VILLAGE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cozewith Alleges
JWB PROPERTY MANAGEMENT: Byrd Files Suit in M.D. Florida
LEGACY SUPPLY CHAIN: Young Suit Removed to S.D. Indiana
LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 26
LOMA NEGRA COMPANIA: Discovery in Kohl Class Suit Ongoing
LUCKIN COFFEE: Court Approves Distribution Plan in Securities Suit
MACYS INC: Byars Suit Removed to C.D. California
MAROD SUPERMARKETS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arrazola Alleges
MB JESSEE PAINTING: Cordova-Villalta Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MCCLENNY MOSELEY: Carter Suit Removed to E.D. Louisiana
MEDSTREAM ANESTHESIA: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Blondeau Says
META PLATFORMS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in CA
MINNESOTA: Salcedo, et al., Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot
MOELIS & CO: Faces Stockholder Class Suit in Delaware
MOMENTIVE GLOBAL: Bushansky Sues Over Proposed Merger Sub
MTAH ENTERPRISE: Underpays Aestheticians, Trotter FLSA Suit Says
MY PILLOW: Workers Win Class Status, Lose Some State Wage Claims
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Has Limited Class Cert. Argument, Suit Claims
NEW HAMPTON: Grainger Bid to Reconsider Class Cert. Denial Tossed
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Council Agreed to Table Decision on Joining Suit
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Irizarry Files Suit in N.D. Ohio
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Policaro Files Suit in N.D. Ohio
NYC HARLEM: Medina Seeks Certification of Settlement Class
OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Order & Final Judgment Entered in Securities Suit
ORLANDO HEALTH: W.W. Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of PII and PHI
PENNSYLVANIA: Court Tosses Bid to Appoint Class Counsel
PENNSYLVANIA: Daddazio, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
PEOPLEREADY INC: Bid to Remand Beltran Suit to State Court Denied
PORSCHE CARS: Bauser Sues Over Defective Electric Vehicles
PROTECT MY CAR: Marshall Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
RANCHO MESQUITE: Figura Files Suit in D. Nevada
RB FOOD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Borges Suit Alleges
RCI DINING: Moffitt Seeks FLSA Class Conditional Certification
RCR HOME IMPROVEMENTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Velasquez Says
RENTOKIL NORTH AMERICA: Vasquez Suit Removed to C.D. California
REVENTICS LLC: Henderson Files Suit in D. Colorado
RICE DRILLING: Partial Summary Judgment Bid in J&R Suit Withdrawn
RISE INTERACTIVE: Roper Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
ROADONE INTERMODALOGISTICS: Felix Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ROBERTSON ANSCHUTZ: Etzel FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
SHORE FUNDING: Court Bifurcates Discovery in Harris TCPA Suit
SOTO MEDIA: Esposito-Costagliola Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON: Unland Files Suit in C.D. California
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Galecio-Cruz Sues Over Unpaid Wages
SPRUCE SERVICES: Garcia Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
SRG GLOBAL COATINGS: Thomure Files Suit in E.D. Missouri
STATE FARM MUTUAL: McClain Suit Removed to E.D. Wisconsin
STATE FARM: S.D. Ohio Allows Nichols to Amend Class Complaint
STUBBS & WOOTTON: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SUTTER BAY HOSPITALS: Martha Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TD BANK NA: Kamara Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
TD BANK: Knoll Sues Over Involvement on Fraudulent Scheme
TOBI.COM LLC: O'Dea Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TOUCHSTONE CLIMBING: Perkins Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TRADER JOE'S: Waring Suit Transferred to S.D. California
TRANSPERFECT TRANSLATIONS: Metcalf Suit Referred to Mag. Judge
TURN 5 INC: Holt Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
TWITTER INC: Yeh Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
U-HAUL CO: Nicholas Sues Over Unlawful Collection Practices
UNITED STATES: Cheng Sues Over Chemicals in Drinking Water
US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE: Huth Files Suit in N.D. Ohio
VMK INC: Cole Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime wages
WAG LABS INC: Reed Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
WALT DISNEY: Nielsen Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal
WARBY PARKER: Fails to Provide Meal and Rest Breaks, Suit Says
WOKUMI: Lau Files Suit in S.D. New York
XAVIER UNIVERSITY: Hazure Files Suit in E.D. Louisiana
ZACHARY K. BRADFORD: France Suit Removed to D. Nevada
ZACHARY K. BRADFORD: Smith Suit Removed to D. Nevada
ZOLL MEDICAL: Calvert Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
ZOLL MEDICAL: McGilberry Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
*********
2WITH DELI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dougherty Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE DOUGHERTY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 2WITH DELI, CORP.; and ANDREW
WENGROVER, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-03496 (S.D.N.Y., April 26,
2023) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum
wages, overtime compensation, and provide accurate wage
statements.
Plaintiff Dougherty was employed by the Defendants as a server.
2WITH DELI, CORP. owns and operates Sarge's Deli restaurant
Manhattan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
Denise A. Schulman, Esq.
JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
32 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 688-5640
Facsimile: (212) 981-9587
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Oswald Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL OSWALD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01757-RMG
(D.S.C., April 27, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and military members, including the Plaintiff, who they
knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products.
The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, says the suit.
As a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products, the
Plaintiff was diagnosed with colon cancer, the suit alleges.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Dickmann Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA DICKMANN and GLENN DICKMANN, by the Proposed Administrator
and Next-of-Kin, Patricia Dickmann, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01768-RMG
(D.S.C., April 27, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from personal injury and death of Glenn Dickmann,
Decedent, as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian
firefighters, including the Decedent, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Decedent was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. The
Decedent's diagnosis caused and/or contributed to his death, says
the suit.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Exposed Civilian Firefighters to PFAS, June Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GERALD JUNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01759-RMG
(D.S.C., April 27, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, says the
suit.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Mazique Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES MAZIQUE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01769-RMG
(D.S.C., April 27, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and military members, including the Plaintiff, who they
knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products.
The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, says the suit.
As a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products, the
Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer, the suit alleges.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Mrozek Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
--------------------------------------------------------
William Mrozek, 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-01300-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
bladder 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: Nanoy Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Nanoy, 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-01273-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:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Osborne Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE OSBORNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01771-RMG
(D.S.C., April 27, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, says the
suit.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Smallwood Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Smallwood, 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-01301-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: Strawn Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
--------------------------------------------------------
Dal Strawn, 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-01302-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: Strickland Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Strickland, 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-01272-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:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: West Sues Over AFFF Products' Risk to Human Health
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES WEST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01755-RMG
(D.S.C., April 27, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, the suit
alleges.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
707 STREET: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Mackey Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA MACKEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 707 STREET LLC, Defendant, Case No.
171769206 (Fla. Cir., Pinellas Cty., April 25, 2023) seeks to stop
the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls.
707 STREET LLC is a consumer goods and services retailer. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq.
KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A.
2110 West Platt Street
Tampa, FL 33606
Telephone: (813) 422-7782
Facsimile: (813) 422- 7783
Email: ben@theKRfirm.com
ABBVIE INC: Camargo Sues Over Prescription Drug Pricing Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD CAMARGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ABBVIE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-02589 (N.D. Il., April 25, 2023) alleges violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant manufacture a
prescription drug, Humira, indicated for autoimmune, rheumatologic,
and gastrointestinal disease. The prices of this drug are now so
high that despite being prescribed, many Humira patients simply
can't afford it. As an integral part of the scheme, AbbVie joined
with the largest pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) -- CVS Health,
Express Scripts, and OptumRx -- to widen a secret spread between
AbbVie's published list prices and the undisclosed net selling
prices for Humira. Knowing that PBM profits are tied to the size of
the spread between list price and net selling price, AbbVie has
offered the PBMs higher spreads in exchange for preferred positions
on the PBMs' drug formularies.
To carry out this scheme, AbbVie artificially inflates the prices
it publicly reports, its list or "sticker" price, called by one
court the "sucker price", and then secretly offers a far lower
price -- the net price, to the largest PBMs. This list-price
inflation pads the pockets of PBMs who retain a percentage of the
list price plus and some of the rebates. In exchange for AbbVie's
unfair and unconscionable inflation of its reported list prices,
and corresponding spreads between prices, the PBMs promise
preferred formulary placement to the winning bidder, i.e., the
manufacturer with the highest spread in this case, AbbVie.
ABBVIE INC. researches and develops pharmaceutical products. The
Company produces pharmaceutical drugs for specialty therapeutic
areas such as immunology, chronic kidney disease, hepatitis C,
women's health, oncology, and neuroscience. AbbVie also offers
treatments for diseases including multiple sclerosis, parkinson's,
and alzheimer's disease. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Craig R. Spiegel, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Ave., Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
craigs@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Mark T. Vazquez, Esq.
Whitney K. Siehl, Esq.
455 N. CityFront Plaza Dr., Suite 2410
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (708) 628-4962
Facsimile: (708) 628-4950
Email: markv@hbsslaw.com
whitneys@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
Hannah W. Brennan, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
Cambridge, MA 02142
Telephone: (617) 482-3700
Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
Email: tom@hbsslaw.com
hannahb@hbsslaw.com
- and -
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
decklund@carellabyrne.com
ACE HARDWARE: Sprowls Sues Over Illegal Possession of Biometrics
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Sprowls, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ACE HARDWARE CORPORATION and HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL
INC., Case No. 2023LA000236 (Ill. 18th Judicial Cir. Ct., DuPage
Cty., March 6, 2023), is brought for violations of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), and for damages and
other legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal
actions of Defendants in possessing, collecting, capturing,
storing, using, and/or otherwise obtaining his and other similarly
situated individuals' biometric identifiers1 and biometric
information (referred to collectively at times as "biometrics"), to
wit, their voiceprints, without obtaining informed written consent
or providing or complying with the requisite data retention and
destruction policies, in direct violation of BIPA.
In direct violation of each of the foregoing provisions of the
BIPA, Defendants possessed, collected, captured, stored used, or
otherwise obtained--without first providing notice, obtaining
informed written consent or publishing data retention policies--the
voiceprints and associated personally identifying information of
thousands of its employees (and former employees), called
"pickers," who are being required to utilize voice recognition
software as they pick and package items customers have purchased.
When Plaintiff worked as a picker, Defendants possessed, collected,
captured, stored, used, and/or otherwise obtained his biometrics
through its requirement that pickers use Honeywell's Vocollect
Solutions technology. BIPA confers on Plaintiff and all other
similarly situated Illinois residents a right to know of the risks
that are inherently presented by the collection and storage of
biometrics, and a right to know how long such risks will persist
after using voice recognition software at one of Ace's distribution
centers.
The Plaintiff brings this action to prevent Defendants from further
violating the privacy rights of Illinois residents and to recover
statutory damages for Defendant's improper and lackluster
collection, storage, usage, and protection of Ace's employees'
biometrics in violation of BIPA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked as an hourly employee at an Ace distribution
center located in Princeton, Illinois, as an order "picker" from
July 2020 through September 2020.
Honeywell develops, manufacturers, and sells voice picking
technology under its "Honeywell Voice" brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
111 W. Jackson Street, Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 984-0000
Fax: (212) 686-0114
Email: malmstrom@whafh.com
- and -
Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Phone: 646.837.7150
Fax: 212.989.9163
Email: jmarchese@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
- and -
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER P.A.
1900 California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (206) 491-2207
Fax: (925) 407-2700
Email: ndeckant@bursor.com
ADIDAS AG: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of adidas AG (OTC: ADDYY, ADDDF) between May 3, 2018 and
February 21, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for adidas investors under the
federal securities laws.
To join the adidas class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=12204 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose,
among other things, that: (1) In addition to other misconduct,
Kanye West made anti-Semitic comments in front of adidas staff, and
even suggested naming an album after Adolf Hitler; (2) adidas was
aware of his behavior, and failed to warn investors that it was
aware of that behavior, and had considered ending the Partnership
as a result of it; (3) adidas failed to take meaningful
precautionary measures to limit negative financial exposure if the
Partnership were to end as a result of West's behavior; (4) adidas
overstated the risk mitigation measures it took with regard to
Yeezy shoes in the event that it terminated the Partnership; (5) as
a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false
and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 27,
2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=12204 or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]
AK INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Campos Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
AURORA CAMPOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AK, INC. d/b/a SUPER 99+ CENTS; COMISS, INC.
d/b/a SUPER 99+ CENTS; TRIPECOS, INC. d/b/a SUPER 99 CENTS CENTER;
ALBERT KIM; YONG JAE KIM; CHANG SUN YOO; and YONG WOO KIM,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01047-NRN (D. Col., April 25, 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 Campos was employed by the Defendants as a staff.
AK, INC. d/b/a SUPER 99+ CENTS owns and operates a discount
merchandise stores. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandt Milstein, Esq.
MILSTEIN TURNER, PLLC
2400 Broadway, Suite B
Boulder, CO 80304
Telephone: (303) 440-8780
Email: brandt@milsteinturner.com
ALLIANCE DATA: Saxena White Files New Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit
(the "Class Action") in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio against Alliance Data Systems Corporation
n/k/a Bread Financial Holdings, Inc. ("ADS") and certain current
and former executive officers of ADS and Loyalty Ventures, Inc.
("Loyalty Ventures," or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LYLT)
(collectively, "Defendants"). The Class Action asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on behalf of all persons
and entities that purchased Loyalty Ventures common stock between
November 8, 2021 and June 7, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
and were damaged thereby (the "Class"). The Class Action filed by
Saxena White is captioned: Newtyn Partners, LP and Newtyn TE
Partners, LP v. Alliance Data Systems Corporation n/k/a Bread
Financial Holdings, Inc., No. 23-cv-01451 (S.D. Ohio).
Loyalty Ventures was created as the result of a November 2021
spinoff from ADS. Loyalty Ventures owns and operates the AIR MILES
Reward Program ("Air Miles"), an end-to-end loyalty platform, and
BrandLoyalty, a campaign-based loyalty program for grocers and
other high-frequency retailers. Air Miles' participating businesses
("Sponsors") pay a fee to the Company per reward mile issued, and
in return, Air Miles provides all marketing, customer service,
rewards, and redemption management. Sobeys Inc., the second-largest
supermarket chain in Canada, was the second-largest Sponsor in the
Air Miles program.
On November 8, 2021, Loyalty Ventures began trading as an
independent public company after being spun off from ADS. In the
months leading up to the spinoff, Defendants made statements,
including in ADS's SEC filings, touting Loyalty Ventures' prospects
as an independent company, including its "strong" and "highly
attractive" profile, and highlighting customers such as Sobeys and
its "exclusive relationships." Similarly, in the months following
the spinoff, Defendants assured investors of the quality of Loyalty
Ventures' management team, its business strategy, and its
"long-standing customer relationships."
The Class Action alleges that Defendants misled investors and/or
failed to disclose that (1) the Air Miles program suffered from a
lack of investment prior to the spinoff; (2) as a result, Sobeys
had informed Defendants it was considering exercising its early
termination rights; (3) the threat of Sobeys' departure loomed
throughout 2021 including in the timeframe leading up to the
spinoff; (4) Defendants expected the departure of any single large
sponsor, such as Sobeys, would have "network effect" on the value
of the entire Air Miles program; and (5) the high leverage and debt
service obligations foisted upon Loyalty Ventures, in conjunction
with the "network effect" impact on the value of the Air Miles
business, threatened the Company's ability to continue operations;
and (6) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's financial guidance, business, operations, and prospects
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times.
On June 8, 2022, before the markets opened, Loyalty Ventures issued
a press release revealing that the Company and Air Miles Sponsor
Sobeys "were unable to align on extension terms," and
"consequently, Sobeys provided notice of its intent to exit the
program on a region-by-region basis, beginning with Atlantic
Canada, between August and the first quarter of 2023." The press
release also noted that the "primary impact" of the loss of Sobeys
as a customer in 2022 would be "on the number of AIR MILES reward
miles issued," and that Loyalty Ventures would re-evaluate its 2022
revenue and EBITDA guidance." In response to this news, the price
of Loyalty Ventures shares fell over 45%, from a closing price of
$11.03 per share on June 7, 2022, to a closing price of $6.02 per
share on June 8, 2022. Loyalty Ventures ultimately filed for
Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of Texas on March 9, 2023.
If you purchased Loyalty Ventures common stock during the Class
Period and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class"
and may be able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish
to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio no later than June 26, 2023. The lead plaintiff is a
court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class. You
do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any
Class recovery in the Class Action. If you are a Class member and
there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery
as an absent Class member.
You may contact Lester Hooker (lhooker@saxenawhite.com), an
attorney and Director at Saxena White P.A., to discuss your rights
regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the
Class Action. You also may retain counsel of your choice to
represent you in the Class Action.
You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and inquire about actively
joining the Class Action at www.saxenawhite.com.
Saxena White P.A., with offices in Florida, New York, California,
and Delaware, is a leading national law firm focused on prosecuting
securities class actions and other complex litigation on behalf of
injured investors. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous
securities fraud class actions nationwide, Saxena White has
recovered billions of dollars on behalf of injured investors. [GN]
ALLSTATE CORP: Cutrone Plaintiffs Win Leave to Take 20 Depositions
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KATHERINE CUTRONE, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE ALLSTATE
CORPOATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20 C 6463 (N.D. Ill.),
Magistrate Judge M. David Weisman of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, grants in part
the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to take more than 10 depositions.
The Plaintiffs, a putative class, are current and former
participants in the Allstate 401(k) Saving Plan. They bring claims
against the Plan's fiduciaries for breach of fiduciary duty and
prohibited transactions under the Employment Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C Sections 1104, 1106. The
Plan's fiduciaries include Defendant Allstate, three
Defendant-Committees to whom Allstate delegated authority to manage
the Plan, and at least 36 individual fiduciary defendants. At least
16 other individuals from Allstate and at least seven third parties
were also directly involved in Plan management during the relevant
time period.
The instant dispute pertains to whether the Plaintiff may conduct
more than ten depositions. Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek leave
to conduct a total of 26 depositions.
The Plaintiffs argue that their request for 26 depositions is
necessary and proportionate considering the complexities and scope
of the case. Further, they argue that the requested number of
depositions is in line with other similar ERISA cases, and that
because the need for additional depositions is clear from the
outset, there is no need to delay the decision until after they
have exhausted their initial 10 depositions.
The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' request is unreasonable,
particularly since the Plaintiffs have not yet exhausted the 10
depositions allowed under the federal rules. They generally claim
that the requested depositions will result in duplicative
testimony, and that their burden in coordinating and preparing the
large number of witnesses for depositions is unjustified.
Judge Weisman finds that the Plaintiffs have made a sufficient
showing as to their need to conduct more than 10 depositions based
on the Rule 26 factors. However, because he is cognizant of the
burdens on the Defendants, Judge Weisman concludes that the
Plaintiffs may conduct up to 20 initial depositions rather than 26.
After completion of an initial 20 depositions, the Plaintiffs must
confer with Defendants as to any additional depositions they feel
are necessary. If no agreement can be reached between the parties,
the Plaintiffs must seek leave of Court to conduct any further
depositions.
In their response brief, Defendants request that the Court provides
"guidance" as to how the parties can resolve certain disputes
regarding the Plaintiffs' four Rule 30(b)(6) notices.
Because certain issues arising from the Plaintiffs' 30(b)(6)
notices are not ripe for our involvement, Judge Weisman directs the
parties to meet and confer on any and all disputes regarding the
proposed 30(b)(6) depositions. If disputes remain after that, the
Defendants must file an appropriate motion by May 10, 2023.
For those reasons, Judge Weisman grants in part the Plaintiffs'
Motion for leave to take more than 10 depositions. The Plaintiffs
may conduct up to 20 initial depositions. Any additional
depositions must be completed through agreement of the parties or
by obtaining leave of Court. Further, the parties are ordered to
meet and confer regarding any disputes pertaining to the 30(b)(6)
depositions the Plaintiffs seek to complete, consistent with Judge
Weisman's instructions.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 25, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://rb.gy/3t8e0 from Leagle.com.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: James Sues Over Communications Wiretapping
--------------------------------------------------------------
Conrad James, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY and HEAP INC., Case No.
CGC-23-605104 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., March 10,
2023), is brought on behalf of himself and a class of all
Californians whose electronic communications were intercepted by
Defendants through Allstate's use of Heap's analytics platform
software on its website in violation of the California Invasion of
Privacy Act ("CIPA").
Allstate Insurance Company offers consumers quotes for insurance
policies if they fill out a form online at Allstate.com. To obtain
a quote, consumers must enter private information about themselves,
including their protected health history. Heap Inc. is a marketing
analytic software-as-a-service ("SaaS") company that sells an
analytics platform software product that records consumer
interactions with a website in real time.
Allstate embedded Heap's JavaScript in the source code on its
website to optimize its lead generation efforts. Allstate benefits
financially from collecting information provided by potential
customers, or "leads," who indicate an interest in purchasing
insurance. Adding Heap's JavaScript allowed both companies to
surreptitiously observe and record visitors' keystrokes, mouse
clicks, and other electronic communications, including their entry
of Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and Protected Health
Information ("PHI").
When users seeking an insurance quote enter private information on
Allstate.com, Allstate shares those communications with Heap in
real time, without notifying users and without first obtaining
their consent. The communications Allstate shares with Heap include
its users' geolocation and answers regarding their private personal
and medical information, such as name, email address, age, height,
weight, information regarding medical conditions, prescribed
medications, and hospitalization history. Heap's software purports
to increase the value of Allstate's leads by harvesting extra
information about each person and independently documenting the
information they provided.
By wiretapping website users' communications, Defendants Allstate
and Heap violate the CIPA, and invade Plaintiff's and class
members' privacy rights in violation of the California
Constitution. In November or December, 2022 Plaintiff used the
Allstate website to search for an insurance quote, entering private
information into the online form at Allstate.com. During
Plaintiff's visit, Defendants Allstate and Heap recorded
Plaintiff's electronic communications in real time, and used the
intercepted data to learn his identity, email address, zip code,
date of birth, height, weight, use of prescription medications and
tobacco products, and other PII and PHI without his consent, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an adult resident citizen of the State of
California and resides in San Diego, California who used the
Allstate's website.
Allstate is an insurance company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq.
Matthew D. Pearson, Esq.
Alexander S. Vahdat, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
425 California Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 433-3200
Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
Email: jtabacco@bermantabacco.com
mpearson@bermantabacco.com
avahdat@bermantabacco.com
AMAZON WEB SERVICES: Trio Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Sandra Trio, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Amazon Web Services, Inc., Case No.
2023CH00544 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, to
the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Illinois on March
6, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-01389 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Amazon -- http://www.amazon.com/-- is an American multinational
technology company that focuses on e-commerce, cloud computing,
digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appears pro se.
Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
Catherine T Mitchell, Esq.
James B. Zouras, Esq.
Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 233-1550
Email: aficzko@stephanzouras.com
cmitchell@stephanzouras.com
jzouras@stephanzouras.com
rstephan@stephanzouras.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Ryan Spear, Esq.
Nicola Menaldo, Esq.
PERKINS COIE, LLP
1201 3rd Ave., Ste. 4900
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 359-8000
Email: rspear@perkinscoie.com
NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com
- and -
John Mylan Traylor, Esq.
Kathleen A. Stetsko, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
110 North Wacker Dr., Ste 3400
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 263-3069
Fax: (312) 728-9199
Email: MTraylor@perkinscoie.com
kstetsko@perkinscoie.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Perry Files Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amazon.com, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Jonathan Perry, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Amazon.com, Inc., Whole
Foods Market IP, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-01986-MWF-SK (C.D. Cal.,
March 16, 2023).
The nature suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Amazon.com, Inc. -- http://www.amazon.com/-- is an American
multinational technology company that focuses on e-commerce, cloud
computing, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jingxin Li, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JASON LI, P.C.
820 South Garfield Avenue, Suite 102
Alhambra, CA 91801
Phone: (626) 537-1403
Fax: (626) 414-5627
Email: jasonli@jasonlilaw.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Sued Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Voice Print
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Johnson and Joshua Keller, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, Case No. 23CV029587 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.,
March 17, 2023), is brought against the Defendant's violation of
the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA") by unlawfully
using, recording, and/or examining the Plaintiffs' biometric voice
print or voice stress pattern data.
As one of its business-to-business services, Amazon markets and
sells artificial intelligence software that allows other businesses
to record and analyze their customers' voices. Amazon describes its
technology, called Amazon Connect Voice ID, as a program "to
provide real time caller authentication and fraud risk detection to
make voice interactions faster and more secure."
The use of voice analysis software without a consumer's consent
poses a serious privacy risk. Voices are highly personal and can
reveal surprising amount of information about the individual, such
as the individual's mental state and behaviors. For instance,
machine learning analysis of an individual's voice can reveal
whether that individual is suffering from anxiety, the probability
of the individual defaulting on their loan, and even the likelihood
of them leaving a job.
Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like
these, California enacted the California Invasion of Privacy Act
("CIPA"), and specifically Cal. Penal Code Section 637.3, to
regulate companies that record and/or examine California citizens'
voice prints or voice stress patterns without first obtaining
consumers' prior express written consent. If left unchecked,
California citizens are at risk of unknowingly having their voices
being analyzed and mined for data by third parties to make various
determinations about their lifestyle, health, credibility, and
trustworthiness.
Despite this law, Defendant Amazon disregards consumers'
statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully uses, records,
and/or examines their biometric voice print or voice stress pattern
data in violation of CIPA. Specifically, Defendant has violated
(and continues to violate) the CIPA because it uses a system which
examines and records California residents' "voice prints or other
voice stress patterns to determine the truth or falsity of
statements made by such other person" without first obtaining their
express written consent, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are natural persons and citizens of the State of
California whose voice were recorded and examined by Amazon.
Amazon.com, Inc., is a corporation existing under the laws of the
State of Delaware.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
EDELSON PC
150 California Street, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415.212.9300
Fax: 415.373.9435
Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Agrees to Settle Shareholders' Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AMC Entertainment (NYSE: AMC) finally formally filed its settlement
documents with the Delaware Court of Chancery, offering to settle
the class action lawsuit filed by shareholders that would allow it
to issue stock, raise capital, convert its APE units and go ahead
with a 10-for-1 reverse stock split.
The settlement offer was put forth earlier this month as AMC
entered into a binding agreement with the class that would see the
suit dropped in exchange for about 6.9 million shares, or 4.4% of
the company's outstanding common stock pro forma.
The settlement payment came down to one share of common stock for
every 7.5 shares of common stock owned by shareholders on record.
The new shares might be valued up to $118 million, according to the
plaintiffs' lawyers who struck the proposed settlement with AMC.
"This Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement, and
Release in the above-captioned action, filed in the Delaware Court
of Chancery, is made and entered into as of April 27, 2023 . . . to
fully, finally, and forever compromise, resolve, discharge, and
settle the Released Claims, with the resulting dismissal of the
Action with prejudice," the AMC settlement filing said.
As part of the settlement, the defendants - led by CEO Adam Aron -
"deny any and all allegations of wrongdoing, fault, liability, or
damages with respect to Plaintiffs' Released Claims." This includes
denying any allegations that defendants have committed any
violations of law or breach of any duty and any assertions that the
company's stockholders were harmed by any conduct of defendants
pertaining to the suit.
"Nevertheless, Defendants have determined to enter into the
Settlement on the terms and conditions set forth in this
Stipulation solely to put Plaintiffs' Released Claims to rest,
finally and forever, without in any way acknowledging any
wrongdoing, fault, liability, or damages," the filing added.
Going ape on APE
The whole lawsuit rests upon AMC's proposals to increase AMC's
authorized common stock so that AMC Preferred Equity (APE) units
can be converted into common shares, to affect a reverse split of
the company's common shares at a ratio of 1:10, and to give AMC
more flexibility to issue additional common equity in the future.
These ideas were approved by an 87% majority, and AMC rejoiced.
But, the measures have yet to be carried out due to the class
action lawsuit.
Representing the plaintiffs in the suit is one of AMC's
shareholders, pension fund Allegheny County Employees' Retirement
System, claiming that the board members "breach[ed] their fiduciary
duties by carrying out a strategy to dilute the voting power of
AMC's Class A stockholders."
AMC has been asking the status quo order be lifted to move ahead
with the shareholder-approved measures while the case is being
settled. However, due to exceptionally significant investor
interest in the matter, Delaware Chancery Court Vice Chancellor
Morgan T. Zurn has pushed back the hearing.
"I'm open to getting this wrapped up by the end of June [but] I
think it's going to be almost impossible to do this in less than 60
days, given the stockholder interest that we anticipate," she
said.
The two parties arranged a settlement meeting in early April,
agreeing to a set of parameters outlined in a term sheet. This
includes the aforementioned payment in shares equivalent to 4.4% of
the company's outstanding common stock pro forma.
The road to settlement, however, took a lot of turns. Upon hearing
the settlement agreement between two parties, Zurn initially
refused to go along with a plan.
Zurn stated that AMC and the shareholders who sued the business but
are now willing to settle had not persuaded her to abandon the
procedural safeguards for class action settlements.
According to her, Delaware's statutes and case law compel judges to
assess proposed shareholder class action settlements to ensure they
are equitable to all investors, not just the stockholders who filed
the case. In nearly every case, both parties are eager to complete
settlements once they've reached an agreement, according to Zurn.
However, she believes that the unique circumstances of the AMC
proposed settlement do not warrant deviating from the standard
procedure for authorizing class action settlements.
Both parties desired to proceed quickly. AMC is rushing to finish
the stock reorganization so that it may obtain funds and pay down
debt. Meanwhile, plaintiffs' attorneys told Zurn in a motion filed
that issuing new stock to pre-convergence common shareholders
quickly would lock in the value of those new shares.
Shareholders asked Zurn to lift the status quo order so that the
share conversion and new share issuing may take place immediately
in motion. The court refused that motion.
Moreover, Zurn castigated the parties for the delay in filing the
settlement documents, given that the second proposed settlement was
already announced by the parties in April 14.
"The settlement documents must be filed by the close of business
today in order for the Court to continue to hold June 29 and 30 as
potential hearing dates. If counsel does not file the settlement
documents by close of business today, they should contact Chambers
for new hearing dates," Zurn admonished the parties in a letter,
prompting AMC to file its settlement documents.
The settlement documents still needs to be approved by the court
but Zurn seemingly has already provided her verbal approval
earlier. She also stated that "Court would provide AMC stockholders
with specific instructions about when and how to respond to the
settlement terms," exacerbating her disappointment on the delay in
filing the settlement documents. [GN]
ANTHEM COMPANIES: Learing Seeks Rule 23 Class Action Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE LEARING,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC., Amerigroup Corporation, and Amerigroup
Partnership Plan, LLC, Case No. 0:21-cv-02283-JWB-DJF (D. Minn.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her motion
for Rule 23 class action certification.
Anthem is a health benefits company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 24, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40Q5H6a at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
Caitlin L. Opperman, Esq.
4700 IDS Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
E-mail: srey@nka.com
copperman@nka.com
ASSURANCE WIRELESS: Denial of Arbitration in Diplacido Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERICA DIPLACIDO & others v. ASSURANCE WIRELESS OF
SOUTH CAROLINA, LLC, & others, Case No. 22-P-950 (Mass. App.), the
Appeals Court of Massachusetts affirms in part the order of a
Superior Court judge that refused to compel arbitration of the
Plaintiffs' claims.
In July 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint,
alleging that the various Defendants violated Massachusetts wage
laws and failed to pay the Plaintiffs fully for work performed. As
set forth in the complaint, the Defendants fall into two groups:
(1) the Defendants Boss Enterprises and Kuralay Bekbossynova (the
Boss Defendants), with whom the Plaintiffs had a written employment
agreement that contained an arbitration clause, and (2) Defendants
Assurance Wireless of South Carolina and Sprint Corp.
(collectively, Sprint), with whom the Plaintiffs did not have a
written agreement but whom the Plaintiffs allege were also their
employer.
The judge denied arbitration as to the Boss Defendants on the
ground that the motion was moot, due to his (incorrect)
understanding that the claims as to Boss had been settled. He
denied arbitration as to Sprint because Sprint was a nonsignatory
to the arbitration agreement, and because in light of the nature of
the Plaintiffs' claims, Sprint could not compel arbitration under a
theory of equitable estoppel.
Sprint Corp. and Assurance Wireless of South Carolina, LLC, are
corporations that jointly sell wireless services. Boss Enterprise,
Inc., is a corporation that entered a partnership with Sprint to
obtain the services of representatives to go door to door to market
Sprint's wireless services. Appellant Kuralay Bekbossynova is the
president and treasurer of Boss. The Plaintiffs are some of the
representatives who went door to door in 2018 to market Sprint's
wireless services.
Before performing their door-to-door marketing, each Plaintiff
signed a document labeled "Employment Agreement." The employment
agreements contained an arbitration provision listed
"Company/Employer" as Boss Enterprise and each respective Plaintiff
as "Employee." The employment agreements also stated that the
arbitration provision in the employment agreements is explained
more fully in a separate document.
On July 12, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint,
alleging nine claims in total, with three claims against each
Defendant individually: failure to pay the Plaintiffs all the wages
to which they were entitled; violation of minimum wages laws; and
failure to pay one and a half times the regular hourly rate for
overtime.
On Feb. 11, 2021, all the Defendants jointly moved to compel
arbitration, arguing that the employment agreements and the
arbitration agreements compelled the Plaintiffs to arbitrate their
claims against all defendants. The Plaintiffs filed an opposition
to the Defendants' motion to compel, and the motion judge heard
oral arguments on July 21, 2021.
On July 29, 2021, the motion judge denied the motion as to the
claims against Sprint. In his decision, the judge erroneously
stated, that the Plaintiffs settled their claims against Boss and
Bekbossynova and accordingly found that the motion to compel as it
related to those Defendants was moot.
All parties agree that Sprint was not a party to the employment
agreements or the incorporated arbitration agreements. The
Defendants argue that despite this, the judge erred in denying
their motion to compel arbitration as to Sprint for two reasons.
First, they argue that the judge erred in concluding that the
doctrine of equitable estoppel did not apply in this case. Second,
they contend that the judge based his decision on an untrue fact:
that Boss and Bekbossynova had settled with the Plaintiffs.
In reviewing this decision, the Appeals Court defers to the motion
judge on questions of fact unless they are clearly erroneous but it
reviews the denial of the motion to compel arbitration de novo.
The Appeals Court holds that the complaint expressly does not "lump
together" the Boss Defendants and Sprint, and the theory of
liability as to Sprint is distinct, requiring proof of facts that
are not necessary as to the claims against Boss. While it
recognizes that the claims against the Boss Defendants and the
claims against Sprint will have some overlap of witnesses and
evidence, that is not the test for whether a nonsignatory to an
arbitration agreement can compel arbitration. A plaintiff who did
not enter an arbitration agreement with another party should not be
forced to arbitrate their separate and distinct claims against that
party. In the case, the Appeals Court finds that the Plaintiffs
have treated the Defendants differently for substantive reasons,
and equitable estoppel does not bind the Plaintiffs to arbitrate
their claims against Sprint in the case.
All parties agree that the judge's factual finding that that the
"Plaintiffs settled their claims against Boss and Bekbossynova" was
erroneous.
The record does not support, however, the Defendants' argument that
the judge's ruling against Sprint as to the motion to compel was
based on that fact, the Appeals Court finds. Even if it was, it
says its review of the motion to compel is de novo and does not
rely on this error. For that reason, it affirms the judge's ruling
as it relates to Sprint. However, inasmuch as the Plaintiffs agree
that they had an express arbitration agreement with Boss, and
because the Plaintiffs did not settle their claims with the Boss
Defendants, the Appeals Court holds that the motion to compel as it
related to the Boss Defendants was not moot. Accordingly, the
denial of the motion to compel arbitration as to the Boss
Defendants was in error and must be reversed.
So much of the order as denied the motion to compel arbitration as
to Sprint is affirmed. So much of the order as denied the motion to
compel arbitration as to the Boss Defendants is reversed. The
matter is remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings
consistent with this decision.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 21, 2023 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://rb.gy/y6lzc from Leagle.com.
AT&T MOBILITY LLC: Trimble Files Suit in W.D. North Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AT&T Mobility, LLC.
The case is styled as Timothy Trimble, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, Case No.
5:23-cv-00038-KDB-SCR (W.D.N.C., March 16, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
AT&T Mobility LLC -- https://www.att.com/ -- also known as AT&T
Wireless and marketed as simply AT&T, is an American
telecommunications company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake Garrett Abbott, Esq.
ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM (CHA)
32 Ann Street, Unit B
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (843) 614-8888
Email: blake@akimlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Clay Campbell Wheeler, Esq.
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
4208 Six Forks Road, Ste 1400
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: (919) 420-1717
Fax: (919) 510-6127
Email: cwheeler@kilpatricktownsend.com
BACKSLIDERS LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bernal Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ISABELLA BERNAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BACKSLIDERS, LLC dba "South Austin Beer
Garden"; RYAN THOMAS; and DAVID B. PEARCE, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-00471 (W.D. Tex., April 26, 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 Bernal was employed by the Defendants as a bartender.
BACKSLIDERS, LLC owns and operates South Austin Beer Garden, a bar
located in Austin, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron Charles de la Garza
AARON C DE LA GARZA, PLLC
509 W. 18th St.
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 474-7054
Facsimile: (512) 474-5605
Email: aaron@adlglaw.com
- and -
Douglas B. Welmaker
WELMAKER LAW, PLLC
409 N. Fredonia, Suite 118
Longview, TX 75601
Telephone: (512) 799-2048
Email: doug@welmakerlaw.com
BELLE FOUNTAIN: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Drumm Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA DRUMM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BELLE FOUNTAIN NURSING & REHABILITATION
CENTER, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-10987-SDK-CI (E.D.,
Mich., April 27, 2023) is an action against the Defendants' failure
to pay the Plaintiff and the class minimum wages, and overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Plaintiff Drumm was employed by the Defendant as a certified
nursing assistant.
BELLE FOUNTAIN NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER, INC. specializes in
post-acute rehabilitation and skilled nursing care following a
hospital stay. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer L. McManus, Esq.
FAGAN MCMANUS, PC
25892 Woodward Avenue
Royal Oak, MI 58067-0910
Telephone (248) 542-6300
Email: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
BIG THINK: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due August 31
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Naiman v. Big Think
Capital Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-02531 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
James M. Wicks entered an order adopting the parties' proposed
schedule as follows:
-- Expert reports: July 28, 2023
-- Mediation: August 17, 2023
-- Class Certification Filing: August 31, 2023
-- First Step in Dispositive October 30, 2023
Motion Practice:
The nature of suit states restrictions of use of telephone
equipment.
Big Think Capital is a direct lender and financial service
marketplace.[CC]
BYLINE BANK: Faces Wychesit Suit Over Bank Employees' Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA WYCHESIT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BYLINE BANK, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-02639 (N.D. Ill., April 27, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendant for its failure to compensate the Plaintiff and
similarly situated non-exempt branch employees overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt classified Assistant Branch
Manager for Byline Bank in Harwood Heights, Illinois from
approximately October 2019 to September 2020.
Byline Bank is a commercial bank with its headquarters in Chicago,
Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 245-1000
E-mail: JSwartz@outtengolden.com
- and –
Paolo Meireles, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, PA
951 Yamato Rd., Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (800) 616-4000
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
E-mail: pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com
- and –
Erika E. Pedersen, Esq.
PEDERSEN & WEINSTEIN LLP
33 N. Dearborn Street, Suite 1170
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 322-0710
E-mail: epedersen@pwllp.com
CAFE VICO: Alarcon Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cafe Vico, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Erick Nino Alarcon, for himself and on
behalf of those similarly situated v. Cafe Vico, Inc.; Vico Galt
Ocean L.L.C. doing business as: Vico Kitchen Bar; Marcos Rodrigues,
individually; Case No. 0:23-cv-60445-RS (S.D. Fla., March 9,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Acts.
Cafe Vico, Inc. -- https://www.cafevicorestaurant.com/ -- is a
classy, romantic Northern Italian eatery with wine, cocktails &
outdoor seating.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Angeli Murthy, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Phone: (954) 318-0268
Fax: (954) 333-3515
Email: amurthy@forthepeople.com
CAFFE PANNA: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Caffe Panna LLC. The
case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, v. Caffe Panna LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-02037-BMC (E.D.N.Y., March 16, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Caffe Panna -- https://www.caffepanna.com/ -- is an Italian
inspired ice cream and coffee shop with daily changing flavors
located in Gramercy Park.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Gregory Dubinsky
HOLWELL SHUSTER & GOLDBERG LLP
425 Lexington Avenue, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (646) 837-8554
Email: gdubinsky@hsgllp.com
CENTENE CORP: Styles' Claim Under State Wage and Hour Laws Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARCUS STYLES, on behalf of himself, Nationwide FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, and LINCSTON JONES, on behalf
of himself individually, Plaintiffs v. CENTENE CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:22 CV 603 RWS (E.D. Mo.), Judge Rodney W.
Sippel of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, grants Centene's motion to dismiss
Count III of the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint.
In Count III, Styles seeks to bring a claim for violations of
"applicable state wage and hour laws," and he seeks to represent a
nationwide class.
Plaintiffs Marcus Styles and Lincston Jones bring this wage and
hour action against Defendants Centene Corp., Centene Management
Co., LLC, WellCare Health Plans, Inc., and Comprehensive Health
Management, Inc. (collectively, "Centene"). Styles brings two
claims on behalf of himself and other current and former employees
of Centene. Jones brings a single claim on behalf of himself.
Centene operates a large healthcare enterprise that sells insurance
products throughout the United States. It provides insurance
products to approximately 1 in 15 Americans. Styles was hired by
Centene in December 2019 to work as a benefits sales representative
in Houston, Texas. Styles' employment with Centene ended in October
2021. Throughout his employment with Centene, Styles was paid an
hourly rate of $22 an hour capped at 80 hours, with no overtime
pay, in addition to any commissions that he earned.
The Plaintiffs allege that Centene maintained a policy of setting
quotas for virtually every aspect of its business. For employees
like the Plaintiffs, who worked in sales, Centene's quotas included
the number of enrollments in insurance packages (i.e., sales) that
had to be obtained each quarter. Due to company pressure, and
because it was often difficult to meet quotas while working only 40
hours in a week, Centene's salespersons frequently worked more than
40 hours. Styles, for instance, typically worked 20 to 30 hours of
"overtime" per week.
The Plaintiffs allege that Centene also had a policy of
misclassifying its salespersons as outside salespersons exempt from
overtime compensation. According to them, Centene began
misclassifying its salespersons in March 2020 when state and local
governments began instituting lockdowns due to COVID-19, which
required outside salespersons to conduct all work from their home
offices. The Plaintiffs allege that Centene's salespersons
continued to work from their home offices even after the lockdowns
because many of Centene's clients did not want to engage in
face-to-face meetings. Plaintiffs claim that, as a result of
Centene's policies, they and other salespersons were wrongly
deprived of considerable overtime compensation.
Jones filed this wage and hour action on June 3, 2022, alleging
that he had been underpaid by Centene. He brought the action on
behalf of himself and all persons who, during the applicable
limitations period, were similarly underpaid by Centene in
violation of the protections afforded under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq. (the "FLSA"), the
parties' contracts, the laws of equity, and the laws and
regulations in Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and 41
states. After Centene filed a motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint, which replaced Jones with Styles as the
named Plaintiff for the putative collective and class claims and
added a single claim on behalf of Jones individually.
Centene then filed another motion to dismiss, and a hearing on
Centene's motion was held on Jan. 18, 2023. At the hearing, issues
regarding the sufficiency of the Plaintiffs' amended complaint were
identified, and the Plaintiffs represented that those issues could
be addressed through additional factual allegations. The Plaintiffs
were granted leave to file a second amended complaint.
The Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, but they did not
address the issues identified at the hearing. Instead, they removed
a significant number of allegations and several claims. In their
second amended complaint, they bring only three claims: (Count I)
on behalf of Styles and putative collective plaintiffs for
violations under the FLSA; (Count II) on behalf of Jones for
violations under the FLSA; and (Count III) on behalf of a putative
nationwide class for violations of applicable state wage and hour
laws. Centene moves to dismiss Count III pursuant to Rules 8(a)(2),
12(b)(1), and 12(b)(6).
Styles seeks to bring a claim for violations of "applicable state
wage and hour laws," and he seeks to represent a nationwide class
in Count III. He alleges that Centene violated his and the putative
class members' rights by failing to pay them the proper overtime
compensation at rates of not less than one and one-half times the
regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek due to a policy of misclassifying employees, in violation
of the state wage and labor laws outlined. He alleges that, due to
Centene's "state law violations," he and the putative class members
are entitled to recover unpaid overtime compensation, damages for
unreasonably delayed payments, statutory penalties, liquidated
damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
Judge Sippel explains that the doctrine of standing limits the
category of litigants empowered to maintain a lawsuit in federal
court to seek redress for a legal wrong. The requirements for
standing do not change in the class action context. A putative
class action can proceed as long as one named plaintiff has
standing. To have standing, a plaintiff must have"(1) suffered an
injury in fact, (2) that is traceable to the challenged conduct of
the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a
favorable judicial decision. This standing inquiry is not dispensed
in gross. A plaintiff must demonstrate standing for each claim he
seeks to press and for each form of relief that is sought.
Judge Sippel finds that Styles does not have standing to bring the
claim in Count III because he does not allege that he was injured
as a result of a state law violation. As alleged in the Plaintiffs'
second amended complaint, the applicable state wage and hour laws
do not include the laws of Texas, where Styles worked. Because
Styles does not allege that he was injured as a result of a state
law violation, he is not a member of the putative class in Count
III, and he therefore lacks standing to bring the claim in Count
III.
Accordingly, Judge Sippel grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss
Count III of the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 25, 2023 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://rb.gy/40u2f from Leagle.com.
CEREBRAL INC: Suit Filed in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cerebral, Inc. The
case is styled as John Doe, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Cerebral, Inc., Case No.
2:23-cv-01919-FMO-MAA (C.D. Cal., March 15, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor
Vehicle.
Cerebral -- https://cerebral.com/ -- offers online therapy, mental
health assessments and expert care on your schedule.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
CLAYEO ARNOLD APLC
6200 Canoga Avenue, Suite 735
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (916) 239-4778
Fax: (916) 924-1829
Email: aberry@justice4you.com
- and -
Dylan J. Gould, Esq.
MARKOVITS STOCK AND DE MARCO LLC
119 East Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Phone: (513) 651-3700
Fax: (513) 665-0219
Email: dgould@msdlegal.com
- and -
Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
CLAYEO ARNOLD APLC
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Phone: (916) 239-4778
Fax: (916) 924-1829
Email: gharoutunian@justice4you.com
- and -
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
MARKOVITS STOCK AND DE MARCO LLC
119 EAst Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Phone: (513) 651-3700
Fax: (513) 665-0219
Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com
CEREBRAL MEDICAL: Sanders Sues Over Failure to Secure PII and PHI
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rita Sanders, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CEREBRAL MEDICAL GROUP, A PROFESSIONAL COROPORATION, a
California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
23STCV05406 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 10, 2023), is
brought against the Defendants for their failure to properly secure
and safeguard Class Members' protected health information and
personally identifiable information stored within Defendants'
information network, including, without limitation, names, phone
numbers, email addresses, date of births, IP addresses, health
assessments, subscription information, appointment dates, treatment
information, clinical information, health insurance/pharmacy
benefit information, and insurance co-pay amount (these types of
information, inter alia, being thereafter referred to,
collectively, as "protected health information" or "PHI" and
"personally identifiable information" or "PII").
With this action, the Plaintiff seek to hold Defendants responsible
for the harms they caused and will continue to cause the Plaintiff
and, at least, 3,179,8353 others similarly situated persons in the
disclosure purportedly discovered by Defendants on January 3, 2023
by which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendants' inadequately
protected network servers and accessed highly sensitive PHI/PII
belonging to both adults and children, which was being kept
unprotected (the "Data Breach").
The Plaintiff further seek to hold Defendants responsible for not
ensuring that the PHI/PII was maintained and not disclosed in a
manner consistent with industry, the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPPA") Privacy Rule, the HIPPA
Security Rule and other relevant standards.
While Defendants claim to have discovered the breach as early as
January 3, 2023 Defendants did not begin informing victims of the
Data Breach until March 9, 2023 and failed to inform victims when
or for how long the Data Breach occurred. Indeed, the Plaintiff and
Class Members were wholly unaware of the Data Breach until they
received letters from Defendants informing them of it. The notice
received by the Plaintiff was sent via e-mail on March 9, 2023.
Defendants acquired, collected and stored the Plaintiff's and Class
Members' PHI/PII and/or financial information. Therefore, at all
relevant times, Defendants knew, or should have known, that the
Plaintiff and Class Members would use Defendants' services to store
and/or share sensitive data, including highly confidential
PHI/PII.
The Defendants disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class
Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently
failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure that the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII was
safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an
unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable,
required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures
regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a
result, the PHI/PII of the Plaintiff and Class Members was
compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third
party—an undoubtedly nefarious third party that seeks to profit
off this disclosure by defrauding the Plaintiff and Class Members
in the future, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a victim of the Data Breach.
Cerebral is a mental health subscription that provides clients with
ongoing, comprehensive access to online care and medication
management for a monthly rate.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
Laura Van Note, Esq.
Elizabeth Ruth Klos, Esq.
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th Street, Suite 1725
Oakland, CA 94607
Phone: (510) 891-9800
Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
Email: sec@colevannote.com
lvn@colevannote.com
erk@colevannote.com
Web: www.colevannote.com
- and -
Daniel Srourian, Esq.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 474-3800
Facsimile: (213) 471-4160
Email: daniel@slfla.com
CLALLAM COUNTY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Britt Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER BRITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CLALLAM COUNTY PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO.
2 d/b/a OLYMPIC MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-05377-MJP (W.D. Wash., April 27, 2023) is an action against
the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class minimum
wages, and overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week.
Plaintiff Britt was employed by the Defendant as a certified
medical coder.
CLALLAM COUNTY PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO. 2 d/b/a OLYMPIC MEDICAL
CENTER provides medical and surgical hospital services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael C. Subit, Esq.
FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS LLP
705 Second Ave., Suite 1200
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 624-6711
Email: msubit@frankfreed.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
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
rburch@brucknerburch.com
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713)877-8788
- 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
Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
CLEVELAND COUNTY, NC: Employees Get FLSA Conditional Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH B. CONNER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CLEVELAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, also known as Cleveland County
Emergency Medical Services, Case No. 1:18-cv-00002-MR-WCM
(W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Martin Reidinger concludes that
conditional certification of the Plaintiff's Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) claim as a collective action is appropriate and that
certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure is appropriate for the Plaintiff's state law breach of
contract claim.
The Court will conditionally certify as a collective action for the
FLSA claim a class comprised of employees who were employed by
Cleveland County anytime between January 2, 2015, and December 31,
2017.
The Court will certify as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 a
class comprised of employees who were employed by Cleveland County
anytime between January 2, 2016, and December 31, 2017. The Court
will order Cleveland County to submit objections to the proposed
notice within the time frame.
On January 2, 2018, the Plaintiff, Sara B. Conner filed this action
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against
Defendant Cleveland County Emergency Medical Services (CCEMS),
asserting claims for a violation of the FLSA, and a violation of
the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA).
CCEMS filed its answer on January 30, 2018, and on May 1, 2018, the
Plaintiff moved for leave to file an amended complaint [Doc. 15].
The Court granted the Plaintiff leave and the Plaintiff filed an
Amended Complaint on June 5, 2018.
The Plaintiff's Amended Complaint asserts claims against Cleveland
County a/k/a Cleveland County Medical Services for a violation of
the FLSA and for a state law breach of contract claim.
On January 30, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a reply to Cleveland
County's Response.
Cleveland County is a county located in the foothills of the Blue
Ridge Mountains and the western Piedmont.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 24, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oQTNM7 at no extra charge.[CC]
COMMUNITY HOSPICE: Faces Wage & Hour Class Action in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
lawyersandsettlements.com reports that current and former employees
of California-based Community Hospice Inc. have filed a class
action lawsuit asking nearly $5 million in alleged unpaid wages
during the COVID pandemic. The complaint also alleges meal and rest
periods were not provided. Plaintiffs allege that they were
required to work even when they were clocked out for meal times and
were denied rest periods for some shifts. And there are more
complaints, including racial discrimination.
Plaintiff Tyeisha Travis filed a class action at the beginning of
April, and it is currently pending in the Stanislaus County
Superior Court. The complaint claims that the hospice failed to pay
non-exempt employees minimum wages and overtime pay, and failed to
pay accurate sick pay wages during COVID. As well, Community
Hospice required its employees to work while clocked out for what
should have been their off-duty meal. The California labor Code
stipulates that employees are to be paid for all their time
worked.
INACCURATE WAGE STATEMENTS
The lawsuit also claims that the hospice frequently "rounded down"
when issuing payment for hourly wages rather than pay the actual
hours reported, so that wage statements "failed to identify the
accurate total hours worked each pay period." As well, employees
were not paid accurate sick pay wages, another violation of the
California Labor Code. The hospice said in a statement that,
"Employees routinely earned non-discretionary incentive wages which
increased their regular rate of pay. However, when paid sick pay
wages, it was allegedly paid at the base rate of pay rather than
the higher regular rate of pay."
Further, the complaint alleges that employees did not receive pay
that the hospice offered as part of an incentive program to hourly
employees that included performance-based bonuses as part of their
compensation packages. This resulted in an "underpayment" of
overtime compensation for hours worked, according to court
documents. Overtime wages were paid at a regular rate versus
increased incentive wages the company promised as part of their
compensation, the workers alleged.
BUSINESS EXPENSES
According to a press release, employees were not paid for required
business expenses. Again, the hospice has violated the California
Labor Code that states "an employer shall indemnify his or her
employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the
employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her
duties . . ." During employment, employees were allegedly required
to use their personal cellular phones as a result of and in
furtherance of their job duties.
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
An African American worker complained of "numerous instances of
racial discrimination" that occurred regularly during her
employment, according to the complaint. The plaintiff reported
"numerous instances of racial discrimination" she was enduring at
the work site to the hospice's HR Director. According to the
complaint, she was subjected to and endured on a weekly basis
discrimination from her managers: they commented on her African
style hair, skin color and other aspects of her appearance. As
well, she was assigned duties that stunted her growth and
opportunities with the company. She finally decided to resign due
to the hostile and discriminatory environment.
The lawsuit against Community Hospice, Inc. is Case No.
CV-23-001773
According to Hospice News, many hospices are struggling
operationally and financially to comply with regulations, mainly
due to workforce shortages and compliance issues. "Due to the labor
pressures, hospice providers are being called upon to do more with
less when it comes to compliance and care delivery, according to
one health care provider. However, while understaffed hospices are
addressing compliance challenges, this particular hospice is not
addressing its basic staffing needs, such as minimum wages -
allegedly. [GN]
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Boaden Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Continental Casualty
Company. The case is styled as John Boaden, James A. Carlson,
William B. Costello, William L. Miller, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Continental Casualty Company, Case
No. 1:23-cv-01477 (N.D. Ill., March 9, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Continental Casualty Company -- https://www.cna.com/ -- offers a
broad portfolio of property and casualty business insurance
solutions that allow you to better manage your risks and grow
profitably.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John M. DeStefano, III, Esq.
Robert B. Carey, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Phone: (602) 840-5900
Email: johnd@hbsslaw.com
rob@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: (708) 628-4960
Email: dank@hbsslaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Brent R. Austin, Esq.
Caroline Malone, Esq.
EIMER STAHL LLP
224 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1100
Chicago, IL 60604-2516
Phone: (312) 660-7684
Email: baustin@eimerstahl.com
cmalone@eimerstahl.com
CORE SCAFFOLD: Angel Seeks Conditional Collective Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCISCO JAVIER MARTINEZ
ANGEL, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the
Class, v. CORE SCAFFOLD SYSTEMS INC., M.D. SCAFFOLDING, INC., K & V
GARCIA CORP., JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-50, VALON PILKU, and VICENTE
GARCIA, Case No. 1:23-cv-00222-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff file a
motion for conditional collective certification and for court
facilitation of notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 24, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ABFpK8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
C.K. Lee (CL 4086)
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
CORTEC PRECISION: Padilla Sues Over Illegal Employment Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Padilla, as an individual and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. CORTEC PRECISION SHEETMETAL INC., a
California corporation and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
23CV411833 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 6, 2023), Is brought under the
California Labor Code and the California Industrial Welfare
Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders, to challenge systemic illegal
employment practices resulting in violations of the California Code
against employees of the Defendants.
The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges,
that the Defendants jointly and severally have acted intentionally
and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the
rights of all employees by failing to provide off duty meal periods
and compliance with the law. The Defendants have engaged in, among
other things, a system of willful violations of their California
Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Orders by creating and
maintaining policies, practices and customs that knowingly deny
employees their rights and benefits, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt grinder
employee in San Jose, California.
The Defendant is a California Corporation and a sheep metal company
conducting business in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 488-6555
Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
DAVE AND MATT VANS: Gutierrez Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Nora Gutierrez, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Dave and Matt Vans, LLC, Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV00987 was removed from the
Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on March 17, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02012-JLS-JC to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Dave & Matt Vans -- https://dmvans.com/ -- is an RV rental and
seller that offers customized RVs, camper vans, van accessories,
and camping apparels.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Tauler, Esq.
TAULER SMITH LLP
626 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 510
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 927-9270
Fax: (310) 943-1455
Email: rtauler@taulersmith.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Alexander M. Farkas, Esq.
Mary Chen, Esq.
Raymond J. McMahon, Esq.
DOYLE SCHAFER MCMAHON LLP
5440 Trabuco Road
Irvine, CA 92620
Phone: (949) 727-7077
Fax: (949) 242-4262
Email: afarkas@dsmllp.com
mchen@dsmllp.com
Rmcmahon@dsmllp.com
DEVON ENERGY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Bond Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN BOND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DEVON ENERGY CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
5:23-cv-00347-HE (W.D. OK., April 26, 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 Bond was employed by the Defendant as a drilling
consultant.
DEVON ENERGY CORPORATION operates as an independent energy company
that is involved primarily in oil and gas exploration, development
and production, the transportation of oil, gas, and NGLs and the
processing of natural gas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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
Email: 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
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
DOLEX DOLLAR EXPRESS: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Alma Garcia, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. Dolex
Dollar Express, Inc., Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
23STCV02256 was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March
17, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02013-MEMF-AS to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights for the Civil
Rights Act.
Dolex Dollar Express, Inc. -- https://www.dolex.com/ -- offer
domestic and international remittances, payments, check cashing and
more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Genish, Esq.
Miriam Schimmel, Esq.
Joana Fang, Esq.
BLACKSTONE LAW, APC
8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Phone: (310) 622-4278
Email: jgenish@blackstonepc.com
mschimmel@blackstonepc.com
jfang@blackstonepc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Min Kyung Kim, Esq.
Daniel Chammas, Esq.
FORD HARRISON LLP
350 South Grand Avenue Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 237-2400
Fax: (213) 237-2401
Email: mkim@fordharrison.com
dchammas@fordharrison.com
ENZO BIOCHEM: Sued Over Improper Sale of Assets to Affiliates
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN COOK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENZO BIOCHEM, INC.; MARY TAGLIAFERRI; HAMID
ERFANIAN; ELAZAR RABBANI; BRADLEY RADOFF; and IAN B. WALTERS,
Defendants, Case No. 652057/2023 (S.D.N.Y., April 27, 2023) is a
stockholder action brought by the Plaintiff against Enzo Biochem,
Inc. ("Enzo" or the "Company") and the members of its Board of
Directors (the "Board" or "Individual Defendants") for breaches of
fiduciary duties in connection with the Board's efforts to sell
certain of the Company's assets to Laboratory Corporation of
America Holdings ("Labcorp").
According to the complaint, on March 16, 2023, Enzo issued a press
release announcing that Enzo, Enzo's clinical laboratory division,
Enzo Clinical Labs, Inc. ("ECL"), and Labcorp had entered into an
Asset Purchase Agreement dated March 16, 2023 (the "Asset Purchase
Agreement") pursuant to which ECL will sell substantially all the
operating assets and assign certain liabilities of ECL to Labcorp
for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $146 million (the
"Asset Sale" or the "Proposed Transaction"). According to the Proxy
Statement, upon closing of the Asset Sale, "a certain portion of
proceeds will be distributed to the shareholders" of Enzo.
Allegedly, the Proxy Statement completely omits any financial
projections for Enzo, including Enzo management's financial
projections for ECL (the "ECL Projections"), provided to Enzo's
financial advisor Jefferies LLC ("Jefferies") in connection with
the financial analyses underlying its fairness opinion, and relied
upon by the Board in connection with its decision to approve the
Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement similarly fails to
disclose any projections for Enzo, ELS or the post-Asset Sale
entity.
Enzo stockholders are unable to value the post-Asset Sale entity or
ELS, which will become the primary business of the Company upon
completion of the Asset Sale. Without this material information,
Enzo stockholders are unable to cast a fully-informed vote on the
Proposed Transaction, the suit alleges.
ENZO BIOCHEM, INC. researches, develops, and manufactures health
care products based on molecular biology and genetic engineering
techniques. The Company also provides diagnostic services to the
medical community. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
ACOCELLI LAW, PLLC
33 Flying Point Road, Suite 131
Southampton, NY 11968
Telephone: (631) 204-6187
Email: racocelli@acocellilaw.com
EXTREME MOTOR SPORTS: Olvera Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Olvera, Cassandra L. Diaz, Jason Lee Solis, Humberto
Ramirez Villanueva, Anna Rodriguez, and Marisa Guerra,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. EXTREME
MOTOR SPORTS LLC, a Texas limited liability company, and EXXXTREME
CYCLES LLC, a Texas limited liability company, and ARTEMIO PEREZ,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00062 (S.D. Tex., March 16, 2023), is brought
arising from the Defendants' willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") by failing to pay the Plaintiffs proper
compensations.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants maintain a common policy that
misclassified them and all other similarly situated employees as
exempt employees. Specifically, Plaintiffs complain that Defendants
misclassified them as exempt and wrongly denied their
legally-mandated overtime pay. The Plaintiffs and the putative
class were non-exempt because they were never paid $684 on a salary
basis. Plaintiffs' primary duty was not management, and they lacked
the authority to hire or fire other employees or their suggestions
and recommendations as to the hiring, firing, advancement,
promotion or any other change of status of other employees were not
given particular weight. Because of Defendants' illegal common
policy, Plaintiffs seek to represent current and former "Managers"
who were paid a salary of less than $684 per week and whom
Defendants improperly classified as exempt from the overtime
protections and remedies of the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as "managers."
Exxxtreme Cycles is a franchise branch from the Massimo, Spartan,
Intimidator, and Echo Manufacturing Company that is licensed in the
state of Texas and in the business of selling and servicing ATVs,
UTVS, go-karts, scooters, and zero-turn mowers.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road
Plantation, FL 33324
Phone: (954) WORKERS
Fax: (954) 327-3013
Email: AFrisch@forthepeople.com
- and -
Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
ASH LAW, PLLC
402 W. Liberty St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48178
Phone: (734) 234-5583
Email: cash@nationalwagelaw.com
- and -
Oscar Rodriguez, Esq.
HOOPER HATHAWAY, P.C.
126 South Main Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1903
Phone: (734) 662-4426
Email: orod@hooperhathaway.com
FARMERS INSURANCE: Ruffulo Files FLSA Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Farmers Insurance
Exchange, et al. The case is styled as James Ruffulo, Valerie
Yankus, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, Farmers Group Inc., Truck Insurance
Exchange, Fire Insurance Exchange, Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 1:22-cv-02123 (C.D. Cal., March 9, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Acts.
Farmers Insurance Exchange -- https://www.farmers.com/ -- is the
largest of the three primary insurance insurers that make up
Farmers Insurance.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anthony Nguyen, Esq.
Matthew T. Hale, Esq.
Robert William Reed, Esq.
Carney R. Shegerian, Esq.
SHEGERIAN AND ASSOCIATES INC.
11520 San Vicente Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: (310) 860-0770
Fax: (310) 860-0771
Email: anguyen@shegerianlaw.com
mhale@shegerianlaw.com
wreed@shegerianlaw.com
cshegerian@shegerianlaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq.
Sarah Sears, Esq.
Seth Lesser, Esq.
KLAFTER OLSEN AND LESSER LLP
2 International Drive Suite 350
Rye Brook, NY 10573
Phone: (914) 934-9200
Fax: (914) 934-9220
Email: jak@klafterolsen.com
Sarah.Sears@klafterlesser.com
seth@klafterlesser.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Nina Huerta, Esq.
Amin H Al-Sarraf, Esq.
David Ronald Rutan, Esq.
Eve Tilley-Coulson, Esq.
LOCKE LORD LLP
300 South Grand Avenue Suite 2600
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3119
Phone: (213) 485-1500
Fax: (213) 485-1200
Email: nhuerta@lockelord.com
amin.alsarraf@lockelord.com
david.rutan@lockelord.com
eve.tilley-coulson@lockelord.com
FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARRY W. EUBANKS AND
CAROLYN D. EUBANKS, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. FLYWHEEL ENERGY PRODUCTION, LLC; XTO ENERGY,
INC. Case No. 4:21-cv-00329-LPR (E.D. Ark.), the Defendant Flywheel
asks the Court to enter an order extending its time until Monday,
May 8, 2023, for all the Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification:
On March 24, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class
Certification and Brief in Support. Pursuant to the Court's Amended
Final Scheduling Order, the Defendants' deadline to respond to the
Motion was April 14, 2023.
On April 10, 2023, the Court granted Defendants an additional two
weeks to respond to the Motion, which extended the deadline to
April 28, 2023. Doc. The Defendants request an additional ten days
to respond to the Motion, which extends the deadline to May 8,
2023, to keep this case on the same schedule with the Flowers and
Oliger cases.
Flywheel's counsel contacted Plaintiffs' counsel regarding this
request, who stated Plaintiffs do not oppose an extension of time
until May 8, 2023, for Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs'
Motion.
Energy requests the Court or Clerk of the Court grant Defendants an
extension of time through and including Monday, May 8, 2023, to
respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, and for all
other relief to which it is entitled.
Flywheel Energy is a private exploration and production company.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 24, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40Q62ps at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
G. Alan Perkins, Esq.
Julie Greathouse, Esq.
M. Christine Dillard, Esq.
Samuel S. McLelland, Esq.
PPGMR Law, PLLC
Little Rock, AR 72203
Telephone: (501) 603-9000
Facsimile: (501) 603-0556
E-mail: alan@ppgmrlaw.com
julie@ppgmrlaw.com
christine@ppgmrlaw.com
sam@ppgmrlaw.com
FORD MOTOR: Faces Another Class Suit Over Automatic Transmission
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lalita Chemello at jalopnik.com reports that the 10-speed automatic
transmission was truly a feat in the automotive world when it
debuted. A transmission with 10 gears, compared to the 9-, 8- 6-
speeds of yore, and potentially the "peak" of transmission
development, simply because physics has its limitations.
Regardless, the 10-speed created an even more gradual transition
between gears to that would allow the engine to be more efficient,
smooth, even faster. There's a reason you can find it in so many
vehicles today.
But like everything ever made, new things come with issues, and
growing pains are a part of the process. And Ford has certainly
faced the music, and lawsuits, when it comes to its 10R80
transmission. Yet, the saga continues, and as Ford Authority
reports, another lawsuit was filed against the Detroit automaker
this month, again citing alleged complaints with the operation of
the 1080R, and the list of complaints and affected Ford vehicles
reads much longer than previous suits.
The lawsuit, McCabe v. Ford Motor Company, was filed April 18 with
the Massachusetts State court. In the court filing, lawyers say
that Ford vehicle owners have experienced their transmission
shifting "harshly and erratically, causing the vehicle to jerk,
lunge, clunk and hesitate between gears," adding "some consumers
have even reported experiencing a sudden loss of power while
driving their vehicle."
Those represented in the case say the issues are dangerous and
potentially life-threatening. Most problematic, outside of the
shifting and bucking is that according to the suit, customers had
inquired about the issue, but say Ford had refused to repair it,
stating that the "abrupt and harsh shifting is normal."
Also included in the suit are several pages of complaints sent to
the National Highway and Traffic Safety Adminstration (NHTSA) for
each problematic vehicle. Those vehicles cited in the suit include
the Ford Ranger, Expedition, Mustang, F-150, and Lincoln Navigator
for model years 2017 to present. The F-150 complaints alone, spans
several pages.
Jalopnik has reached out to Ford for comment and will update if the
company provides a response. Although since this is currently
pending litigation, Ford may be unable to comment on it at this
time
Unfortunately this is not the first, and may not be the last case
Ford faces for such an issue. Another lawsuit, filed with the state
of Illinois, reads quite similarly to the Massachusetts case, but
was later dismissed because because the plaintiff did not produce a
"viable state law warranty claim."[GN]
FORIS DAX: Massel Sues Over Unlawful Collections of Biometric Data
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Massel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Foris Dax, Inc. d/b/a Crypto.com, Case No. Case No.
1:23-cv-01521 (N.D. Ill., March 10, 2023), is brought against
Defendant to redress and curtail Defendant's unlawful collections,
obtainments, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiff's sensitive
and proprietary biometric identifiers and/or biometric information
(collectively referred to herein as "biometric data" and/or
"biometrics").
As part of signing up, and/or gaining access to his Crypto.com
account, Plaintiff was required to upload a picture of a valid
state-issued identification; and a real time portrait of
Plaintiff's face, i.e. a "selfie."Crypto.com then scans the
"selfie" photograph, creates a biometric template of the user's
face, and compares the user's facial biometrics to the photograph
on the identification document to confirm whether they match.
Crypto.com collects, stores, possesses, otherwise obtains, uses,
and disseminates its users' biometric data to, amongst other
things, further enhance Crypto.com and its online "app- based"
platform. Crytpo.com wrongfully profits from the facial scans it
has collected or otherwise obtained from its users.
Facial geometry scans are unique, permanent biometric identifiers
associated with each user that cannot be changed or replaced if
stolen or compromised. Crytpo.com's unlawful collection,
obtainment, storage, and use of its users' biometric data exposes
them to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if
Crypto.com's database containing facial geometry scans or other
sensitive, proprietary biometric data is hacked, breached, or
otherwise exposed, Crypto.com users have no means by which to
prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking or other unlawful or
improper use of this highly personal and private information, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff, Michael Massel, opened a Crypto.com account on June
22, 2021.
Foris Dax, Inc. is a Delaware corporation which operates as an
online, "app-based" platform wherein individuals can trade
"crypto-currencies", crypto-currency derivatives, and other virtual
commodities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
8 N. Court St. Suite 403
Athens, OH 45701
Phone: 847-986-5889
Facsimile: 847-673-1228
Email: mike@fradinlaw.com
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
SIMON LAW CO.
5000 Rockside Road
Liberty Plaza – Suite 520
Independence, OH 44131
Phone: (216) 816-8696
Email: james@simonsayspay.com
FORTRA LLC: Butts Files Suit in D. Minnesota
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fortra LLC. The case
is styled as Alauntae Butts, Marquese York, individually and on
behalf all others similarly situated v. Fortra LLC, Case No.
0:23-cv-00636-SRN-DTS (D. Minn., March 15, 2023).
The nature of suit stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Fortra -- https://www.fortra.com/ -- is a cybersecurity
company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
David A. Goodwin, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
Mpls, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 333-8844
Fax: (612) 339-6622
Email: dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Danyll Foix, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1050 Connecticut Ave NW, Ste 1100
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 861-1500
Fax: (202) 861-1783
Email: dfoix@bakerlaw.com
FORTRA LLC: Taylor Files Suit in D. Minnesota
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fortra LLC. The case
is styled as Robert Taylor, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Fortra LLC, Case No.
0:23-cv-00636-SRN-DTS (D. Minn., March 6, 2023).
The nature of suit stated as Other Personal Property for Breach of
Contract.
Fortra -- https://www.fortra.com/ -- is a cybersecurity
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
Michael J. Laird, Esq.
Rachel K. Tack, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
1100 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 341-0400
Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
michael.laird@zimmreed.com
rachel.tack@zimmreed.com
- and -
Danielle Lynn Perry, Esq.
Gary E Mason, Esq.
Lisa A. White
MASON LLP
5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
Washington, DC 20016
Phone: (202) 429-2290
Fax: (202) 429-2294
Email: dperry@masonllp.com
gmason@masonllp.com
lwhite@masonllp.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Danyll Foix, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1050 Connecticut Ave NW, Ste 1100
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 861-1500
Fax: (202) 861-1783
Email: dfoix@bakerlaw.com
FRANK KENDALL: Parties Seek to Certify Settlement Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN JOHNSON and JANE
DOE on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
FRANK KENDALL, Secretary of the Air Force, Case No.
3:21-cv-01214-CSH (D. Conn.), the Parties jointly move the Court
for certification of preliminary approval of the settlement
agreement and Class Notice. The Parties also move for certification
of the proposed settlement class.
The Plaintiffs Martin Johnson and Jane Doe brought suit on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, challenging the
Air Force Discharge Review Board's (AFDRB) treatment of former
members of the United States Air Force, United States Space Force,
Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard separated with
less-than-honorable service characterizations who incurred
service-connected mental health conditions such as post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD) (and
related conditions), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), or experiences
of military sexual trauma (MST) or intimate partner violence (IPV).
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 24, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AK06Dz at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gustavo Berrizbeitia, Esq.
Yael Caplan, Esq.
Grace Fenwick, Esq.
Jun Luke Foster, Esq.
Alexis Kallen, Esq.
Nate Urban, Esq.
Meghan E. Brooks, Esq.
Michael J. Wishnie, Esq.
VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES CLINIC
JEROME N. FRANK LEGAL SERVICES ORGANIZATION
Yale Law School
P.O. Box 209090
New Haven, CT 06520-9090
Telephone: (203) 432-4800
E-mail: michael.wishnie@ylsclinics.org
- and -
Jacob Tracer, Esq.
Susan J. Kohlmann, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
919 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022-3908
Telephone: (212) 891-1678
E-mail: jtracer@jenner.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Vanessa Roberts Avery, Esq.
Natalie N. Elicker, ct28458
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
157 Church Street
New Haven, CT 06510
Telephone: (203) 821-3700
Facsimile: (203) 773-5373
E-mail: Natalie.Elicker@usdoj.gov
FRONTLINE ASSET: Gonzales Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
------------------------------------------------------------
Connie Gonzales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FRONTLINE ASSET STRATEGIES, LLC, a Minnesota limited
liability company: and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
23CV412059 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., March 9, 2023), Is
broad pursuant to the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (RFDCPA), which prohibits collectors from engaging
and abusive deceptive and unfair practices.
The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages against the Defendants
arising from their routine practice of sending initial written
communications like the one sent to the Plaintiff, which failed to
provide the notice required by the California Civil Code. As a
result, the defendants have engaged in unlawful acts in connection
with the attempt to collect time-barred and obsolete consumer debts
from the Plaintiff and the Class, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural operation residing in Santa Clara
County, California.
The Defendant is a debt collector.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Fred W. Schwinn, Esq.
Racon R. Roulson, Esq.
Matthew C. Salmonsen, Esq.
CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC.
38 West Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113-1806
Phone: 408-294-6100
Fax: 408-294-6190
Email: fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com
FULCRUM THERAPEUTICS: Celano Sues Over Drop in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------
GERALD CELANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FULCRUM THERAPEUTICS, INC.; BRYAN STUART;
ROBERT J. GOULD; and ESTHER RAJAVELU, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-02360 (D.N.J., April 28, 2023) is a federal securities
class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired
Fulcrum securities between March 3, 2022 and March 8, 2023, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") against the Company and certain of its top
officials.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance
policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (i) the preclinical data
submitted in support of FTX-6058 showed safety concerns regarding
potential hematological malignancies; (ii) the foregoing safety
concerns increased the likelihood that the FDA would place a
clinical hold on preclinical studies of FTX-6058; (iii)
accordingly, the Company had overstated FTX-6058's clinical and/or
commercial prospects; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
As a result of the 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 says.
Fulcrum's stock price allegedly fell $1.44, or 23%, to close at
$4.82 per share on March 9, 2023.
FULCRUM THERAPEUTICS, INC. produces and distributes pharmaceutical
products. The Company develops and produces drugs for transforming
gene regulation in diseases. Fulcrum Therapeutics serves the
healthcare sectors in the State of Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
Email: tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com
jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
211 Perimeter Center Parkway, Suite 1010
Atlanta, GA 30346
Telephone: (770) 392-0090
Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com
FULCRUM THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Discloses Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Fulcrum Therapeutics, Inc. ("Fulcrum" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: FULC), and certain officers. The class action, filed in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
and docketed under 23-cv-02360, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Fulcrum securities between March 3, 2022 and
March 8, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking
to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired
Fulcrum securities during the Class Period, you have until June 27,
2023 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.
Fulcrum is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on
improving the lives of patients with genetically defined rare
diseases in areas of high unmet medical need. One of the Company's
lead product candidates is FTX-6058, an investigational oral fetal
hemoglobin inducer for the treatment of sickle cell disease and
other hemoglobinopathies. Over the course of 2022, Fulcrum
submitted preclinical data to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") in connection with the Company's intention to file an
Investigational New Drug application for FTX-6058 for the potential
treatment of sickle-cell disease.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's fda operations, and compliance policies. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the preclinical data submitted in support of
FTX-6058 showed safety concerns regarding potential hematological
malignancies; (ii) the foregoing safety concerns increased the
likelihood that the FDA would place a clinical hold on preclinical
studies of FTX-6058; (iii) accordingly, the Company had overstated
FTX-6058's clinical and/or commercial prospects; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On February 24, 2023, Fulcrum issued a press release "announc[ing]
that on February 23, 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) verbally informed the company that it has issued a full
clinical hold regarding the Investigational New Drug (IND)
application for FTX-6058 for the potential treatment of sickle-cell
disease. The Agency indicated that it would provide a formal
Clinical Hold Letter to the company within 30 days." Fulcrum
further disclosed that "[t]he clinical hold was initiated by the
Agency due to previously reported preclinical data. Fulcrum will
suspend dosing in the Phase 1b trial of FTX-6058 and intends to
work diligently with the Agency to resolve the hold as soon as
possible."
On this news, Fulcrum's stock price fell $7.23 per share, or
56.09%, to close at $5.66 per share on February 24, 2023.
Then, on March 9, 2023, before the market opened, Fulcrum issued a
press release announcing recent business highlights and the
Company's Q4 and full year 2022 financial results. The press
release provided that in the clinical hold letter the Company
received on February 24, 2023, the FDA referenced "preclinical data
previously submitted in April, October and December 2022, and
non-clinical and clinical evidence of hematological malignancies
observed with other inhibitors of polycomb repressive complex 2
(PRC2)," and noted that "the profile of hematological malignancies
observed in the non-clinical studies of FTX-6058 is similar to that
observed with other inhibitors of PRC2, and that hematological
malignancies have been reported clinically with other PRC2
inhibitors." Finally, the FDA requested that Fulcrum "further
define the population where the potential benefit of continued
treatment with FTX-6058 outweighs potential risk."
On this news, Fulcrum's stock price fell $1.44, or 23%, to close at
$4.82 per share on March 9, 2023.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. [GN]
FULFILLMENT LAB: Court Grants Withdrawal of Counsel in Sihler Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JANET SIHLER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated; CHARLENE BAVENCOFF, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly, Plaintiffs v. THE FULFILLMENT LAB, INC;
RICHARD NELSON; BEYOND GLOBAL, INC.; BRIGHTREE HOLDINGS CORP.; BMOR
GLOBAL [ECF LLC; DAVID FLYNN; RICKIE JOE JAMES, Defendants, Case
No. 20cv1528-LL-DDL (S.D. Cal.), Judge Linda Lopez of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California grants the
Amended Motion to Withdraw as the Defendants' counsel of record.
Before the Court is TWF's Amended Motion to withdraw as counsel of
record for Defendants David Flynn, Rickie Joe James, and BMOR
Global, LLC (collectively "Clients"). The motion was filed by
attorneys Daniel Watkins, Skye Resendes, and The Watkins Firm, APC
(collectively "TWF"). The Amended Motion was submitted on the
papers without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1)
and Rule 78(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The operative complaint in this consumer class action involving
weight loss pills was filed March 7, 2022 by Plaintiffs Janet
Sihler and Charlene Bavencoff against Defendants The Fulfillment
Lab, Inc., Richard Nelson, Beyond Global Inc., Brightree Holdings
Corp., BMOR Global LLC, David Flynn, and Rickie Joe James. The
Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on June 4,
2022, which is currently pending.
On June 24, 2022, the Court denied without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' ex parte motion for service by alternate means through
the Nevada Secretary of State as to Defendant BMOR Global, LLC
("BMOR").
On July 19, 2022, Defendants David Flynn and Rickie Joe James were
served by alternate means with a summons, the Second Amended
Complaint, and the Court's order allowing service by alternate
means.
On Sept. 23, 2022, Defendants David Flynn, Rickie Joe James, and
BMOR Global, LLC filed their answer and affirmative defenses.
On Nov. 30, 2022, TWF filed a Motion to Withdraw as counsel for
their Clients. The Court denied it without prejudice for failing to
file proof of service of the motion to withdraw on BMOR. On March
27, 2023, TWF filed the instant Amended Motion with a sworn amended
certificate of service indicating service to BMOR. No opposition
was filed.
Judge Lopez states that a motion to withdraw must (1) be served on
the adverse party and moving attorney's client and (2) include a
declaration regarding service of the motion on those parties.
Failure to make service as required or to file the required
declaration of service will result in a denial of the motion.
As a preliminary matter, Judge Lopez notes that TWF has met the
requirements of Civil Local Rule 83.3(f) by providing proof of its
service of the Amended Motion and the original Motion to Withdraw
on the Clients and adverse parties. She turns next to the merits of
the Amended Motion.
TWF claims that withdrawal as counsel is appropriate because (1)
the Clients' refusal to communicate with them has resulted in TWF's
lack of authority to act in any particular manner for them and (2)
the Clients have failed to abide by the retainer agreement.
Judge Lopez finds that TWF's claims are valid reasons for
withdrawal. The Clients' cessation of communication with TWF,
failure to abide by the payment terms of the retainer agreement,
and refusal to do either despite warnings of withdrawal have made
it unreasonably difficult for TWR to represent the Clients
effectively. Because the case is in its early stages with class
certification not yet decided and the Clients have had sufficient
notice of the intent to withdraw, there is no danger of prejudice
to other litigants, harm to the administration of justice, or undue
delay. Accordingly, it is appropriate for TWR to withdraw as
counsel for the Clients because the relevant considerations weigh
in their favor.
Judge Lopez recognizes that granting the withdrawal motion would
leave BMOR Global, LLC, a corporate entity, without counsel in
contravention of Local Rule 83.3(j). However, Rule 83.3(j) is not
offended where a court orders an unrepresented entity to find
substitute counsel and provides time to do this on the condition
that failure to do so will expose the defendant to default
proceedings.
Lastly, the counsel describes the breakdown in the attorney-client
relationship with the Clients as including a lack of direction as
to how counsel should proceed on the pending motion for class
certification. As a result, no opposition to the motion for class
certification has been filed by the Clients. The Court will sua
sponte allow the Clients one last opportunity to file an opposition
by May 26, 2023.
For these reasons, Judge Lopez grants the Amended Motion as
follows:
1. TWF's Amended Motion to Withdraw as counsel of record is
granted. By April 28, 2023, TWF will (1) serve a copy of the Order
on the Clients and file proof of service with the Court and (2)
inform the Clients of the contents of the Order by phone, text
message, and email and submit a declaration of having done so.
2. Defendants David Flynn and Rickie Joe James may proceed pro
se (without counsel) and must inform the Court and opposing parties
of their current addresses by May 12, 2023 pursuant to Civil Local
Rule 83.11(b).
3. Defendant BMOR Global, LLC must retain counsel and have
counsel file a notice of appearance by May 12, 2023 or be subject
to default proceedings filed by Plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 55 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Additionally, Clients may file an opposition to the pending motion
for class certification by May 26, 2023.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 21, 2023 Order is available
at https://rb.gy/5d1kh from Leagle.com.
GATE CITY BANK: Churlik Suit Removed to D. Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Tracilee Churlik, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Gate City Bank, Case No.
49-cv-23-168 was removed from the Morrison County, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota on March 15, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:23-cv-00637-WMW-LIB to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Gate City Bank -- http://gatecity.bank/-- is a mutually owned bank
headquartered in Fargo, North Dakota, with 43 branches across North
Dakota and central Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Duran Jennings, Esq.
JOHNSON FIRM
610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: (501) 372-1300
Fax: (888) 505-0909
Email: chris@yourattorney.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue
Freedom Building, Ste. 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 254-8801
Fax: (615) 250-3937
Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 Washington Ave S Ste 2200
Mpls, MN 55401-2179
Phone: (612) 339-6900
Fax: (612) 339-0981
Email: Khriebel@locklaw.com
kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
- and -
Lynn A Toops, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: (317) 636-6481
Fax: (317) 636-2593
Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Bradley R. Bultman, Esq.
LARSON KING LLP
30 East Seventh Street, Suite 2800
Saint Paul, MN 55101
Phone: (651) 312-6500
Fax: (651) 312-6618
Email: bbultman@larsonking.com
- and -
James R. McGuire, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
405 Howard Stree, Esq.
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 619-3415
Fax: (415) 619-3505
Email: jmcguire@orrick.com
- and -
Lauren Lynn Erker, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90401
Phone: (310) 424-3916
Fax: (310) 424-3960
Email: lerker@orrick.com
GRAY GLOVE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Berger Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL BERGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GRAY GLOVE DELIVERY, LLC; and COLE D.
CAMPBELL, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00072-Z (N.D. Tex., April
27, 2023) is an action against the Defendants' failure to pay the
Plaintiff and the class minimum wages, and overtime compensation
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Plaintiff Berger was employed by the Defendants as a laborer.
GRAY GLOVE DELIVERY, LLC provides trucking or transfer services.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark D. Downey, Esq.
5308 Ashbrook
Houston, TX 77081
Telephone: 214-764-7279
Email: mdowney@dlawgrp.com
GUARDIAN ANALYTICS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Dywer Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHNIELLE DWYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GUARDIAN ANALYTICS, INC.; ACTIMIZE, INC.;
and WEBSTER BANK, NA, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02320 (D.N.J.,
April 27, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable
information including name and financial account information
("personally identifiable information" or "PII").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that obtaining, collecting,
using, and deriving a benefit from the PII of the Plaintiff and
Class Members, the Defendants assumed legal and equitable duties to
those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from
unauthorized access and intrusion. The Defendants admits that the
unencrypted PII impacted during the Data Breach included names,
dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and health plan
information, says the suit.
The exposed PII of the Plaintiff and Class Members can be sold on
the dark web. Hackers can access and then offer for sale the
unencrypted, unredacted PII to criminals. Plaintiff and Class
Members now face a lifetime risk of identity theft, which is
heightened here by the loss of Social Security numbers – the gold
standard for identity thieves. The PII was compromised due to the
Defendants' negligent and careless acts and omissions and the
failure to protect the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, the suit
alleges.
GUARDIAN ANALYTICS, INC. provides real-time omni-channel fraud
prevention solutions to protect online, mobile, wire and ACH
channels.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
David C. Magagna, Esq.
Nicholas J. Elia, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut St., Ste. 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
dmagagna@lfsblaw.com
nelia@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-7300
Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
Email: bbliechner@chestnutcambronne.com
pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com
H.F. COX INC: Weaver Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against H.F. COX, INC. The
case is styled as John Weaver, as an individual on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. West-Star
North Dairy, Rhonda Lee Slegers, Rick Wielenga, Bennet Gary
Slegers, Case No. BCV-23-100743 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., March
10, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
H.F. Cox, Inc., doing business as Cox Petroleum Transport --
http://www.coxpetroleum.com/-- provides trucking transportation
services.[BN]
HONDA MOTOR: Car Owners Sue Over "Sticky" Electric Power Steering
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Silvestro at roadandtrack.com reports that Seattle,
Washington law firm Hagens Berman has filed a class-action lawsuit
against Honda over dozens of reports of "sticky" electric power
steering racks in Civics that can suddenly fail and cause a crash,
CarBuzz reports.
The firm claims American Honda Motor Company sold 2022 and 2023
model year Civics that it knew were equipped with faulty steering
racks that could fail without warning under various driving
conditions. The suit cites no less than 145 complaints made to the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration about the problem.
CarBuzz points out one particularly scary description from someone
who experienced the issue first hand. From the NHTSA's website:
Steering is 'sticky,' making it difficult to make minor adjustments
while driving. Each time any move is made with the steering wheel,
it is like it has to 'break free' from being stuck. This happens
almost all the time over 40-45 mph, regardless of the driving
mode.
The NHTSA has launched a preliminary investigation in response to
the sheer number of complaints, says Hagens Berman. In a statement
to CarBuzz, Honda confirmed the investigation and said it will
cooperate with the government agency throughout the process, while
conducting an internal investigation of its own.
Honda told CarBuzz that most of the vehicles referenced in the
NHTSA complaints are newer, lower-mileage vehicles that should
still be under warranty. The Japanese automaker is encouraging
owners to bring their cars to an authorized dealer to diagnose any
issues. [GN]
HOPPER USA: N.D. Illinois Refuses to Dismiss Acosta Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHALIMAR ACOSTA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hopper (USA), Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 22 C 3974 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Sara L. Ellis of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, denies Hopper's motion to dismiss.
After Acosta used Hopper's Price Freeze service and learned that
Hopper would not cover the full price increase of her flight, she
filed the putative class action against Hopper. Acosta brings
claims for violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 505/1 et
seq., and other similar state consumer protection statutes;
breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability
and fitness for a particular purpose, and the Magnuson Moss
Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 2301, et seq.; negligent
misrepresentation; fraud; and unjust enrichment.
Hopper markets and sells travel savings products and services via
its website and mobile application. One of its services, Price
Freeze, allows consumers to put down a deposit to "lock in" the
price of a flight to help them stay safe from price increases. In
its description of Price Freeze, Hopper tells consumers that if the
price of their flight increases, Hopper covers the price increase,
and if the price of the flight decreases, consumers pay the new,
lower price.
In reality, if the price of a flight increases, Hopper will cover
only up to $100 per traveler, which they call a Service Cap.
Consumers can discover the Service Cap before they use Price Freeze
by clicking a "more information" link or a circled "i" link. Once a
consumer clicks on either of these links, Hopper directs them to a
"How Price Freeze Works" page, which explains in one of five bullet
points that "if the flight price increases, Hopper will cover you
up to US$100.00/traveler in savings."
However, Hopper does not require consumers to view this additional
information to use Price Freeze. It also conveys the Service Cap in
a confirmation email after consumers use Price Freeze and somewhere
on their website in "fine print." Hopper users have complained
about the lack of transparency with respect to Price Freeze on
websites including TripAdvisor and the Better Business Bureau.
Acosta, an Illinois resident, used Hopper to pay for flights and/or
Price Freeze on one or more occasions between May and June 2022.
Acosta read and relied on the words "Price Freeze" and descriptions
thereof in deciding to purchase tickets and/or Price Freeze. Acosta
believed and expected that Price Freeze would provide "complete
protection" from price increases for a set period of time due the
representations and omissions in Hopper's advertising.
Hopper filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
As to deception, Acosta alleges that Hopper's representations
encourage consumers to use Price Freeze to "freeze prices" because
"Price Freeze helps you stay safe from price increases while you
plan your trip." Hopper argues that Acosta's allegations do not
suffice because, despite her statements to the contrary, Hopper
never represented that its Price Freeze service covers the "full"
or "complete" increase in the price of a flight beyond a
predetermined amount.
Judge Ellis opines that the fact that Hopper in some places
conveyed that it would only cover up to $100 dollars if a
consumer's flight increased in price does not defeat Acosta's claim
at this stage. Acosta makes clear in her response brief that she
did not read the additional information prior to using Price Freeze
and includes in her complaint multiple statements from misled
Hopper consumers. Acosta's allegations suffice at this stage to
demonstrate that Hopper engaged in deceptive conduct.
Hopper next urges the Court to dismiss Acosta's complaint on the
grounds that Acosta did not allege that she purchased Price Freeze,
"was induced to purchase" Price Freeze, or suffered damages.
Drawing all reasonable inferences in Acosta's favor, Judge Ellis
assumes Acosta did in fact make use of Hopper's Price Freeze
service. She opines that at this stage, Acosta's allegations
suffice to show that Hopper intended that Acosta and consumers rely
on its representations. Acosta has also sufficiently alleged
damages. Her allegations regarding the value of Price Freeze as
compared to other services on the market and her decision to
purchase Price Freeze based on Hopper's alleged deception suffice
at this stage to suggest she suffered actual damages.
Acosta also brings various common law claims and claims under other
consumer protection statutes. Hopper does not move to independently
dismiss any of these claims; rather Hopper asserts that because the
Plaintiff's Complaint fails to allege facts that the Plaintiff was
induced to purchase any product or service by the alleged deceptive
omissions of Hopper, and further fails to allege facts that the
Plaintiff suffered any injury or damages, all of the claims of her
Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Judge Ellis opines that Hopper does not develop any additional
arguments for dismissing Acosta's other claims and she will not
make arguments on its behalf. Therefore, Acosta's remaining claims,
which arise from the same allegations as her ICFA claim, survive
alongside her ICFA claim.
Because Acosta has sufficiently alleged a deceptive act under ICFA
and Hopper does not independently move to dismiss Acosta's other
claims, Judge Ellis denies Hopper's motion to dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 25, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://rb.gy/p748l from Leagle.com.
HORIZON BANCORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 20
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Wheels Up Experience Inc.
(NYSE: UP), Horizon Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ: HBNC), and LivePerson,
Inc. (NASDAQ: LPSN). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to
petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional
information about each case can be found at the link provided.
Horizon Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ: HBNC)
Class Period: March 9, 2022 - March 10, 2023
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 20, 2023
Throughout the Class Period, 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.
For more information on the Horizon Bank class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/HBNC
About Bragar Eagel & Squire
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
INDEPENDENT LIVING: Basulto Files Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Independent Living
Systems, LLC. The case is styled as Eddie M. Basulto, Herminia
Basulto, Ryan Smith, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Independent Living Systems, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-21061-RNS (S.D. Fla., March 19, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Independent Living Systems, LLC -- https://ilshealth.com/ -- offers
a comprehensive range of clinical and third-party administrative
services to managed care organizations and providers that serve
high-cost, complex member populations in the Medicare, Medicaid and
Dual-Eligible Market.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark Blaise DeSanto, Esq.
Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
1109 Lancaster Ave
Berwyn, PA 19312
Phone: (610) 601-6748
Email: mbd@sstriallawyers.com
jgs@sstriallawyers.com
INDUS COSMECEUTICALS: Firato Sues Over Dangerous Eyebrow Dye
------------------------------------------------------------
Renee Firato, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. INDUS COSMECEUTICALS PVT. LTD., Case No. Case
4:23-cv-01217-HSG (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2023), is brought
concerning the Defendant's design, formulation, manufacture,
marketing, advertising, distribution, and sale of eyebrow dye
products and kits (sold under the "Mina ibrow" brand) that contain
henna, which is dangerous when used on the immediate eye area,
including the eyebrow (collectively, the "Products").
In all instances, application to the eyebrow is the only
conceivable use of the Products. Indeed, Defendant's use of the
name "ibrow" (pronounced "eyebrow") is an express representation
that the Products can be safely used on eyebrows. The presence of
henna renders the Products unsafe for use in the eye area,
including on the eyebrow (the "Defect"). Yet Defendant markets the
Products for cosmetic application on the eyebrow. Such use is
inherently dangerous and sale of the Products for such use is
illegal. The Products cannot be used for their principal intended
purpose. The Products are thus worthless by virtue of the Defect.
The Products are designated by the state of California as
unsuitable and illegal for cosmetic use in the eye area, including
the eyebrow, through California's Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Laws. The Products are thus adulterated and misbranded under the
Sherman Laws. Accordingly, it is unlawful for Defendant to
advertise, promote, market, or sell the Products. Nonetheless,
Defendant's marketing, advertising, packaging, and public
statements encourage and instruct consumers to use the Products on
the eyebrow.
The Defendant has undertaken a deliberate and willful pattern of
conduct (including taking active measures) aimed at deceiving
consumers, including Plaintiff, into believing that the Products
are safe for their sole intended use: cosmetic application on the
eyebrow. Again, products containing henna are unsafe for that
purpose. The Defendant knew about the Defect and that the Products
were banned by the State of California, but nevertheless marketed,
advertised, and sold the Products for use around the eyes/on the
eyebrow without warning consumers of the known dangers.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's misleading conduct,
concealment of the Defect, and failure to adequately warn consumers
about the dangers of henna and the fact that the Products are
banned by the State of California, Plaintiff and other similarly
situated consumers ("Class" or "Class Members") purchased and/or
used the Product to their detriment. The Plaintiff and putative
Class Members were unaware of the Defect and that the Products are
banned by the State of California at the time they purchased the
Products. Had Plaintiff and Class Members known that the Products
contain a Defect rendering them unfit for their intended purpose
and that they are banned by the State of California, they would not
have purchased the Products or would have paid substantially less
for the Products, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased and used the Defendant's Mina ibrow Medium
Brown Regular Pack from Amazon.com.
The Defendant designs, formulates, manufactures, markets,
advertises, distributes, and sells a wide range of eyebrow cosmetic
products including but not limited to brow and lash color kits,
brow care products, brow henna products, and eyebrow and eyelash
grooming kits, nationwide, including in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ykrivoshey@bursor.com
- and -
Matthew A. Girardi, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: mgirardi@bursor.com
INTELSAT SA: Insider Trading Suit Falls Flat for Shareholders
-------------------------------------------------------------
Martina Barash at bloomberglaw.com repoers that the chairman of the
Intelsat SA board and two investment groups that allegedly
controlled the company have defeated an investor suit alleging they
engaged in insider trading about two weeks before the satellite
operator's stock price plunged.
Confidential witness accounts don't add enough relevant detail to
revive the investors' proposed class action, Judge Jeffrey S. White
said for the US District Court for the Northern District of
California.
The company's fortunes allegedly hinged on a Federal Communications
Commission decision about a broadcasting frequency range known as
the C-Band, which was being eyed for 5G cell phone service. [GN]
JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: Parker Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Monique Parker, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated v. JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., GREENWICH BIOSCIENCES LLC,
and GREENWICH BIOSCIENCES, INC., Case No. CACE-23-011979 (Fla. 17th
Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., March 17, 2023), is brought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") seeking unpaid wages
for all hours worked including those above 40 in a workweek, as
required by law, liquidated damages and/or prejudgment interest,
and attorney's fees and litigation expenses.
This action is brought on behalf of all current and former Sales
Representatives, however variously titled, including as a Specialty
Sales Consultant, Senior Specialty Sales Consultant, Neurology
Account Manager, Senior Neurology Account Manager, Oncology Account
Manager and/or Senior Oncology Account Manager (collectively,
"SRs"), who engaged in training provided by Jazz's North American
Training group during their initial period of employment,
regardless of product, anywhere in the United States ("Sales
Training Program"), at any time during the three year liability
period.
Jazz classifies its SRs in the Sales Training Program as exempt
from the overtime pay requirements of the FLSA. Because SRs are
classified as exempt during their training period, Jazz has
uniformly failed to accurately track or record actual hours worked
by SRs in its Sales Training Program and has failed to provide SRs
in its Sales Training Program with a method to accurately record
the hours actually worked. Jazz has failed to pay Plaintiff and
other SRs in its Sales Training Program for all hours worked, as
well as overtime premium pay for hours worked over 40 in a
workweek.
The Plaintiff regularly worked over 40 hours in a workweek for
Jazz's benefit during her employment as an SR while in Jazz's Sales
Training Program. The Plaintiff was not paid proper compensation
for all hours worked, including overtime compensation for all hours
worked over 40 while engaged in Jazz's Sales Training Program, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Jazz as a SR.
The Defendant is global biopharmaceutical company, doing business
nationwide, including in Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
Tamra C. Givens, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Phone: (561) 447-8888
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
JPMORGAN: Financier Victim in Fraud Suit Asks Class Action Status
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Burnson at bloomberglaw.com reports that a victim of Jeffrey
Epstein asked a judge to let her represent more than 100 other
women in a lawsuit alleging that JPMorgan Chase & Co. facilitated
their abuse by the late financier.
A second victim filed an almost identical request in her lawsuit
seeking to hold Deutsche Bank AG responsible for helping Epstein by
providing financial services.
Both of the women's requests, filed late in Manhattan federal court
by attorney David Boies, described the banks as "Epstein's secret
weapon that made years of sexual abuse and trafficking possible."
[GN]
JUNIPER VILLAGE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cozewith Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
OLIVIA COZEWITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. JUNIPER VILLAGE OF CHATHAM, LLC; and
JUNIPER PARTNERS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02285 (D.N.J.,
April 25, 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 Cozewith was employed by the Defendants as a
move-in-coordinator.
JUNIPER VILLAGE OF CHATHAM, LLC offers assisted living, skilled
nursing, short-term rehabilitation, Alzheimer's care, and
outpatient services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James J. Cutro, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JAMES J. CUTRO, PC
1199 Route 22 East, Suite 304
Mountainside, NJ 07092
Telephone: (908) 408-5600
Facsimile: (908) 408-5620
JWB PROPERTY MANAGEMENT: Byrd Files Suit in M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JWB Property
Management, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Ericka M. Byrd,
Kemone Brooks, Quantez Moore, Earnestine Lawson, on behalf of
others who are similarly situated v. JWB Property Management, LLC,
JWB Real Estate Capital, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00266-BJD-JBT (M.D.
Fla., March 9, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Accommodations Civil Rights for
Housing Discrimination.
JWB -- https://www.jwbrealestatecapital.com/ -- is a
vertically-integrated real estate investment company that sells
turnkey rental properties in Jacksonville, Florida .[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam Thoresen, Esq.
Suzanne Garrow, Esq.
Jacksonville Area Legal Aid, Inc.
126 West Adams Street
Jacksonville, FL 32202
Phone: (904) 356-8371
Fax: (904) 244-1587
Email: adam.thoresen@jaxlegalaid.org
suzanne.garrow@jaxlegalaid.org
The Defendants are represented by:
Rebecca E. Rhoden, Esq.
Michael David Piccolo, Esq.
LOWNDES, DROSDICK, DOSTER, KANTOR & REED, PA
215 N Eola Dr
Orlando, FL 32801
Phone: (407) 843-4600
Fax: (407) 843-4444
Email: rebecca.rhoden@lowndes-law.com
michael.piccolo@lowndes-law.com
LEGACY SUPPLY CHAIN: Young Suit Removed to S.D. Indiana
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Philip Young, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Legacy Supply Chain Services II, Inc.,
Case No. 49D01-2302-PL-006228 was removed from the Marion County
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana on March 16, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00478-JRS-MG to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
Legacy Supply Chain -- https://legacyscs.com/ -- is a high-growth
North American 3PL serving as a distribution, fulfillment, and
transportation partner .[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amina Thomas, Esq.
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Vess Allen Miller, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: (317) 636-6481
Fax: (317) 636-6481
Email: athomas@cohenandmalad.com
ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
vmiller@cohenandmalad.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Brittney B. Rykovich, Esq.
Robert Phillip Lamey, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP
333 N. Alabama Street, Suite 350
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: (317) 581-8523
Fax: (317) 522-9300
Email: brykovich@grsm.com
rlamey@grsm.com
LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 26
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of
securities of Edgio, Inc. f/k/a Limelight Networks, Inc. (NASDAQ:
EGIO, LLNW) between February 11, 2021 and March 12, 2023, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has
already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you
must move the Court no later than June 26, 2023.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Edgio securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Edgio class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=13174 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 26, 2023. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants made
false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the sale of Open Edge equipment should be
accounted as financing leases; (2) that there were material
weaknesses in the Company's internal controls over financial
reporting related to Open Edge transactions; (3) that, as a result
of the foregoing, the Company's revenue had been overstated in
certain periods; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the Edgio class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=13174 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.[GN]
LOMA NEGRA COMPANIA: Discovery in Kohl Class Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Loma Negra Compania Industrial Argentina Sociedad Anonima disclosed
in its Form 20-F Report for the quarterly period ending December
31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
27, 2023, that discovery is ongoing for the Kohl class suit in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County.
On June 21, 2018, plaintiff Dan Kohl filed a complaint in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, pursuant
to Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint
also asserts claims against the underwriters of our IPO. The
plaintiff alleges that our offering materials failed to disclose
material facts and risks concerning our prospects for future growth
and our business.
As a result of such alleged omissions, the plaintiff asserts that
the price of our ADSs was artificially inflated.
On March 13, 2019, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On October 22, 2020, the State Court issued its ruling on the
motion to dismiss and dismissed a portion of the claims while
allowing the rest of the claims to proceed.
On June 1, 2021, the First Department modified the Supreme
Court’s decision on our motion to dismiss and further narrowed
the grounds upon which the case can proceed.
On December 2, 2021, the State Court entered an order certifying
the case as a class action and denying our motion for summary
judgment.
The Company appealed these rulings, which were affirmed by the
First Department on November 17, 2022.
The case is at the discovery phase. Therefore, as of the date of
issuance of these consolidated financial statements, the lawsuit
continues with respect to the allegations that were not dismissed
by the court.
Loma Negra Compania Industrial Argentina Sociedad Anonima,
together
with its subsidiaries, manufactures and markets cement and its
by-products in Argentina and Paraguay. It operates through Cement,
Masonry Cement and Lime; Concrete; Railroad; Aggregates; and other
segments. The company was founded in 1926 and is based in Buenos
Aires, Argentina. Loma Negra Compania Industrial Argentina
Sociedad
Anonima is a subsidiary of Loma Negra Holding GmbH.
LUCKIN COFFEE: Court Approves Distribution Plan in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE LUCKIN COFFEE INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case
No. 20 Civ. 1293 (JPC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge John P. Cronan of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the
Lead Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Distribution Plan.
The Lead Plaintiffs moved the Court for an order approving a
distribution plan for the Net Settlement Fund in the securities
class action. Having reviewed and considered all the materials and
arguments submitted in support of the motion, Judge Cronan approves
the Lead Plaintiffs' plan for distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund to Authorized Claimants. He adopts the following:
a. The administrative determinations of the Court-authorized
Claims Administrator, Epiq Class Action and Claims Solutions, Inc.,
to accept the Timely Eligible Claims set forth in Exhibit E to the
Villanova Declaration and the Late But Otherwise Eligible Claims
set forth in Exhibit F to the Villanova Declaration; and
b. The Claims Administrator's administrative determinations to
reject the Rejected Claims, as set forth in Exhibit G to the
Villanova Declaration, including the Disputed Claims discussed in
paragraph 28 of the Villanova Declaration and Exhibit D to the
Villanova Declaration.
Epiq is directed to conduct the Initial Distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund after deducting all payments previously allowed,
payments approved by the Order, any estimated taxes, the costs of
preparing appropriate tax returns, and any escrow fees, while
maintaining a 10% reserve from the Net Settlement Fund to address
any tax liability or claims administration-related contingencies
that may arise.
Authorized Claimants who do not cash their Initial Distribution
checks within the time allotted or on the conditions stated in
paragraph 39(b) of the Villanova Declaration will irrevocably
forfeit all recovery from the Settlement, and the funds allocated
to these stale-dated checks will be available to be distributed to
other Authorized Claimants in the Second Distribution. Similarly,
Authorized Claimants who do not cash their distribution checks in
the Second Distribution or subsequent distributions, should such
distributions occur, within the time allotted or on the conditions
stated in paragraph 39(b) of the Villanova Declaration will
irrevocably forfeit any further recovery from the Settlement.
All of Epiq's fees and expenses incurred in the administration of
the Settlement and estimated to be incurred in connection with the
Initial Distribution of the Net Settlement Fund as set forth in the
invoices attached as Exhibit H to the Villanova Declaration are
approved, and the Class Counsel are directed to pay the outstanding
balance of $125,812.45 out of the Settlement Fund to Epiq.
Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, Epiq may destroy the paper
copies of the Claims and all supporting documentation one year
after the Initial Distribution, and one year after all funds have
been distributed may destroy the electronic copies of the same.
The Court retains jurisdiction to consider any further applications
concerning the administration of the Settlement, and any other and
further relief that it deems appropriate.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 21, 2023 Order is available
at https://rb.gy/b5o0z from Leagle.com.
MACYS INC: Byars Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Arisha Byars, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Macys, Inc., Does 1 through 25,
inclusive, Case No. CIV SB 2217010 was removed from the San
Bernardino County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on March 16, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00456-SSS-KK to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Macy's Inc (Macy's) -- https://www.macysinc.com/ -- is an
omnichannel retail company that operates department stores,
websites and mobile applications.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David W. Reid, Esq.
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC
4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 706-6464
Fax: (949) 706-6469
Email: dreid@pacifictrialattorneys.com
sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Cortlin H Lannin, Esq.
COVINGTON AND BURLING LLP
Salesforce Tower
415 Mission Street Suite 5400
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 591-6000
Fax: (415) 591-6091
Email: clannin@cov.com
- and -
Emily Johnson Henn, Esq.
COVINGTON AND BURLING LLP
3000 El Camino Real
5 Palo Alto Square 10th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
Phone: (650) 632-4700
Fax: (650) 632-4800
Email: ehenn@cov.com
- and -
Meegan Bay Brooks, Esq.
Stephanie A Sheridan, Esq.
BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN AND ARONOFF LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 3100
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (628) 600-2266
Fax: (628) 221-5828
Email: mbrooks@beneschlaw.com
ssheridan@beneschlaw.com
MAROD SUPERMARKETS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arrazola Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
EDDY L. ARRAZOLA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. MAROD SUPERMARKETS,
INC. d/b/a PRESIDENTE SUPERMARKET #5, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-21603-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 29, 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 Arrazola was employed by the Defendant as a meat cutter.
MAROD SUPERMARKETS, INC. d/b/a PRESIDENTE SUPERMARKET #5 is a
Hispanic supermarket with multiple locations in Dade and Broward
County. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
MB JESSEE PAINTING: Cordova-Villalta Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MB Jessee Painting
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Santos Cordova-Villalta, an
individual, on behalf of himself, others similarly situated v. MB
Jessee Painting Inc., David S. Winston, Does 1 thru 50, inclusive,
Case No. 23CV029452 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., March 16,
2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
MB Jessee Painting -- https://www.mbjessee.com/ -- is the Bay
Area's first choice for commercial and residential painting
services.[BN]
MCCLENNY MOSELEY: Carter Suit Removed to E.D. Louisiana
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Louis Carter, III, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. McClenny Moseley & Associates, PLLC,
James McClenny, John Zachary Moseley, Apex Roofing and Restoration,
LLC, Tort Network, LLC, H. William Huye, Case No. 23-00821 D was
removed from the 21st Judicial District Court Parish of Tangipahoa,
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on
March 16, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00949-CJB-DPC to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
McClenny Moseley & Associates, PLLC -- https://www.mma-pllc.com/ --
are experienced in: Natural Disasters, Fire Claims, Hail Claims,
Wind Claims, and Hurricane Claims.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Emmet Couhig, Jr., Esq.
Blair C. Constant, Esq.
Donald Cole Massey, Esq.
Jason A. Cavignac, Esq.
Jonathan Percy Lemann, Esq.
Robert Tate Martin, II, Esq.
COUHIG PARTNERS, LLC (NEW ORLEANS)
1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3250
New Orleans, LA 70163
Phone: (504) 588-1288
Email: couhigre@couhigpartners.com
bconstant@couhigpartners.com
dmassey@couhigpartners.com
jcavignac@couhigpartners.com
lemannjp@couhigpartners.com
tmartin@couhigpartners.com
The Defendants are represented by:
William P. Gibbens, Esq.
SCHONEKAS, EVANS, MCGOEY & MCEACHIN, LLC
909 Poydras Street, Suite 1600
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 680-6050
Email: billy@semmlaw.com
- and -
Peter J. Butler, Jr., Esq.
Kayla M. Jacob, Esq.
Philip Joseph Giorlando, Esq.
Richard G. Passler, Esq.
BREAZEALE, SACHSE & WILSON, L. L. P (NEW ORLEANS)
LL&E Tower
909 Poydras St., Suite 1500
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 584-5427
Fax: (504) 584-5452
Email: peter.butler.jr@bswllp.com
kayla.jacob@bswllp.com
philip.giorlando@bswllp.com
rgp@bswllp.com
- and -
Lawrence J. Centola, III, Esq.
Scott R. Bickford, Esq.
Spencer R. Doody, Esq.
MARTZELL & BICKFORD
338 Lafayette St.
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (504) 581-9065
Email: lcentola@mbfirm.com
srb@mbfirm.com
usdcedla@mbfirm.com
MEDSTREAM ANESTHESIA: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Blondeau Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOANNA BLONDEAU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MEDSTREAM ANESTHESIA, PLLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-00114 (W.D.N.C., April 25, 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 Blondeau was employed by the Defendant as a certified
registered nurse anesthetist.
MEDSTREAM ANESTHESIA, PLLC partners with healthcare facilities to
offer a full suite of anesthesia solutions, improved patient care,
and responsible financial performance. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua M. Krasner, Esq.
William Barrett, Esq.
BARRETT LAW OFFICES, PLLC
5 West Hargett St., Suite 910
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: (919) 999-2799
Email: wbarrett@barrettlawoffices.com
jkrasner@barrettlawoffices.com
- and -
Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4700 IDS Center
80 S. 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Email: srey@nka.com
META PLATFORMS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Meta Platforms 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 27, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from putative securities class suit in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
On March 8, 2022, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against us
and certain of our directors and officers alleging violations of
securities laws in connection with the disclosure of the Company's
earnings results for the fourth quarter of 2021 and seeking
unspecified damages.
The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit, and is
vigorously defending it.
Meta Platforms, Inc. (referred to herein by its previous name of
"Facebook") is an American multinational technology company.[BN]
MINNESOTA: Salcedo, et al., Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brenda Salcedo, Dennis M.
Novack, and Janet C. Novack, all individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. Todd R. Uecker, Registrar of Titles,
in and for the County of Ramsey and State of Minnesota, in his
individual and official capacity, et al., Case No.
0:22-cv-02045-DWF-ECW (D. Minn.), Hon. Judge Donovan W. Frank
entered an order that:
1. The Defendant Schowalter's motion to dismiss is granted.
2. The Defendant AlexSoft's motion to dismiss is granted.
3. The Plaintiffs' claims against Schowalter and AlexSoft are
dismissed with prejudice.
4. The Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction is denied.
5. The Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is denied as moot.
6. The Plaintiffs' motion to amend is denied.
The Court said, "The Defendants have made various arguments
regarding the futility of the proposed additional claims. The Court
need not reach the futility arguments in light of the Court's
conclusions above. Even so, the Court briefly addresses Plaintiffs'
proposed claim for punitive damages. Such damages are allowed in
civil actions, "only upon clear and convincing evidence that the
acts of the defendant show deliberate disregard for the rights or
safety of others." The Court therefore denies Plaintiffs' motion to
amend."
The Court dismisses Plaintiffs' claims against both Schowalter and
AlexSoft. All claims asserted against these two Defendants are
dismissed with prejudice. Remaining in this action are
Plaintiffs’ claims against Ramsey County Defendants. However,
with respect to those claims, the Court denies Plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary injunction for failure to demonstrate irreparable
harm or likelihood of success on the merits. In addition, the Court
denies Plaintiffs' motions to certify class and to amend the
pleadings. In light of the current efforts throughout the state to
discharge racial covenants, Plaintiffs’ claim for any damages in
this case appears weak, and the Court believes it is in the
parties' best interests to attempt to resolve this matter. In
addition, given the Court's decision, the Court suggests that the
parties reach out to the Minnesota County Attorneys Association and
the City Attorneys in the State of Minnesota, the Court adds.
In this action, the Plaintiffs allege that Ramsey County registrars
of title have improperly been issuing certificates of title that
include references to prior certificates of title that contain
illegal racial covenants. The Plaintiffs allege sixteen counts
under both federal and state law seeking damages, attorney fees,
and injunctive relief. All of Plaintiff' claims relate to
allegations that the named county registrars have issued
certificates of title that refer to other certificates of title
that contain racial covenants.
The Plaintiffs also seek to certify both a plaintiff and defendant
class. Defendant Wayne D. Anderson is the current Examiner of
Titles for Ramsey County. Defendant Nathan Bissonette is the Deputy
Examiner of Titles for Ramsey County. Defendants Anderson,
Bissonnette, Todd J. Uecker, Susan R. Roth, Ramsey County, and the
Doe Defendants allegedly associated with Ramsey County are referred
to together as the "Ramsey County Defendants." Defendant Schowalter
oversees Minnesota Management and Budget, an agency of the State of
Minnesota.
The Defendants iclude Wayne D. Anderson, Ramsey County Examiner of
Titles, in his individual and official capacity; Nathan Bissonette,
Deputy Ramsey County Examiner of Titles, in his individual and
official capacity; John Doe, in his individual and official
capacity; AlexSoft, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company,
doing business as West Central Indexing, all of the above on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated within and without
Ramsey County; Ramsey County, a political subdivision of the state
of Minnesota, for itself and on behalf of all other Minnesota
counties; Jane Doe, Deputy Registrar of Titles or Clerk of the
Registrar of Titles, in and for the County of Ramsey and State of
Minnesota, in her individual and official capacity; Susan R. Roth,
former Registrar of Titles, in and for the County of Ramsey and
State of Minnesota, in her individual and official capacity; John
Doe, Inc., for itself and on behalf of all others similarly
situated; and Jim Schowalter, Minnesota Commissioner of Management
and Budget, in his official capacity.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 24, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VksOom at no extra charge.[CC]
MOELIS & CO: Faces Stockholder Class Suit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------
Moelis & Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2023, that the Company faces a
stockholder class suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
On March 13, 2023, West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund, a
putative Class A stockholder of the Company, filed a class action
lawsuit, on behalf of itself and other similarly-situated Class A
stockholders, in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the
Company.
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that certain provisions
of the Stockholders Agreement between the Company and Partner
Holdings are invalid and unenforceable as a matter of Delaware law.
The plaintiff has also requested attorneys' fees and costs and
expenses.
Moelis is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York City
and
describes itself as a leading global independent investment bank
that offers comprehensive, globally integrated financial advisory
services across all major industry sectors.[BN]
MOMENTIVE GLOBAL: Bushansky Sues Over Proposed Merger Sub
---------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOMENTIVE GLOBAL, INC.; ALEXANDER
J. LURIE; DANA L. EVAN; SAGAR GUPTA; RYAN FINLEY; BENJAMIN C.
SPERO; SUSAN L. DECKER; DAVID A. EBERSMAN; ERIKA H. JAMES; SHERYL
K. SANDBERG; and LAUREN ANTONOFF, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-02068 (N.D. Cal., April 28, 2023) is an action brought by
the Plaintiff against Momentive Global, Inc. ("Momentive" or the
"Company") and the members of Momentive's Board of Directors (the
"Board" or the "Individual Defendants") for their violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), seeking to
enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which
Momentive will be acquired by Symphony Technology Group ("STG")
through STG's affiliates Mercury Bidco LLC ("Parent") and Mercury
Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub") (the "Proposed Transaction").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that unless remedied,
Momentive's public stockholders will be irreparably harmed because
the Proxy Statement's material misrepresentations and omissions
prevent them from making a sufficiently informed voting or
appraisal decision on the Proposed Transaction. Plaintiff seeks to
enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and
until such Exchange Act violations are cured.
MOMENTIVE GLOBAL INC. is a management company that offers
cloud-based software in brand insights, market insights, product
experience, employee experience, customer experience, online survey
development, and a suite of paid back-end programs. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
WEISS LAW
8383 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 935
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 208-2800
Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
- and -
Michael Rogovin, Esq.
476 Hardendorf Ave. NE
Atlanta, GA 30307
Telephone: (404) 692-7910
Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
MTAH ENTERPRISE: Underpays Aestheticians, Trotter FLSA Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
REENA TROTTER, KARINA GRIFFEN, and ESTHER HAUSS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MTAH
ENTERPRISE, LLC and MARY TEREZA AGHASYAN, Defendants, Case No.
4:23-cv-01550 (S.D. Tex., April 27, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Texas Labor
Code.
Plaintiffs Trotter, Griffin, and Hauss worked for the Defendants as
aestheticians from about January 2022 until January 2023.
MTAH Enterprise, LLC is a limited liability company located in
Harris County, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark D. Downey, Esq.
DOWNEY LAW GROUP LLC
5308 Ashbrook
Houston, TX 77081
Telephone: (214) 764-7279
E-mail: mdowney@dlawgrp.com
MY PILLOW: Workers Win Class Status, Lose Some State Wage Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Bennett at bloomberglaw.com reports that My Pillow Inc.
will have to face class claims from workers who allege unpaid
overtime, but the company secured summary judgment in its favor for
some state-law wage claims.
Call center workers satisfied all of the requirements to move
forward as a class, but they failed to show that they're entitled
to an early win holding the the pillow manufacturer liable for
alleged Fair Labor Standards Act violations, the US District Court
for the District of Minnesota said. [GN]
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Has Limited Class Cert. Argument, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mary Washington and Peola
Warren, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper, Case No.
1:22-cv-01392-CEF (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an
order finding that defendant has made a concession about and
therefore limited its argument about a class certification issue.
The Plaintiffs move for an order finding that Defendant conceded in
its April 24, 2023, filing that for purposes of its partial motion
to dismiss and any class certification briefing, "the issue in this
case is whether Plaintiffs lack standing to bring claims under
thirty-five other states' statutory laws when Plaintiffs are not
citizens of those states."
Neither the Amended Complaint, the Defendant's partial motion to
dismiss, or any briefing mention that the Plaintiffs "bring claims
under thirty-five other states' statutory laws." That is because
the Amended Complaint has common-law and other legal theories (but
not state statutory laws) and, in addition, as pointed out in
Plaintiffs' brief opposing Defendant's partial motion to dismiss,
"Besides common-law, the simplest theory of recovery here is 12
U.S.C. section 260[5](g) (part of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act (RESPA))."
Nationstar Mortgage provides mortgages loan, re-financing, and home
equity loans.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 24, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/428IFZb at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian Ruschel, Esq.
1701 E 12 St Apt 23B
Cleveland OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 621-3370
E-mail: bruschel@aol.com
NEW HAMPTON: Grainger Bid to Reconsider Class Cert. Denial Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEVIN GRAINGER, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. PRECISION OF NEW
HAMPTON, INC., Case No. 6:22-cv-02043-LTS-KEM (N.D. Iowa), the Hon.
Judge Leonard T. Strand entered an order denying the Plaintiff
Grainger's motion to reconsider class certification denial order.
Judge Strand says, "I concluded that Precision had demonstrated
that the setting or context of the purported offer looks different
for different employees (depending on whether they knew the bonuses
were discretionary based on communications from supervisors or
otherwise). I noted that while Grainger claims he was never told
bonuses were discretionary, Precision presented evidence of at
least one employee who acknowledged as much, as well as the
declarations from supervisors stating they routinely communicated
this to employees."
I concluded these individualized issues would predominate over
common ones because Precision would be entitled to present the
relevant setting or context in which the purported offer was made
as to each employee, and informed his or her objectively reasonable
belief, which cannot be done through evidence common to the class.
Graingers arguments do not change my analysis. I consider the
evidence presented by Precision to be relevant to the objective
analysis because it demonstrates that some putative class members
had actual knowledge that the effective hourly rate was not an
offer of a future bonus if that employee continued to work. The
issue presented in Counts 3 and 4 is whether an offer was made,
which is an objective determination, Judge Strand added.
On February 6, 2023, Judge Strand entered an order denying
Grainger's motion to certify a class. Grainger seeks
reconsideration of this order, arguing that consideration of a
defense that applies to the putative plaintiffs’ claims and
presents individualized issues was error.
Grainger sought to certify a class defined as:
"all current and former hourly employees of Precision working
within the State of Iowa from November 21, 2019, through May
23,
2020."
He asserts the following claims:
-- Count 1 – Violation of section 91A of the Iowa Wage
Payment
Collection Law (IWPCL)
-- Count 2 – Violation of section 91A.3 of the IWPCL
-- Count 3 – Breach of Contract
-- Count 4 – Negligent Misrepresentation
-- Count 5 – Retaliation in Violation of the FLSA
-- Count 6 – Wrongful withholding of Bonus Wages in Violation
of
Public Policy
Grainger argues that he and the putative class members were
entitled to a midyear 2020 bonus based on an "effective hourly
rate" reflected on employee pay stubs as well as advertisements of
semi-annual bonuses on job postings. The parties dispute whether
the "effective hourly rate" was calculated based on a past bonus
already paid or a future bonus. Precision argues that the mid-year
and year-end bonuses were not guaranteed, but discretionary, and
offers evidence of an employee's acknowledgment of this as well as
declarations from supervisors stating they routinely told employees
that bonuses were not guaranteed.
Precision of New Hampton is a family run torque converter
remanufacturer and transmission parts business.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LE8Dya at no extra charge.[CC]
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Council Agreed to Table Decision on Joining Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
vindy.com reports that Village council agreed to table a decision
on joining a class action lawsuit against Norfolk Southern
indefinitely until council members receive more information.
Attorney Marc Dann of Dann Law and Tim Fox of Morgan & Morgan Law
Firm talked to council members recently about joining the lawsuit
over the East Palestine train derailment.
Councilwoman Dawn Thomas moved to table the issue after it was
noted that council members read a review of the proposal by village
solicitor Alec Beech.
Environmental concerns were raised by the Norfolk Southern train
derailment on Feb. 3 and controlled burn of vinyl chloride days
later.
Issues under consideration for the lawsuit included the
establishment of a medical trust fund that could be used by first
responders who may develop illnesses in the future from their
exposure to dangerous chemicals at the scene. The village had eight
firefighters who responded to the scene the night of the Feb. 3
derailment. [GN]
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Irizarry Files Suit in N.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Norfolk Southern
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Giovanni Irizarry, Ashley
Irizarry, individually and as Parents and Legal Guardians of II and
NB, minor children; Kristine Murphy; Irizarry Property Solutions,
LLC; Empire Productions, LLC; G and N Like Father Like Son Lawn
Care, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk Southern Railway
Company, Case No. 4:23-cv-00479-BYP (N.D. Ohio, March 9, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Torts to Land.
Norfolk Southern Corporation -- http://www.nscorp.com/-- is one of
the nation's premier transportation companies.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Wesley D. Merillat, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES E. BOYK
1500 Timberwolf Dr.
Holland, OH 43528
Phone: (419) 241-1395
Fax: (419) 241-8731
Email: wmerillat@charlesboyk-law.com
- and -
Zachary J. Murry, Esq.
BARKAN & ROBON
1701 Woodlands Drive, Ste. 100
Maumee, OH 43537
Phone: (419) 897-6500
Fax: (419) 897-6200
Email: zmurry@barkan-robon.com
The Defendants are represented by:
J. Lawson Johnston, Esq.
Scott D. Clements, Esq.
DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE
Two PPG Place, Ste. 400
Pittsburgh, PA 15222-5402
Phone: (412) 281-7272
Fax: (888) 811-7144
Email: ljohnston@dmclaw.com
sclements@dmclaw.com
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Policaro Files Suit in N.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Norfolk Southern
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Frank Policaro, Carol
Policaro, Robert Difonzo, Rondo Difonzo, Matthew Difonzo, Ryan
McKenzie, Doug Sheppard, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk
Southern Railway Company, Case No. 4:23-cv-00495-BYP (N.D. Ohio,
March 11, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Torts to Land.
Norfolk Southern Corporation -- http://www.nscorp.com/-- is one of
the nation's premier transportation companies.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew D. Schlichter, Esq.
Sean E. Soyars, Esq.
Victoria C. St Jean, Esq.
SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON - ST. LOUIS
100 South 4th Street, Ste. 1200
St. Louis, MO 63102
Phone: (314) 621-6115
Fax: (314) 621-5934
Email: aschlichter@uselaws.com
ssoyars@uselaws.com
vstjean@uselaws.com
- and -
Bryce A. Lenox, Esq.
3825 Edwards Road, Ste. 103
Cincinnati, OH 45209
Phone: (513) 520-9829
Email: bryce@brycelenoxlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
J. Lawson Johnston, Esq.
Scott D. Clements, Esq.
DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE
Two PPG Place, Ste. 400
Pittsburgh, PA 15222-5402
Phone: (412) 281-7272
Fax: (888) 811-7144
Email: ljohnston@dmclaw.com
sclements@dmclaw.com
NYC HARLEM: Medina Seeks Certification of Settlement Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARISOL MEDINA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NYC
HARLEM FOODS INC., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01321-VSB (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge entered an order granting:
-- preliminary approval of the proposed settlement,
-- certification of the settlement class,
-- appointment of Plaintiffs' Counsel as class counsel, and
-- approval of Plaintiff's notice of proposed settlement of
class
action lawsuit.
Harlem purchases and resells produce and other grocery items.
The Defendants include BRONX 163 FOODS INC., BRONX MARKET FOODS
INC, NYC 143 FOODS INC, NYC 96 FOODS INC, NYC 89 FOODS INC, NYC
PARK FOODS INC, NYC 125 FOODS INC, NYC 159 FOODS INC, NYC 155 FOODS
INC, SUNNYSIDE BK QSR INC, NYC 116 BK QSR INC, NYC 116 FOODS INC,
NYC 121 FOODS INC, NYC 114 FOODS INC, BRONX PROSPECT FOODS INC.,
NYC 145 FOODS INC., NYC LENOX FOODS INC., NYC 178 FOODS INC., BRONX
138 FOODS INC., RV EASTCHESTER FOODS INC., NYC 148 FOODS INC., NYC
LEXINGTON FOODS INC., NYC 161 FOODS INC., BRONX 170 FOODS INC.,
ANDHRA FOODS INC., SOMYA FOODS, INC., RVN FOODS INC., and SRINIVASA
RAO TUMMALAPENTA, individually.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 24, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41FkX73 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Bouklas, Esq.
357 Veterans Memorial Highway
Commack, NY 11725
Telephone: (516) 742-4949
E-mail: mark@bglawny.com
OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Order & Final Judgment Entered in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York enters an Order and Final Judgment in
the case, In re OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:17-08983-NRB (S.D.N.Y.).
Judge Buchwald held a hearing on April 25, 2023, to determine: (a)
to finally determine whether the Action satisfies the applicable
prerequisites for class action treatment under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 23; (b) to finally determine whether the Court
should approve the terms and conditions of the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement dated Dec. 9, 2022, as fair, reasonable,
and adequate; (c) to finally determine whether the Order and Final
Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered,
dismissing the Action with prejudice, and to determine whether the
Releases by the Plaintiff Releasors of the Released Parties as set
forth in the Stipulation, should be ordered, along with a permanent
injunction barring efforts to bring any Claims extinguished by the
Releases; (d) to determine whether the Court should approve the
proposed Plan of Allocation for the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund as fair and reasonable; (e) to consider the
application of Class Counsel for an award of Attorneys' Fees and
Expenses, and awards to Plaintiffs; and (f) to consider any
objection to the Settlement by Settlement Class Members. Having
considered all matters submitted to the Court at the hearing and
otherwise, she approves the Stipulation and Settlement.
Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Judge Buchwald certifies the Action as a class action
for settlement purposes only and certifies as the Settlement Class
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Omega
Healthcare Investors, Inc. ("Omega" or "Company") securities during
Settlement Class Period.
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Plaintiffs are certified as the class representatives on behalf of
the Settlement Class and the Lead Counsel previously selected by
the Plaintiffs and appointed by the Court is appointed as the Lead
Counsel for the Settlement Class.
All members of the Settlement Class are bound by the Order and
Final Judgment except those persons listed on Exhibit A to the
Order and Final Judgment.
The Settlement of $30.75 million, in cash, in exchange for the
Releases is approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the
best interests of the Settlement Class. The Plaintiffs and the
Defendants are directed to consummate the Settlement in accordance
with the terms and provisions of the Stipulation.
The Action and the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws are
dismissed with prejudice and without costs.
In accordance with 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(f)(7) and any other
applicable law or regulation, all future claims by any Person
against any of the Released Defendant Parties, and by the Released
Defendant Parties against any Person, are permanently barred,
extinguished, discharged, satisfied, and unenforceable.
Exclusive jurisdiction is retained over the Defendants and the
Settlement Class Members for all matters relating to the Action.
Without further order of the Court, the Released Parties may agree
to reasonable extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions
of the Stipulation.
There is no just reason for delay in the entry of the Order and
Final Judgment and immediate entry by the Clerk of the Court is
directed pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The finality of the Order and Final Judgment will not be
affected, in any manner, by rulings that the Court may make on the
Class Counsel's application for an award of Attorneys' Fees and
Expenses.
The Class Counsel are awarded 30% of the Settlement Amount in fees,
or $9,225,000, which the Court finds to be fair and reasonable, and
$307,858.35 in reimbursement of expenses. The Defendants will have
no responsibility for any allocations of attorneys' fees and
expenses and will have no liability to the Class Counsel or any
other person in connection with the allocation of attorneys' fees
and expenses. The Lead Plaintiff is awarded $12,000, and the
Additional Plaintiff is awarded $6,000, which the Court finds to be
fair and reasonable.
If the Settlement does not become Final and effective in accordance
with the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation, then
the Order and Final Judgment will be rendered null and void and be
vacated, and except as otherwise provided in the Preliminary
Approval Order or in the Stipulation, the Settlement and all orders
entered in connection therewith will be rendered null and void.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 25, 2023 Order & Final
Judgment is available at https://rb.gy/bn07u from Leagle.com.
ORLANDO HEALTH: W.W. Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of PII and PHI
-----------------------------------------------------------------
W.W., on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.
ORLANDO HEALTH MEDICAL GROUP, INC., Case No. 6:23-cv-00483-CEM-LHP
(M.D. Fla., March 16, 2023), is brought to address Defendant's
outrageous, illegal, and widespread practice of disclosing
Plaintiff's and Class Members' confidential personally identifiable
information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI")
(collectively referred to as "Private Information") to third
parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta ("Facebook").
The Defendant owns and controls www.orlandohealth.com ("Defendant's
Website" or the "Website"), which it encourages patients to use for
booking medical appointments, locating physicians and treatment
facilities, communicating medical symptoms, searching medical
conditions and treatment options, signing up for events and
classes, and more.
The Plaintiff and other Class Members who used Defendant's Website
thought they were communicating only with their trusted healthcare
provider. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class Members, however,
Defendant had embedded the Facebook Tracking Pixel (the "Pixel" or
"Facebook Pixel") on its Website, surreptitiously forcing Plaintiff
and Class Members to transmit to Facebook every click, keystroke,
and intimate detail about their medical treatment. Operating as
designed and as implemented by Defendant, the Pixel allows the
Private Information that Plaintiff and Class Members submit to
Defendant to be unlawfully disclosed to Facebook alongside the
individual's unique and persistent Facebook ID ("FID").
The user's web browser executes the Pixel via instructions within
the webpage to communicate certain information based on parameters
selected by the website's owner. The Facebook Pixel is thus
customizable and programmable, meaning that the website owner
controls which of its webpages contain the Pixel and which events
are tracked and transmitted to Facebook. By installing the Facebook
Pixel on its Website, Defendant effectively planted a bug on
Plaintiff and Class Members' web browsers and compelled them to
disclose their communications with Defendant to Facebook.
The Defendant breached its statutory and common law obligations to
Plaintiff and Class Member by, inter alia: failing to adequately
review its marketing programs and web-based technology to ensure
the hospital Website was safe and secure; failing to remove or
disengage technology that was known and designed to share
web-users' information; failing to obtain the written consent of
Plaintiff and Class Members to disclose their Private Information
to Facebook or others; failing to take steps to block the
transmission of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information
through Facebook Pixels; failing to warn Plaintiff and Class
Members; and otherwise failing to design, and monitor its Website
to maintain the confidentiality and integrity of patient Private
Information.
As a result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members
have suffered numerous injuries, including: invasion of privacy;
lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to
mitigate the actual consequences of the Pixel, loss of benefit of
the bargain, diminution of value of the Private Information,
statutory damages, and the continued and ongoing risk to their
Private Information.
The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and brings causes of
action for violation of the Florida Security of Communications Act,
Florida Statutes; invasion of privacy under Florida's Constitution;
invasion of privacy; breach of implied contract; unjust enrichment;
violations of the Electronics Communication Privacy Act ("ECPA")
– unauthorized interception, use, and disclosure; violations of
ECPA – unauthorized interception, use, and disclosure; violations
of Title II of the ECPA, - Stored Communications Act; violations of
the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA"); and breach of
confidence, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff accessed Defendant's Website on her mobile device
and/or computer.
Orlando Health is a not-for-profit healthcare organization with
$8.1 billion of assets under management that serves the
southeastern United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
3833 Central Ave.
St. Petersburg, FL 33713
Phone: (813) 786-8622
Email: jcohen@milberg.com
- and -
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq.
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 339-7300
Fax: (612) 336-2940
Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
jbores@chestnutcambronne.com
pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
Glen L. Abramson, Esq.
Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
gabramson@milberg.com
ahoneycutt@milberg.com
- and -
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
Dylan J. Gould, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 E. Court St., Ste. 530
Cincinnati, OH 4502
Phone: (513) 651-3700
Fax: (513) 665-0219
Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com
dgould@msdlegal.com
- and -
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
THE LYON LAW FIRM
2754 Erie Ave.
Cincinnati, Ohio 45208
Phone: (513) 381-2333
Fax: (513) 766-9011
Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
PENNSYLVANIA: Court Tosses Bid to Appoint Class Counsel
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOBBY K. WILLIAMSON, v.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-01965-YK-LT (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Yvette Kane entered
an order that the Plaintiff's motion to appoint class counsel is
denied as moot.
The Court says, "The motion to appoint class counsel is now moot
because the Court deemed the motion to certify class withdrawn for
failure to file a supporting brief as required by Local Rule 7.5 on
April 19, 2023."
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections is the Pennsylvania state
agency that is responsible for the confinement, care and
rehabilitation of inmates at state correctional facilities.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LEkmwM at no extra charge.[CC]
PENNSYLVANIA: Daddazio, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK DADDAZIO and PATRICIA
BLAUSER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. VALERIE A. ARKOOSH, in her official capacity as Acting Secretary
of the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, Case No.
1:23-cv-00635-JPW (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order certifying the case to proceed on behalf of the following
Class:
"Current and future residents of Pennsylvania's six
state-operated
psychiatric hospitals, excluding individuals subject to
commitment
pursuant to 50 P.S. section 7401–07 (commitments of persons
charged
with a crime or under sentence), and 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann.
section 6403 (court-ordered involuntary treatment for certain
sexual offenses)."
The Pennsylvania Department of Human Services is a cabinet-level
state agency in Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Human
Services' seven program offices administer services that provide
care and support to Pennsylvania's most vulnerable citizens.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 24, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LELVGk at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rhonda Brownstein, Esq.
Brynne S. Madway, Esq.
1800 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 900
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 238-8070
Facsimile: (215) 772-3126
E-mail: rbrownstein@disabilityrightspa.org
bmadway@disabilityrightspa.org
The Defendant is represented by:
Kenneth J. Serafin, Esq.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES OFFICE
OF GENERAL COUNSEL
625 Forster Street, 3rd Floor West
Health and Welfare Building
Harrisburg, PA 17120
PEOPLEREADY INC: Bid to Remand Beltran Suit to State Court Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GEORGE BELTRAN, Plaintiff v. PEOPLEREADY, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00179-WHO (N.D. Cal.), Judge
William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denies Beltran's Motion to Remand.
The lawsuit is a putative wage and hour class action filed by
Beltran against his former employers, PeopleReady, Inc. and
TrueBlue Inc., asserting that the Defendants violated various
California state labor laws and California's Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"). Together the Defendants are an industrial staffing agency
that provided work for Beltran at various times during 2022.
Beltran is a citizen of California, and PeopleReady and TrueBlue
are both citizens of Washington and employ workers in California.
Beltran's complaint asserts that the Defendants employ "hundreds"
of non-exempt employees who were not compensated under reporting
time law, not provided accurate wage statements, and were subject
to unfair business practices. He asserts that he and putative class
members were scheduled to work shifts of at least 6 to 8 hours a
day but were forced to leave work on or before the allotted time
and only paid for 2 hours of work, in contravention of California
law that requires reporting time pay of at least half the scheduled
shift, up to a maximum of 4 hours. Because of the Defendants'
failure to pay for reporting time, Beltran's and the Class Members'
wage statements are inaccurate.
Beltran brings four causes of action on behalf of himself and all
those similarly situated, all stemming from the alleged reporting
time violations, alleging violations of: (1) the reporting time
requirement under Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders
1-16 Section 5(A); (2) California Labor Code sections 1194, 1194.2,
and 1197 for failure to pay minimum wage; (3) California Labor Code
section 226(a) for inaccurate wage statements; and (4) the UCL. He
defines his putative class as "all individuals employed by
Defendants as non-exempt employees in the State of California, at
any time within four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit
until the present date." He seeks money damages, restitution,
attorney fees and costs, and injunctive relief.
Beltran filed his complaint in state court on Nov. 7, 2022, and the
Defendants removed it to federal court on Jan. 12, 2023.
Subsequently, he filed a Motion to Remand. The Defendants filed an
opposition with supporting declarations. Beltran replied.
The Defendants also filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. Beltran
opposed and filed several supporting exhibits, including
declarations and two video files. The Defendants replied and filed
supporting exhibits. Judge Orrick held a hearing on both motions at
which counsel for both parties appeared.
Beltran moves to remand the case to state court, arguing that
removal was improper because the amount in controversy is not met
under CAFA. The vast majority of his argument focuses on whether it
was improper for the Defendants to include 41,000 workers as
potential class members in their calculations of the amount in
controversy. In turn, the Defendants assert that Beltran's
complaint shows that all of the workers could reasonably be
considered as putative class members.
Judge Orrick finds that the Defendants' underlying assumptions in
the calculations -- that all 41,000 employees as well as 20% of pay
periods were affected -- are reasonable. It would also be
reasonable for the Defendants to extrapolate this ratio and assume
that two third of all paychecks it issued included reporting time
pay. Even with that two-thirds number, the amount in controversy
still surpasses $5 million. Hence, Judge Orrick concludes that the
Defendants met their burden to establish the amount in controversy
by a preponderance of the evidence. Given that was the only basis
for contesting my jurisdiction, he denies the motion to remand.
The Defendants move to compel arbitration, asserting that Beltran
signed an arbitration agreement that covers all claims asserted in
this case, and submitting a copy of that agreement. Beltran
contests whether he consented to or signed the agreement, asserting
that while the contract appears to show his electronic signature,
he was never given the opportunity to see or review the document.
He does not dispute that the agreement would cover all his asserted
claims. Accordingly, the sole issue is whether the agreement was
validly formed.
Based on the limited record before him, Judge Orrick cannot say
that there is a genuine dispute as to whether Beltran consented to
the agreement, given the obvious holes in each party's evidence.
And particularly because the holes in Beltran's evidence are so
pronounced, it is hard to say that there are any "reasonable"
doubts and inferences that can be resolved in his favor at this
time.
In line with the Federal Arbitration Act and the Ninth Circuit's
guidance in Hansen v. LMB Mortg. Servs., Inc., 1 F.4th 667, 670
(9th Cir. 2021), Judge Orrick will hold a hearing on Aug. 23, 2023.
In anticipation of the hearing, the parties may conduct limited
discovery related to the alleged contract formation and violation.
The parties will submit supplemental briefs of no more than 10
pages and evidence to establish whether Beltran consented or did
not consent to the arbitration agreement by July 19, 2023, and may
submit oppositions of no more than 5 pages by Aug. 2, 2023. At the
hearing, if there are no genuine disputes of material fact, Judge
Orrick will rule on the motion to compel arbitration. If genuine
disputes remain that cannot be resolved by a further evidentiary
hearing, the question will go to a jury.
For those reasons, Judge Orrick denies the motion to remand. He
will address the motion to compel arbitration following the hearing
on Aug. 23, 2023, at 2:00 p.m.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 25, 2023 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/40Xyd5V from Leagle.com.
PORSCHE CARS: Bauser Sues Over Defective Electric Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------
Ian Bauser, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC. and DR. ING. H.C. F.
PORSCHE AG, Case No. 1:23-cv-01054-ELR (N.D. Ga., March 10, 2023),
is brought concerning Porsche electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles
that now take twice as long to charge as when sold due to the
Defendants' software.
The Defendants sell devices that charge their electric and plug-in
hybrid vehicles' batteries. But after a post-sale software change,
the devices can only safely charge at half of their advertised
rate. As a result, consumers who purchased the charging devices
have paid for functionality that the Defendants advertise but that
their devices cannot safely provide. The Defendants knew that their
software change would cause this issue, but have not provided their
customers with a remedy to this problem, and thus their conduct
violates federal and state consumer-protection laws.
The Defendants sell two devices for home charging their electric
and plug-in hybrid cars: the Porsche Mobile Charger Plus ("PMC+")
and the Porsche Mobile Charger Connect ("PMCC"). Both require an
industrial electrical feed outlet, capable of providing 40 amperes
of current, to reach a full charge at the advertised speed of 9.5
to 10.5 hours. The charging devices come with an industrial supply
cable to connect the charger to the feed outlet.
Consumers began to notice that the devices were overheating and
alerted Defendants. The overheating caused damage to the outlet and
created a potential fire hazard. The Defendants deployed what they
called an update: they asked consumers to bring their PMC+ and PMCC
charging devices to dealerships, where technicians would change the
charging device settings to cut the maximum output current in half.
Defendants also released a software update for the chargers with
the same effect (both measures will be referred to as the "Charger
Restriction"). These steps caused vehicle charging times to double,
limiting consumers' ability to use their cars when needed and as
advertised.
The Plaintiff relied on Defendants' statements about the ease,
convenience, and speed of charging his Porsche electric car at his
home when purchasing the PMCC (and the car itself). But after the
Charger Restriction, his car's charging time approximately doubled.
The Plaintiff is left with a charging device that does not work as
promised and a vehicle that he cannot use as he originally
intended. The Defendants have made no effort to recall, repair,
replace, or otherwise return the PMC+ and PMCC devices to their
full functionality. The Defendants have sold tens of thousands of
defective PMC+ and PMCC devices. Plaintiff Bauser's story is
representative of similarly situated device purchasers and
lessees.
Because of Defendants' unlawful conduct, Plaintiff Bauser and
others similarly situated have incurred damages, including by
purchasing a charging device advertised with performance
specifications that it cannot safely meet in practice. Defendants'
conduct thus violates law protecting consumers from unfair and
deceptive business practices and from breaches of warranties, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased a 2022 Porsche Taycan GTS and a PMCC from a
Porsche authorized dealer in New York City.
Porsche designs, develops, and manufactures luxury
automobiles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
E. Adam Webb, Esq.
G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq.
WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480
Atlanta, GA 30339
Phone: (770) 444-0773
Email: Adam@WebbLLC.com
Franklin@WebbLLC.com
- and -
William H. Anderson, Esq.
HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
5353 Manhattan Circle, Suite 204
Boulder, CO 80303
Phone: (303) 800-9109
Fax: (866) 912-8897
Email: wanderson@hfajustice.com
- and -
Simon Wiener, Esq.
HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
68 Harrison Avenue, Suite 604
Boston, MS 02111
Phone: (202) 921-4567
Fax: (866) 912-8897
Email: swiener@hfajustice.com
- and -
Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
1109 Lancaster Avenue
Berwyn, PA 19312
Phone: (610) 200-0581
Fax: (610) 421-1326
Email: mds@sstriallawyers.com
jbk@sstriallawyers.com
- and -
Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
1101 E. Cumberland Avenue, Suite 201H-105
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (352) 753-8600
Email: bwarwick@vandwlaw.com
PROTECT MY CAR: Marshall Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jeremy Marshall, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Protect My Car Admin Services, Inc.,
Case No. 2023-CA-000400 was removed from the Circuit Court of the
Tenth Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on March 29, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-00704-WFJ-JSS to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Protect My Car -- https://protectmycar.com/ -- is an established,
trusted and respected leader in the Vehicle Service Contract
Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amanda J. Allen, Esq.
William Peerce Howard, Esq.
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC
SunTrust Financial Center
401 E Jackson St Ste 2340
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 500-1500
Fax: (813) 435-2369
Email: Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeffrey Aaron Backman, Esq.
Roy Taub, Esq.
GREENSPOON MARDER, PA - CORPORATE
200 E Broward Blvd Ste 1800
Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 491-1120
Fax: (407) 771-9264
Email: jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com
roy.taub@gmlaw.com
Mediator:
Edward J. Page, Esq.
CARLTON FIELDS, PA
4221 W Boy Scout Blvd, Ste. 1000
Tampa, FL 33607
Phone: (813) 223-7000
Fax: (813) 229-4133
Email: epage@carltonfields.com
RANCHO MESQUITE: Figura Files Suit in D. Nevada
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rancho Mesquite
Casino, Inc. The case is styled as Andrew Figura, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Rancho Mesquite
Casino, Inc. doing business as: Eureka Casino Resort, Case No.
2:23-cv-00413-CDS-VCF (D. Nev., March 16, 2023).
The nature suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property
Damage.
Rancho Mesquite Casino, Inc. doing business as Eureka Casino Resort
-- https://www.eurekamesquite.com/ -- is a hotel with luxurious
accommodations, exceptional amenities and an exciting casino.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Patrick D. Donathen, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 233-9243
Fax: (412) 231-0246
Email: gary@lcllp.com
patrick@lcllp.com
- and -
Jennifer A. Fornetti, Esq.
Valerie S. Gray, Esq.
Mark J Bourassa, Esq.
THE BOURASSA LAW GROUP
2350 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite 100
Las Vegas, NV 89102
Phone: (702) 851-2180
Email: jfornetti@blgwins.com
vgray@blgwins.com
mbourassa@blgwins.com
RB FOOD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Borges Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
LAURA B. BORGES; YUSTY MARTINEZ; and ROSMIRY NEGRETTE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RB
FOOD MANAGEMENT, INC. a/k/a MAROOSH MEDITERRANEAN RESTAURANT;
JANETTE C. BAKHOS; and MAREMI BAKHOS, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-21599-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 29, 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.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as kitchen staffs.
RB FOOD MANAGEMENT, INC. a/k/a MAROOSH MEDITERRANEAN RESTAURANT is
a retail business operating as a Mediterranean restaurant. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
RCI DINING: Moffitt Seeks FLSA Class Conditional Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as URSULA MOFFITT and KRISTIN
WHITE, On Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated v. RCI
DINING SERVICES (HARVEY), INC. d/b/a SCARLETT'S CABARET ST. LOUIS,
Case No. 3:23-cv-01059-RJD (S.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs move the
Court for the following relief:
1. conditionally certifying their Proposed FLSA Class pursuant
to
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Section 216(b), to include:
"all individuals that worked or performed as exotic dancers
for,
at, or in Defendants Scarlett's Cabaret St. Louis during the
period April 2020 through the present (the FLSA Class
Members);"
2. directing the Defendant to produce to Plaintiffs' counsel, in
a
usable electronic format, identifiers for all FLSA Class
Members
including each individual's full legal name; mailing
addresses;
email addresses; and cellular telephone numbers;
3. directing the Plaintiffs' counsel (or a third-party
administrator) shall serve a copy of the Court Approved FLSA
Class Member Notice and the Court Approved FLSA Class Member
Opt-In Consent Form on each FLSA Class Member by (i) United
States mail; (ii) email; and (iii) text message; 4. An Order
that each FLSA Class Member shall be permitted sixty (60)
days
from the date Plaintiffs’ counsel’s service of the FLSA
Class
Member Notice and FLSA Class Member Opt-In Consent Form to
file
her FLSA Opt-In Consent Form with the Court to join this
action
as an FLSA Opt-In Plaintiff; and
4. directing the Plaintiffs' counsel (or a third party
administrator) may serve the same FLSA Class Member Notice
and
FLSA Class Member Opt-In Consent Form on each FLSA Class
Member
that has not yet opted-in to this action by (i) United States
mail; (ii) email; and (iii) text message.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 24, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40NWCL5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Athena M. Herman, Esq.
ATHENA HERMAN LAW, LLC
416 Main Street, Suite 811
Peoria, IL 61602
Telephone: (309) 966-0248
Facsimile: (309) 674-7989
E-mail: athena@athenahermanlaw.com
- and -
Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 587-9373
Facsimile: (240) 839-9142
E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com
RCR HOME IMPROVEMENTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Velasquez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ALVAREZ VELASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RCR HOME IMPROVEMENTS INC.; RONY
CARBAJEL; and RODIN CARBAJEL, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-03153
(E.D.N.Y., April 26, 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 Velasquez was employed by the Defendants as a laborer.
RCR HOME IMPROVEMENTS INC. specializes in windows, doors, seamless
siding, roofing, gutters and heater cap, soffit, and fascia, as
well as provides remodeling, installation, and replacement
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Anthony Wolff, Esq.
SACCO & FILLAS LLP
3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor,
Astoria, NY 11102
Telephone: (718) 269-1627
Email: JWolff@saccofillas.com
RENTOKIL NORTH AMERICA: Vasquez Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Edgar Vasquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Rentokil North America, Inc., Does 1
to 10, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2300775 was removed from the
Riverside Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on March 24, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00520-SVW-KK to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Labor/Mgmnt
Relations.
Rentokil -- https://www.rentokil.com/ -- is the world's largest
pest control company, offering the broadest, most advanced range of
pest control solutions and services in the industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marcus Bradley, Esq.
Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq.
Lirit Ariella King, Esq.
BRADLEY GROMBACHER LLP
31365 Oak Crest Drive Suite 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Phone: (805) 270-7100
Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
lking@bradleygrombacher.com
- and -
Garen Majarian, Esq.
MAJARIAN LAW GROUP, APC
18250 Ventura Boulevard
Tarzana, CA 91356
Phone: (818) 609-0807
Fax: (818) 609-0807
Email: garen@majarianlawgroup.com
- and -
Sahag Majarian, II, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
18250 Ventura Boulevard
Tarzana, CA 91356
Phone: (818) 609-0807
Fax: (818) 609-0892
Email: sahagii@aol.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Tanja L. Darrow, Esq.
Brooke S. Hammond, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
633 West 5th Street 63rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 443-4300
Fax: (213) 443-4299
Email: tdarrow@littler.com
bhammond@littler.com
REVENTICS LLC: Henderson Files Suit in D. Colorado
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reventics LLC, et al.
The case is styled as Paula Henderson, individually and on behalf
all others similarly situated v. Reventics LLC, Regional One
Health, Case No. 1:23-cv-00586-MEH (D. Colo., March 6, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Breach of Contract.
Reventics -- https://reventics.com/ -- delivers Provider Engagement
Solutions that enhance physician reimbursement and compliance while
improving clinical quality measures.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
THE LYON FIRM
2754 Erie Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Phone: (513) 381-2333
Fax: (513) 766-9011
- and -
Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th Street, Suite 1725, Suite 1725
Oakland, CA 94607
Phone: (510) 891-9800
Email: sec@colevannote.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Aurora Temple Barnes
K&L GATES, LLP
1717 Main Street, Suite 2800
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: (214) 939-5627
Fax: (214) 939-5549
Email: aurora.barnes@klgates.com
- and -
David Mitchell Ross, Jr.
WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP
1500 K Street, NW, Suite 330
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 626-7687
Fax: (202) 628-3606
Email: david.ross@wilsonelser.com
- and -
Kimberly A. Viergever
Ryan A. Williams
WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP
1225 17th Street, Suite 1700
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 572-5300
Fax: (303) 572-5301
Email: kimberly.viergever@wilsonelser.com
ryan.williams@wilsonelser.com
RICE DRILLING: Partial Summary Judgment Bid in J&R Suit Withdrawn
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, J&R PASSMORE, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs v. RICE DRILLING
D, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01587 (S.D. Ohio),
Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division:
a. grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Withdraw the
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and withdraws the
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; and
b. grants in part and denies in part the parties' Joint Motion
to Amend Scheduling Order.
On July 8, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment as to Counts I and II. The deadline for the Defendants'
responsive briefing on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was
extended to 21 days after the Court's ruling on the Motion for
Class Certification.
On March 28, 2023, the Court issued an Opinion & Order (O&O)
denying the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a Class Action. The
Plaintiffs then filed an unopposed Motion to Withdraw their Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment and Continue Oral Argument citing
developments including the Court's class certification decision and
a companion Ohio state court case, which they argue deals with the
interpretation of the same lease form.
Subsequently, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Amend the
Scheduling Order. Both parties request that the deadline for filing
motions for summary judgment be postponed. The Plaintiffs request
that all motions for summary judgment be filed 60 days after a
final determination on the appeal of TERA, LLC v. Rice Drilling D,
LLC, et al., Ohio Supreme Court Case No. 2023-0411, the companion
state court case. Conversely, the Defendants request that the Court
resets the motion for summary judgment deadline for 60 days after
entry of an order on the pending summary judgment motion in TERA
II, LLC, et al. v. Rice Drilling D LLC, et al., No. 2:19-cv-2221,
which is also before the Court.
Given the significant developments in the matter and the Court's
power to control the disposition of the cases on its docket, Judge
Marbley grants the Unopposed Motion to Withdraw the Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment. As such, he withdraws the Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment. Additionally, upon a motion by plaintiffs
in TERA II, he denies a stay pending resolution of TERA, LLC by the
Ohio Supreme Court.
In conformity with the Court's ruling in TERA II and to keep
forward momentum in these cases, Judge Marbley grants in part and
denies in part the parties' Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order.
All motions for summary judgment are to be filed no later than 60
days after the Court's entry of an opinion and order on the pending
summary judgment motions in TERA II. The oral argument scheduling
order is vacated.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 21, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://rb.gy/9vebg from Leagle.com.
RISE INTERACTIVE: Roper Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rise Interactive
Media & Analytics, LLC. The case is styled as Tiffany Roper,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Rise Interactive Media & Analytics, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01836
(N.D. Ill., March 23, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Personal Injury.
Rise -- https://www.riseinteractive.com/ -- is a digital marketing
agency specializing in digital media, analytics, and customer
experience.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
111 W. Jackson Street, Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 984-0000
Fax: (212) 686-0114
Email: malmstrom@whafh.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Daniel Radecki, Esq.
MCDONALD HOPKINS LLC
300 North Lasalle Street, Suite 1400
Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: (312) 280-0111
Email: jradecki@mcdonaldhopkins.com
ROADONE INTERMODALOGISTICS: Felix Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RoadOne
Intermodalogistics, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Rudolph
Felix, as an individual on behalf of himself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. RoadOne IntermodaLogistics, LLC, RTS
Holdings, LLC, R1, LLC, Case No. BCV-23-100908 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Kern Cty., March 22, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
RoadOne IntermodaLogistics -- https://www.roadone.com/ -- is North
America's premier full-service intermodal transportation and
related logistics company.[BN]
ROBERTSON ANSCHUTZ: Etzel FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Scott Etzel, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid, Crane &
Partners, PLLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. BUR-L-000240-23 was
removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Burlington County,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on March
9, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-01325-CPO-EAP to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Act
RAS -- https://raslegalgroup.com/ -- is a full-service law firm
that is fully dedicated to meeting the legal and operational needs
of the financial sector.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Phone: (973) 227-5900
Fax: (973) 244-0019
Email: jkj@legaljones.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Keith Robert Lorenze, Esq.
ROBERTSON, ANSCHUTZ, SCHNEIF, CRANE & PARTNERS, PLLC
6409 Congress Ave., Suite 100
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Phone: (561) 241-6901
Email: klorenze@raslg.com
- and -
Brandon Pack, Esq.
RAS CITRON LLC
133 Gather Drive. Suite F
Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
Phone: (855) 225-6906
Email: bpack@raslg.com
SHORE FUNDING: Court Bifurcates Discovery in Harris TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TIFFANY HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHORE FUNDING SOLUTIONS
INC., Defendant, Case No. 23-CV-00789 (JMA) (JMW) (E.D.N.Y.),
Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York grants the Defendant's motion to
bifurcate discovery.
Harris commenced the case as a class action alleging a violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The TCPA bars
companies from making calls using automatic telephone dialing
systems or using an artificial or pre-recorded voice to cell
numbers.
The Plaintiff alleges that on April 19, 2022, the Defendant made an
unsolicited pre-recorded telemarketing call to her number -- (205)
503-XXXX. She then spoke to someone who said they were an employee
of the Defendant who promoted a loan and sent a follow up email to
her. Her Complaint describes a proposed "Robocall Class" consisting
of all persons within the United States whose cellular telephone
numbers received a call from the Defendant or a third-party on its
behalf using pre-recorded messages within the four years preceding
the complaint.
Before the Court now is the Defendant's contested motion for
bifurcation of discovery. The case is in its infancy. At the
initial conference, the Court entered a Scheduling Order and set a
briefing schedule for Defendant's motion to bifurcate discovery as
to Plaintiff's individual claim and the proposed class. The
Plaintiff has served discovery requests, but the Defendant has not
served any. The contested bifurcation motion was subsequently
filed. Oral argument was held on April 21, 2023.
The Defendant seeks to bifurcate individual and class discovery to
explore the threshold issue of whether the Plaintiff received a
call from it at the (205) 503-XXXX number on April 19, 2022, and
whether she owns the phone to which the number is assigned. It
requests a 90-day period for this limited discovery. The Plaintiff
prefers the status quo, with all discovery -- as to the Plaintiff
and Class -- proceeding concomitantly.
The Defendant relies on the following to establish good cause: (1)
the limited discovery sought is distinct from class issues, (2)
bifurcation would avoid unnecessary expensive and time-consuming
class-discovery, (3) the Plaintiff did not attach any evidence of a
phone call to her Complaint and provides no evidence that the call
actually took place, and (4) in another case involving the same
Plaintiff, the Defendant's counsel identified the (205) 503-XXXX
number as being advertised in connection with a custom home
building business rather than with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff, on
the other hand, resists bifurcation on the basis that: (1) there is
evidence that Plaintiff received the phone call and owns the
number, and (2) it is atypical to bifurcate discovery.
The Defendant's request for limited discovery as to (1) whether the
Plaintiff received a phone call on April 19, 2022, and (2) whether
she owns the phone number -- because she has not offered any
evidence to support either allegation. The Plaintiff in response
attached a phone bill (DE 17-2) that reflects that the (205)
503-XXXX number belongs to her and copy of the email she received
after the alleged phone call. The Defendant contends that the
Plaintiff has not laid a foundation for the phone bill as a
business record. As to the email, the Defendant notes that it is
addressed to a "William," not the Plaintiff. Additionally, the
email does not reference a phone call.
The Plaintiff also provided an affidavit that states that she owns
the phone number (205) 503-XXXX, received a pre-recorded call on
April 19, 2022, from the Defendant and after speaking with someone
named "Dan Katz" identifying themselves as an employee of
Defendant, received an email from Dan Katz consistent with the
offer made on the call. She further states that she has produced a
redacted copy of her phone bill to show she owns the number at
issue and that she has no affiliation with the person or business
that the Defendant's counsel states appears to be associated with
the number. The Defendant argues that the affidavit is null and
void because it does not conform to the requirements for an unsworn
declaration under 28 U.S.C. Section 1746 and can be given no
weight.
Having considered the parties' arguments, Judge Wicks grants the
Defendant's motion to bifurcate discovery. He concludes that the
Defendant has established good cause for limited discovery related
to the Plaintiff's individual claim -- specifically as to the issue
of whether the Defendant made a call to the Plaintiff on April 19,
2022 at the (205) 503-XXXX number. Given that such discovery would
not result in duplication of efforts or substantially overlap with
class discovery, it would be practical and would ensure the "just,
speedy, and inexpensive determination" of the action.
Moreover, Judge Wicks holds that granting the Defendant's motion
will not cause undue burden and expense to the Plaintiff nor would
it prejudice her because the case is in the nascent stages. The
Defendant conceded at oral argument a 90-day period was not
necessary to complete limited discovery. As such, the limited
discovery will conclude by June 30, 2023.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 21, 2023 Order is available
at https://rb.gy/vtyfv from Leagle.com.
Anthony Paronich, Esq. -- anthony@paronichlaw.com -- Paronich Law,
P.C., Hingham, MA, Attorney for the Plaintiff.
Clifford B. Olshaker, Esq., -- cliffordolshaker@yahoo.com -- Law
Offices of Clifford B. Olshaker, Corona, NY, Attorney for the
Defendant.
SOTO MEDIA: Esposito-Costagliola Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Rosaria Esposito-Costagliola, on behalf of
herself and a class of all other similarly situated residential and
commercial consumers v. SOTO MEDIA SOLUTIONS, LLC, d/b/a "KLASSY
NETWORK" and d/b/a "THE KLASSY NETWORK", and XYZ CORPORATION 1-10,
Case No. OCN-L-000121-23 was removed from the Superior Court of the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Ocean County, Law Division, to the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
March 10, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01362-MAS-DEA.
The Complaint seeks compensatory damages, statutory damages,
punitive damages, the imposition of a constructive trust,
attorney's fees, other expenses, and injunctive relief arising from
Klassy's alleged overcharge of sales tax.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Kerri E. Chewning, Esq.
ARCHER & GREINER
A Professional Corporation
1045 Laurel Oak Road
Voorhees, NJ 08043
Phone: (856) 795-2121
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON: Unland Files Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southern California
Edison Company Retirement Plan Trust, et al. The case is styled as
Michael S. Unland, identifying Similarly-situated members of the
Southern California Edison Company Retirement Plan v. Southern
California Edison Company Retirement Plan Trust, EIX Benefits
Connection, Case No. 2:23-cv-02305-FLA-AS (C.D. Cal., March 29,
2023).
The nature of suit is stated as E.R.I.S.A. Labor for Employee
Retirement.
Southern California Edison Company Retirement Plan Trust is a
Corporate Pension located in Rosemead, CA United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stanley Robert Apps, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT GITMEID PC
4424 Bellingham Avenue
Studio City, CA 91604
Phone: (310) 709-3966
Email: stan@appsatlaw.com
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Galecio-Cruz Sues Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Maria Galecio-Cruz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SPECIALTY CARE, LLC and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 37-2023-00009287-CU-OE-CTL
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., March 6, 2023), is brought under
California Code of Civil Procedure for the Defendants' violations
of the California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code as a
result of the Defendants failure to compensate Plaintiff and Class
Members for all hours suffered or permitted to work.
The Plaintiff and Class Members worked off the clock without
compensation. For example, Plaintiff would often work shifts
ranging in length from 9 to 10 hours, however, Defendants would
nonetheless pay her for only 8 hours of work each day (or 40 hours
per workweek). Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants
engaged in the same practice with respect to the other Class
Members. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that Defendants
non-exempt employees who worked with patients were required to work
off the clock as well, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked as a Case Manager at at a Kindred Hospital in
California.
Southern California Specialty Care, LLC is a California limited
liability company that maintains operations and conducts business
throughout the State of California, including in this county..[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas J. Ferraro, Esq.
Lauren N. Vega, Esq.
FERRARO VEGA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, INC.
3160 Camino del Rio South, Suite 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (619) 693-7727
Fax: (619) 350-6855
Email: nick@ferrarovega.com
lauren@ferrarovega.com
SPRUCE SERVICES: Garcia Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Camila Garcia, Nathalia Aguilar, on behalf of
herself and of all others similarly situated v. Spruce Services,
Inc., Case No. 23-001529-CA-01 was removed from the Eleventh
Judicial Circuit Court, in and for Miami, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 6, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-20881-CMA to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Spruce -- https://getspruce.com/ -- offers Chores, Housekeeping,
Pet Care, Laundry & Dry Cleaning services for multifamily
residents.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arun Gopal Ravindran, Esq.
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 203-4573
Email: aravindran@hedinhall.com
fhedin@hedinhall.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Aaron Stenzler Weiss, Esq.
CARLTON FIELDS, P.A.
700 NW 1st Avenue, Suite 1200
Miami, FL 33136
Phone: (305) 530-0050
Fax: (305) 530-0055
Email: aweiss@carltonfields.com
- and -
James Samuel Czodli, Esq.
CARLTON FIELDS, P.A.
100 S.E. Second Street, Ste. 4200
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 530-0050
Email: jczodli@carltonfields.com
SRG GLOBAL COATINGS: Thomure Files Suit in E.D. Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SRG Global Coatings,
LLC. The case is styled as Dorothy Thomure, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. SRG Global Coatings, LLC
doing business as: SRG Global Farmington, Case No.
4:23-cv-00375-HEA (E.D. Mo., March 23, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Torts to Land for Property Damage.
SRG Global -- http://www.srgglobal.com/-- is one of the largest
manufacturers of chrome plated plastic parts and coatings for
vehicles and household appliances.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ted N. Gianaris, Esq.
GIANARIS TRIAL LAWYERS
One Court Street
Alton, IL 62002
Phone: (618) 861-9999
Fax: (618) 259-2251
Email: lrippeto@lawforpeople.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Allyson Elisabeth Cunningham, Esq.
Jessica Kate Rosell, Esq.
William Garland Beck, Esq.
LATHROP GPM LLP - Kansas City
2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 2200
Kansas City, MO 64108
Phone: (816) 460-5616
Fax: (816) 292-2001
Email: allyson.cunningham@lathropgpm.com
jessica.rosell@lathropgpm.com
william.beck@lathropgpm.com
STATE FARM MUTUAL: McClain Suit Removed to E.D. Wisconsin
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Brenda McClain, on behalf of herself and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 23-CV-835 was removed from
the Milwaukee Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin on March 10, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00330-WED to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.
State Farm Insurance -- https://www.statefarm.com/ -- is a group of
mutual insurance companies throughout the United States with
corporate headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
Jacob L. Phillips, Esq.
NORMAND PLLC
3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175
Orlando, FL 32803
Phone: (407) 488-8291
Fax: (888) 974-2175
Email: ed@normandpllc.com
jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com
- and -
Michael F. Brown, Esq.
DVG LAW PARTNER LLC
PO Box 645
Neenah, WI 54957
Phone: (920) 238-6781
Fax: (920) 273-6177
Email: mbrown@dvglawpartner.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Mark D. Malloy, Esq.
MEISSNER TIERNEY FISHER & NICHOLS SC
111 E Kilbourn Ave-19th Fl
Milwaukee, WI 53202-6622
Phone: (414) 273-1300
Fax: (414) 273-5840
Email: mdm@mtfn.com
STATE FARM: S.D. Ohio Allows Nichols to Amend Class Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CARLLYNN NICHOLS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-16 (S.D. Ohio),
Judge Sarah D. Morrison of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division:
a. grants Nichols' Motion to Amend the Complaint; and
b. grants in part and denies in part Nichols' Motion to Compel
Discovery.
Nichols brought the class action against State Farm to recover for
breach of contract or unjust enrichment based on State Farm's
method of calculating the "actual cash value" of covered vehicles.
According to her, State Farm's calculation of "actual cash value"
was divorced from market realities through its use of valuation
companies that applied "typical negotiation deductions" or similar
downward adjustments to the advertised prices of comparable
vehicles.
The matter is now before the Court on two motions. First, Nichols
filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint to expand her class
allegations to include two additional valuation companies used by
State Farm, Mitchell International and CCC Information Services.
Second, Nichols filed a Motion to Compel Discovery of (1) class
data consistent with Ohio's eight-year statute of limitations for
contractual claims and (2) information and documents related to
Mitchell- and CCC-valuations. State Farm opposes both motions.
Judge Morrison first examines Nichols' Motion to Amend the
Complaint. In her Complaint, Nichols alleges that State Farm
violated its obligations to her and other similarly situated
policyholders through its use of Audatex-valuations to calculate
"actual cash value"; Audatex is the valuation company that State
Farm used for Nichols's vehicle. In her amended complaint, Nichols
seeks to expand her class-allegations to include State Farm's use
of Mitchell- and CCC-valuations. She represents that she learned of
State Farm's use of these other valuation companies for the first
time in discovery.
State Farm opposes Nichols's timely motion to amend on two grounds:
the amendment would be futile because claims involving Mitchell and
CCC would not survive a motion to dismiss, and the amendment would
cause it undue prejudice.
Judge Morrison holds that State Farm has not demonstrated that the
proposed amendment would futile. She says (i) Nichols' allegations
are sufficient to state a claim for breach of contract and unjust
enrichment; (ii) Nichols has Article III standing to bring claims
against State Farm based on its alleged failure to pay her "actual
cash value" for her covered vehicle and to seek relief for the same
injury that State Farm caused to others similarly situated; and
(iii) it is not clear from the face of the proposed amended
complaint that all claims involving Mitchell-valuations would be
time-barred.
Moreover, Judge Morrison holds that State Farm has not demonstrated
that it would be unduly prejudiced by the amendment. She says State
Farm's argument is not about prejudice but is about whether a class
action is the superior mechanism for resolving the claims against
it. And determining whether Nichols' proposed class would be
manageable is a fact-bound inquiry that is inappropriate for
resolution at this stage. In addition, whether the claims and
defenses relevant to Nichols are sufficiently representative of the
putative class is an issue better suited for determination at the
class-certification stage.
Because State Farm has not demonstrated that allowing Nichols to
amend her complaint to include information that she learned for the
first time in discovery would be futile or unduly prejudicial,
Nichols's motion for leave to amend is granted.
Judge Morrison then examines Nichols' Motion to Compel Discovery.
Nichols seeks discovery of class data for State Farm policyholders
who received physical damage coverage for accidents or losses that
occurred prior to Jan. 4, 2021, which is one year before she filed
suit against State Farm. State Farm argues that Nichols cannot
demonstrate that this data is relevant to any viable claim because
any such claims are barred by the one-year limitations provision in
the State Farm Auto Policy.
Judge Morrison holds that the one-year limitation provision bars
claims arising out of physical damage that occurred before Jan. 4,
2021. In attempt to avoid the application of the one-year
limitations provision to limit her discovery, Nichols argues that
it is unenforceable, tolled by the discovery rule, and/or waived by
State Farm. Each argument fails. Accordingly, Nichols' motion to
compel discovery of class data beyond the one-year limitations
period is denied.
State Farm does not dispute that discovery of information and
documents related to Mitchell- and CCC-valuations would be relevant
and proportionate to the needs of the case if Nichols's motion to
amend the complaint is granted. As such, Nichols's motion to compel
discovery is granted as to information and documents related
Mitchell- and CCC-valuations to the extent that discovery conforms
with the one-year limitations period.
For the reasons she set forth, Judge Morrison grants the Motion for
Leave to Amend the Complaint. She grants the Motion to Compel
Discovery as to Mitchell- and CCC-valuations and denies as to class
data exceeding the one-year limitations provision in the State Farm
Auto Policy.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 21, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://rb.gy/mkv69 from Leagle.com.
STUBBS & WOOTTON: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stubbs & Wootton
Corp. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, v. Stubbs & Wootton Corp., Case
No. 1:23-cv-02034-EK-SJB (E.D.N.Y., March 16, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Stubbs & Wootton Corp. -- https://stubbsandwootton.com/ -- are
purveyors of hand made slippers to be worn day into evening, from
jeans to dinner clothes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
SUTTER BAY HOSPITALS: Martha Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sutter Bay Hospitals,
et al. The case is styled as Tanya Martha, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. Sutter Bay Hospitals, Does 1 To 100,
Inclusive, Case No. CGC23605061 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty., March 9, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Sutter Health facilities -- https://www.sutterhealth.org/ -- are
conveniently located across Northern California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Phone: (310) 432-0000
TD BANK NA: Kamara Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Abdul M. Kamara, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. TD BANK, N.A., Case No.
CAM-L-000519-23 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Camden County, to the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey on March 24, 2023, and assigned Case
No. 1:23-cv-01684-RMB-MJS.
In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that he "disputed erroneous
late mortgage payment history that TD furnished about him to credit
reporting agencies," but that "TD failed to timely correct the
inaccurate mortgage payment history information and failed to mark
it as 'disputed' on his credit report," in violation of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Susan Leming, Esq.
BROWN & CONNERY, LLP
360 Haddon Avenue
Westmont, NJ 08108
Phone: (856) 854-8900
Facsimile: (856) 858-4967
Email: sleming@brownconnery.com
- and -
Noah Levine, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
7 World Trade Center
250 Greenwich St.
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 230-8875
Facsimile: (212) 230-8888
Email: Noah.levine@wilmerhale.com
TD BANK: Knoll Sues Over Involvement on Fraudulent Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Knoll, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TD BANK, N.A., Case No. 1:23-cv-01787-KMW-EAP (D.N.J.,
March 29, 2023), is brought against the Defendant's failure to
terminate relationship involving fraudulent scheme.
National Realty Investment Advisors LLC ("NRIA") was formed as a
real estate investment, management, and development firm in 2006.
From February 2018 until January 2022, NRIA raised approximately
$650 million from more than 2,000 investors. Among NRIA's various
LLCs was NRIA Partners Portfolio Fund I LLC (the "NRIA Fund"),
which was NRIA's primary investment vehicle. In October 2022, the
Unites States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") filed a
civil enforcement action against NRIA and its principals alleging,
amongst other misconduct, that they "knowingly and recklessly
engaged in a Ponzi like scheme."
Defendant TD Bank, N.A. ("TD Bank") was integral to the operation
of NRIA's scheme. Specifically, TD Bank was NRIA's primary banking
institution. As such, TD Bank was responsible for the receipt of
investor deposits and the disbursement of monthly distributions, TD
Bank knew its NRIA accountholders and their backgrounds by way of
TD Bank's obligations to know its customers and monitor their
activity, and TD Bank became intimately familiar with its NRIA
accountholders by virtue of a multi-year, multi-million-dollar
banking relationship that also included TD Bank's review of at
least one loan application (during which an NRIA principal
submitted forged documents to TD Bank).
NRIA funneled much of its business through a single TD Bank account
ending in 1872 (the "1872 Account"). The 1872 account was funded
primarily with investor funds. By virtue of TD Bank's facilitation
of transactions in this account, TD Bank gained an intimate
understanding (to the extent not learned from other sources) of
NRIA's suspicious, improper, and unlawful uses of investor funds,
which included frequent negative balances, substantial payments to
insiders, self-dealing transactions, a lack of discernable revenue,
amongst other things. NRIA's scheme ultimately and unsurprisingly
collapsed, causing its investors to suffer substantial losses. On
June 7, 2022, NRIA and affiliated companies filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection.
TD Bank is obligated to know its customers and monitor their
accounts for suspicious activity and to maintain internal control
systems to prevent bank services from being misused to carry out
illegal activity, particularly financial fraud and money
laundering. In connection with such obligations, TD Bank employs
sophisticated electronic monitoring systems to identify banking
transactions or patterns that raise "red flags" that are indicative
of potentially improper or illegal activity.
Despite being privy to these and other signs of wrongdoing, TD Bank
did not terminate its relationship with NRIA or take steps to stop
its fraudulent scheme. Instead, TD Bank continued to serve NRIA and
facilitate improper transfers of investor funds that allowed NRIA
to continue to operate its scheme for many years. TD Bank knew NRIA
was using its TD Bank accounts for improper purposes but allowed
NRIA to pay purported "interest" or "distributions" which was in
fact just new investor money and allowed NRIA's principals and
their relatives and affiliates to enrich themselves through direct
payments from TD Bank accounts (at times to or through other TD
Bank accounts) and through other self-dealing and insider
transactions, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff began investing in NRIA on July 27, 2020.
TD Bank is a financial services company based in Cherry Hill, New
Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark J. Astarita, Esq.
SALLAH ASTARITA & COX
60 Pompton Ave
Verona, NJ 07044
Phone: (973) 559-5566
- and -
Daniel B. Centner, Esq.
Grace A.Van Hancock, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF
1519 Robert C. Blakes Sr. Drive,
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (504) 605-2235
- and -
Scott L. Silver, Esq.
Ryan A. Schwamm, Esq.
Peter M. Spett, Esq.
SILVER LAW GROUP
11780 W. Sample Road
Coral Springs, FL 33065
Phone: (954) 755-4799
TOBI.COM LLC: O'Dea Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TOBI.COM, LLC. The
case is styled as Katie O'Dea, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. TOBI.COM, LLC, Case No. CGC23605516 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., March 29, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Business Tort."
Tobi.Com, LLC -- https://www.tobi.com/ -- operates an online retail
store. The Company offers women's ready-to-wear clothing such as
tops, bottoms, outerwear, swimwear, shoes, and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER P.A.
1900 California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (206) 491-2207
Fax: (925) 407-2700
Email: ndeckant@bursor.com
TOUCHSTONE CLIMBING: Perkins Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Touchstone Climbing,
Inc. The case is styled as Christina Perkins, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Touchstone Climbing,
Inc., Case No. 23CV029971 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., March 24,
2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Touchstone Climbing, Inc. -- https://touchstoneclimbing.com/ -- is
California's largest community of indoor climbing and fitness
gyms.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 510
Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145
Phone: 213-381-9988
Fax: 213-381-9989
Email: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com
TRADER JOE'S: Waring Suit Transferred to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Robert L. Waring, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Trader Joe's Company, Case No.
3:23-cv-00402-WHO was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northen District of California, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California on March 16, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00479-RBM-KSC to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Trader Joe's -- https://www.traderjoes.com/home -- is an American
chain of grocery stores headquartered in Monrovia, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence D. King, Esq.
Matthew B. George, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (415) 772-4700
Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
Email: lking@kaplanfox.com
mgeorge@kaplanfox.com
- and -
Michael D. Braun, Esq.
KUZYK LAW, LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (213) 401-4100
Facsimile: (213) 401-0311
Email: mdb@kuzykclassactions.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Dawn Sestito, Esq.
Danielle Rebecca Feuer, Esq.
Raymond Collins Kilgore, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1050
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899
Phone: (213) 430-6000
Email: dsestito@omm.com
dfeuer@omm.com
ckilgore@omm.com
TRANSPERFECT TRANSLATIONS: Metcalf Suit Referred to Mag. Judge
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 Hon. Judge Edgardo Ramos
entered an order referring the action to the Honorable Katherine J.
Parker, United States Magistrate Judge, for the following
purpose(s):
-- General pre-trial (includes scheduling, discovery, non-
dispositive pre-trial motions and settlement).
-- Dispositive motion: Motion to certify class.
TransPerfect is a translation and language services company.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 24, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LEHKu3 at no extra charge.[CC]
TURN 5 INC: Holt Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Holt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TURN 5, INC., Case No. 6:23-cv-00108-JAR (E.D. Okla.,
March 29, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (the "TCPA") as a result of the Defendant's
unsolicited text messaging.
To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in unsolicited
text messaging and continues to text message consumers after they
have opted out of Defendant's solicitations. The Defendant's
unsolicited text message spam caused Plaintiff and the Class
members harm, including violations of their statutory rights,
trespass, annoyance, nuisance, invasion of their privacy, and
intrusion upon seclusion. Defendant's text messages also occupied
storage space on Plaintiff's and the Class members' telephones.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory
damages on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class members, as defined
below, and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the unlawful actions of Defendant, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is an individual and a called party under the TCPA.
The Defendant is a foreign corporation doing business in this
State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954.400.4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Rachel Dapeer, Esq.
DAPEER LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Phone: 305-610-5223
Email: rachel@dapeer.com
TWITTER INC: Yeh Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Twitter, Inc. The
case is styled as Henry Yeh, individually and on behlaf of all
others similarly situated v. Twitter, Inc., Case No. CGC23605100
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., March 10, 2023).
The case type of suit is stated as "Contract/Warranty."
Twitter, Inc. -- http://www.twitter.com/-- is an American social
media company based in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sophia M. Rios, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE
401 B St, Ste 2000
San Diego, CA 92101-4240
Email: srios@bm.net
U-HAUL CO: Nicholas Sues Over Unlawful Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Christy Lee Nicholas, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. U-HAUL CO. OF PENNSYLVANIA D/B/A U-HAUL
MOVING & STORAGE OF RIVERVIEW, Case No. 23-005180-CI (Fla. 6th
Judicial Cir. Ct., Pinellas Cty., March 22, 2023), is brought
against the Defendants for violating the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA").
On a date better known by Defendant, Defendant began attempting to
collect a debt (the "Consumer Debt") from Plaintiff. The Consumer
Debt is an obligation allegedly had by Plaintiff to pay money
arising from a transaction between the creditor of the Consumer
Debt, Defendant, and Plaintiff (the "Subject Service"). On January
12, 2023, Defendant sent an electronic mail communication to
Plaintiff. The Communication was sent by Defendant to Plaintiff at
12:58 AM in Plaintiff's zone. The Communication was received by
Plaintiff from Defendant at 12:58 AM in Plaintiff's zone. The FCCPA
prohibits persons from communicating with a debtor between the
hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the debtor's time zone without the
prior consent of the debtor therefor the Defendants violated the
FCCPA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is the alleged debtor of the Consumer Debt.
The Defendant is a Pennsylvania Corporation, with its principal
place of business located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
Shannon E. Gilvey, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th St., Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954-907-1136
Fax: 855-529-9540
Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
shannon@jibraellaw.com
UNITED STATES: Cheng Sues Over Chemicals in Drinking Water
----------------------------------------------------------
SHENG-NEN CHENG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case
No. 2:23-cv-01728-RMG-MHC (D. S.C. April 26, 2023) is an action
asserting claims pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, the
Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Toxic Substances Control
Act.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant acted
arbitrarily and capriciously, for failure to eliminate or prevent
the discharge of AFFF Products that contain extreme high level of
perflurooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perflurooctance acid ("PFOS"),
used by the U.S. Military, into the drinking water supply at Joint
Base McGuine-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a country of 50 states covering a vast
swath of North America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii
extending the nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean. [BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE: Huth Files Suit in N.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against THE Secretary of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture, et al. The case is styled as
Michela Huth, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in his
official capacity; Administrator of the USDA Food and Nutrition, in
her official capacity; Case No. 5:23-cv-00557-BYP (N.D. Ohio, March
16, 2023).
The nature suit is stated as Other Statutes: Administrative
Procedures Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision.
Mike Johanns was sworn in as the 28th Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) on January 21.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey A. Crossman, Esq.
Marc E. Dann, Esq.
Marita I. Ramirez, Esq.
Brian D. Flick, Esq.
DANN LAW
15000 Madison Avenue
Lakewood, OH 44107
Phone: (216) 373-0539
Fax: (216) 373-0536
Email: jcrossman@dannlaw.com
notices@dannlaw.com
mramirez@dannlaw.com
bflick@dannlaw.com
VMK INC: Cole Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Chyna La She Cole and Alexander Jat Matua, as individuals and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. VMK, INC., a California
corporation; NEW WORLD HEALTH STAFFING COMPANY INC., a California
corporation; MATTHEW KRISHNAMACHARI, an individual; SARA
KRISHNAMACHARI, an individual; VANESSA KARKABI, an individual; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 23CV413082 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Santa Clara Cty., March 24, 2023), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay wages,
failure to provide meal periods; waiting time penalties; wage
statement violations; failure to timely pay wages; failure to
indemnify; and unfair competition.
The Defendants failed to pay overtime wages to the Plaintiffs and
Class Members, or some of them, in violation of the California
state wage and hour laws as a result of, without limitation, the
Plaintiffs and Class Members working over 8 hours per day, 40 hours
per week and seven consecutive work days in a work week, without
being properly compensated for hours worked in excess of 8 hours
per day in a work day, 40 hours per week in a workweek and/or hours
work on the seventh consecutive work day in a work week by, among
other things, failing to accurately track and/or pay for all hours
actually work at the proper overtime rate of pay to the detriment
of the Plaintiffs and Class Members, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as a non-exempt
employees.
VMK is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of
the laws of the State of California and doing business in the
County of Los Angeles, State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
Jean H. Power, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Phone: (310) 438-5555
Fax: (310) 300-1705
Email: david@tomorrawlaw.com
jean@tomorrowlaw.com
jeff@tomorrowlaw.com
WAG LABS INC: Reed Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wag Labs, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Mike Pinkerton, as an individual on
behalf of himself, and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Wag Labs, Inc., Does 1-100, Inclusive, Case No. CGC23605113
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., March 10, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Wag! -- https://wag.co/ -- is a fast, friendly, and convenient
platform that offers instant pay, real-time GPS tracking, automated
report cards, and live chat with clients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary Crosner, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Phone: (310) 496-5818
Fax: (310) 510-6429
Email: zach@crosnerlegal.com
WALT DISNEY: Nielsen Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENALE NIELSEN,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. WALT
DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., Inc., a Florida Corporation, and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 8:21-cv-02055-DOC-ADS (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff applies for leave to file under seal an
unredacted version of her memorandum of points and authorities in
support of her motion to certify.
She also seeks to file under seal an unredacted version of the
Declaration of Nickolas J. Hagman, along with certain exhibits
attached thereto.
The Plaintiff makes this application because the materials which
she seeks to file under seal were marked by Defendant Walt Disney
Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. as "confidential" and/or "highly
confidential" pursuant to the protective order in this case.
Counsel for Plaintiff has met and conferred with counsel for the
Defendant to confirm Defendant's position that the materials should
be filed under seal and to narrowly tailor any redactions so as to
address the Defendant's request that certain documents, or portions
of documents, remain confidential.
The Plaintiff requests leave to file the following documents under
seal:
1. An unredacted version of the Memorandum of Points and
Authorities;
2. An unredacted version of the Memorandum of Points and
Authorities with proposed redactions highlighted in yellow;
(
3. An unredacted version of the Declaration of Nickolas J.
Hagman
with proposed redactions highlighted in yellow; and
4. Exhibits 5-21 and Exhibit 24 to the Hagman Declaration.
Walt Disney Parks operates amusement parks and kids parks.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 24, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40PRJRR at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel J. Muller, Esq.
Anthony F. Ventura, Esq.
VENTURA HERSEY & MULLER, LLP
1506 Hamilton Avenue
San Jose, CA 95125
Telephone: (408) 512-3022
Facsimile: (408) 512-3023
E-mail: dmuller@venturahersey.com
aventura@venturahersey.com
- and -
Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES
MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
135 S. LaSalle St., Suite 3210
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 782-4880
Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
E-mail: nhagman@caffertyclobes.com
WARBY PARKER: Fails to Provide Meal and Rest Breaks, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Northern California labor law attorneys at Zakay Law Group,
APLC and JCL Law Firm, APC, filed a class action complaint against
Warby Parker Inc. and Warby Parker Retail, Inc. (collectively,
hereinafter, "Warby Parker") for allegedly failing to provide meal
and rest breaks. The class action lawsuit, Case No. 21CV414694, is
currently pending in the Santa Clara County Superior Court of the
State of California. A copy of the Complaint can be read here.
According to the lawsuit, Warby Parker allegedly violated
California Labor Code Sections Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210,
226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198 and 2802 by failing
to: (1) pay minimum wages; (2) pay overtime wages; (3) provide
required meal and rest periods; (4) provide wages when due; (5)
provide accurate itemized wage statements; and (6) reimburse for
required business expenses.
As a result of their rigorous work schedules, Warby Parker's
employees were allegedly unable to take off duty meal breaks and
were not fully relieved of duty for meal periods. Specifically, the
lawsuit alleges employees were from time to time interrupted during
their off-duty meal breaks to complete tasks for Warby Parker.
Employees were allegedly required to perform work as ordered by
Warby Parker for more than five (5) hours during a shift without
receiving an off-duty meal break. Further, the lawsuit alleges
Warby Parker failed to provide employees with a second off-duty
meal period each workday in which these employees were required by
Warby Parker to work ten (10) hours of work. Warby Parker's policy
allegedly caused employees to remain on-call and on duty during
what was supposed to be their off-duty meal periods. Employees
therefore allegedly forfeited meal breaks without additional
compensation and in accordance with Warby Parker's strict corporate
policy and practice.
If you would like to know more about the Warby Parker lawsuit,
please contact Attorney Jackland Hom today by calling (619)
255-9047.
Zakay Law Group, APLC, and JCL Law Firm, APC are labor and
employment law firms with offices located in California that
dedicate their practices to fighting for employees who have been
wronged by their employers due to unfair employment practices.
Contact one of their attorneys today if you need help with
workplace issues regarding wage and hour, wrongful termination,
retaliation, discrimination, and harassment. [GN]
WOKUMI: Lau Files Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wokumi. The case is
styled as Gilbert Lau, Joseph Barton, Jose Mercado, on behalf of
themself and all others similarly situated, and as acting pro bono
public v. Wokumi, Restaurant; Tokyo Ichiban Foods, assumed named as
Wokuni; Wagamama; Junction; Bella Yakou, as co-owner at Junction;
523 Restaurant Corp as assumed Ted's Corner Taven; Urbanspace
Management; Urbanspace; Carmine's Restaurant; Jeffrey Bank, as
owner of Carmine's Restaurant; Zuchek's Bagels Smoked Fish Smoked
Fish doing business as: La Colombe; New York Sports Club; Sports
Club; Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. doing business as:
New York Sports Clubs doing business as: Boston Sports Clubs doing
business as: Washington Sports Clubs doing business as:
Philadelphia Sports Clubs; Equinox; Equinox Holdings Inc. operates
as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries,
provide fitness services such as yoga classes, studio cycling,
cardio exercises, martial arts, spa and personal training. Equinox
Holdings serves customers worldwide; Harvey J. Spevak, as
Chairman/Managing Partner, Equinox Holdings Inc. upon information
and nature belief Mr. Spevak is the owner of the Equinox gyms;
Blink Fitness; Bill De Blasio, as Mayor of New York City; The City
of New York; New York City Department of Health; New York State
Department of Health; The United States of America; United States
of America Corporation; Xavier Becerra, Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services in his office and personal
capacities; Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institutes
of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, in his official and
individual capacities; Dr. Janet Woodcock, Acting Commissioner of
the Food and Drug Administration, in her official and personal
capacities; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; The Food
and Drug Administration; The Center of Disease Control and
Prevention; National Institute of Allergies and Infectious
Diseases; Dr. Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, is the 19th Director of
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the ninth
Administrator of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry; John and Jane Does 1-10,000; Case No. 1:23-cv-02438-ER
(S.D.N.Y., March 20, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil
Rights Act.
Wokumi -- https://www.wokuninyc.com/ -- is a sleek but comfy
Japanese restaurant serving izakaya dishes & skewers, plus sushi,
sashimi & sake.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appear pro se.
XAVIER UNIVERSITY: Hazure Files Suit in E.D. Louisiana
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Xavier University of
Louisiana. The case is styled as Kevin Hazure, Jr., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Xavier University
of Louisiana, Case No. 2:23-cv-00908-LMA-KWR (E.D. La., March 10,
2023).
The nature suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Xavier University of Louisiana -- https://www.xula.edu/ -- is a
private, historically black, Catholic university in New Orleans,
Louisiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Allen Lemmon, Esq.
LEMMON LAW FIRM, LLC
5301 Canal Boulevard, Suite A
New Orleans, LA 70124
Phone: (985) 783-6789
Email: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN PHILLPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (865) 247-0047
Fax: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Richard Arthur Bordelon
Dylan Karl Knoll
Ian Patrick Gunn
Todd Ryan Gennardo
DENECHAUD & DENECHAUD, L.L.C.
201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3920
New Orleans, LA 70170
Phone: (504) 522-4756
Fax: (504) 568-0783
Email: rbordelon@denechaudlaw.com
dknoll@denechaudlaw.com
igunn@denechaudlaw.com
tgennardo@denechaudlaw.com
ZACHARY K. BRADFORD: France Suit Removed to D. Nevada
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Travis France, v. Zachary K. Bradford, Lori L.
Love, Matthew S. Schultz, Thomas L. Wood, Amer Tadayon, Roger P.
Beynon, Larry McNeil, Defendants; CleanSpark, Inc., Nominal
Defendant; Andrea Ciceri, Interested Party; Case No. A-23-866925-C
was removed from the Eight Judicial District Court, Clark County,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on March 23,
2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00444-GMN-NJK to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Stockholders Suits for Breach of
Contract.
Zachary Bradford is the Chief Executive Officer and President at
CleanSpark Inc.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John P. Aldrich, Esq.
ALDRICH LAW FIRM, LTD.
7866 West Sahara Avenue
Las Vegas, NV 89117
Phone: (702) 853-5490
Fax: (702) 227-1975
Email: jaldrich@johnaldrichlawfirm.com
- and -
Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
40 Powder Springs St.
Marietta, GA 30064
Phone: (770) 200-3104
Fax: (770) 200-3101
Email: michaelf@johnsonfistel.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
40 Powder Springs St.
Marietta, GA 30064
Phone: (770) 200-3104
Fax: (770) 200-3101
Email: michaelf@johnsonfistel.com
- and -
Colleen E. McCarty, Esq.
Mark J. Connot, Esq.
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
One Summerlin
1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 700
Las Vegas, NV 89135
Phone: (702) 262-6899
Fax: (702) 597-5503
Email: cmccarty@foxrothschild.com
mconnot@foxrothschild.com
ZACHARY K. BRADFORD: Smith Suit Removed to D. Nevada
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Brandon Smith, on behalf of Cleanspark, Inc. v.
Zachary K. Bradford, Lori L. Love, Matthew S. Schultz, Thomas L.
Wood, Amer Tadayon, Roger P. Beynon, Larry McNeil, Defendants;
CleanSpark, Inc., Nominal Defendant; Andrea Ciceri, Interested
Party; Case No. A-23-866051-C was removed from the Eight Judicial
District Court, Clark County, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada on March 23, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00445-GMN-BNW to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Stockholders Suits for Breach of
Contract.
Zachary Bradford is the Chief Executive Officer and President at
CleanSpark Inc.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew R. Muehlbauer, Esq.
MUEHLBAUER LAW OFFICE, LTD.
7915 West Sahara Ave., Ste. 104
Las Vegas, NV 89117
Phone: (702) 330-4505
Fax: (702) 825-0141
Email: andrew@mlolegal.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Colleen E. McCarty, Esq.
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
One Summerlin
1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 700
Las Vegas, NV 89135
Phone: (702) 262-6899
Fax: (702) 597-5503
Email: cmccarty@foxrothschild.com
The Interested Party is represented by:
Patrick R. Leverty, Esq.
LEVERTY & ASSOCIATES CHTD
832 Willow St.
Reno, NV 89502
Phone: (775) 322-6636
Fax: (775) 322-3953
Email: pat@levertylaw.com
ZOLL MEDICAL: Calvert Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zoll Medical
Corporation. The case is styled as Jamie Calvert, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Zoll Medical
Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-10620-IT (D. Mass., March 22, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Zoll Medical Corporation -- https://www.zoll.com/ -- develops and
markets medical devices and software solutions. The Company offers
products that are used by health care professionals to provide
pacing and defibrillation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Pastor, Esq.
PASTOR LAW OFFICE, LLP
63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617) 742-9700
Fax: (617) 742-9701
Email: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com
ZOLL MEDICAL: McGilberry Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zoll Medical
Corporation. The case is styled as Randy McGilberry, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Zoll Medical
Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-10597-IT (D. Mass., March 17, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Zoll Medical Corporation -- https://www.zoll.com/ -- develops and
markets medical devices and software solutions. The Company offers
products that are used by health care professionals to provide
pacing and defibrillation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kurt J. Hagstrom, Esq.
HAGSTROM LAW GROUP
66 North Second Street
New Bedford, MA 02740
Phone: (774) 202-5510
Email: Kurt@hagstromlawgroup.com
*********
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 ***