/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230529.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, May 29, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 107
Headlines
1ST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL: Faces Laney Suit Over Data Breach
1ST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL: Faces Moreland Suit Over Data Breach
3M COMPANY: Amestoy Sues Over Exposure to Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Bankhead Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Biggs Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
3M COMPANY: Bradley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
3M COMPANY: Southerland Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
ADOBE INC: Faces Privacy Lawsuit Over Extraction of Personal Info
AETNA INC: Rougeau Sues Over Inadequate Data Security
ANTIOCH UNIVERSITY: Vissing Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
APA CORP: Continues to Defend Kulp Minerals Class Suit
ATHLETICA HEALTH: Quintero Sues Over Unsolicited Text Message
BAJAJ FOOD CORP: Tarax Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
BARRETT BUSINESS: Settlement Deal in Kaanaana Suit for Court Nod
BEACHBODY LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Fitness Coaches' Unpaid Wages
BNSF RAILWAY: Court Certifies Class in Macias "Land Tort" Suit
BPROTOCOL FOUNDATION: Faces Class Suit Over Unregistered Security
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Newton Seeks Reply Brief Extension to May 31
BUZZFEED.COM INC: Hunthausen Sues Over Privacy Law Violations
C-MAC INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over BIPA Violations
CEDAR RIDGE: Faces Patients Class Suit Over Systemic Understaffing
CIGNA HEALTH: Reset of Class Cert Hearing to August 2 Sought
CLASSIC MOLDING: Matias Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
COLORADO: Anderson Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates
COMMUNITY ACTION: Ortega Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CONAGRA BRANDS: Settles Class Action Over Oils' False Ads for $3M
CONSOLIDATED WORLD: Court Orders to Pay TCPA Suit Notification Cost
CONTEXTLOGID INC: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Class Suit
COOPER RIDGE: Challender Sues Over Civil Rights Act Violation
CRUNCH GYM: Grant Files Suit in S.D. New York
CURALEAF INC: Settles Suit Over Oregon Labeling Mixup for $100,000
DEUTSCHE BANK: Agrees to Settle Sex Trafficking Suit for $75-Mil.
DREAMWEAR INC: Dougan Appeals Judgment in Doe Suit to 3rd Cir.
DS NATURALS: Lesh Must File Class Cert. Bid by Dec. 19
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Dunbar Class Suit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Garvey Lawsuit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Hamilton Class Suit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Harris Lawsuit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Highfill Lawsuit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Horan Lawsuit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Hursh Lawsuit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Shultz Lawsuit
EASYWORKFORCE SOFTWARE: Illegally Collects Biometrics, Suit Says
EL MANGO DELI: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Guardado Says
FARMERS GROUP: Lim Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
FEDEX GROUND: Derieux Must File Class Cert. Bid by Nov. 9
FIGS INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit
FORTRA LLC: Underwood Files Suit in D. Minnesota
FURRER INC: Conidi Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
G J PROPERTY: Perez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
GARDEN GROVE: Burklund Must File Class Cert Bid by June 12
GATEHOUSE MEDIA: Ewalt Suit Seeks to Certify Class
GENERAL MOTORS: Court OKs Jefferson Class Certification Bid
GOOGLE LLC: Court Dismisses Schneider Class Action Over Content ID
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Unprotected Health Info
GUARANTEED RATE: Mazlumyan Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
HDOS ACQUISITION: Cosgaya Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
HOME EXPRESS: Sorto Sues Over Failure to Minimum, Overtime Wages
HUDSON CBD FLATBUSH: Boggia Sues Over Manipulation of Rent
HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CA: Judge Tosses Cannabis Class Action Suit
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Reaches Settlement in Vehicle Thefts' Class Suit
IL POSTINO: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Garcia Suit Alleges
ILLINOIS: Appeals Reconsideration Bid Denial in Boone Suit
INDEPENDENT LIVING: Salzano Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL: Sanabria Sues Over Automated Telephonic Calls
JAKKS PACIFIC: Faces Villarica Labor Suit in California Court
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Gomez Files Appeal in Remicade Antitrust Suit
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: CPAP Suit Sent to Canada's Law Firm Consortium
KPMG LLP: Stevenson Securities Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Shareholder Suit in NV Court Ongoing
LAZER SPOT: Urrutia Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
LITHIA MOTORS: Singh Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
LLR INC: Must Oppose Van Class Cert. Bid in 60 Days
LOOK BOTH WAYS: Ackerman Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia
LUCKY2MEDIA LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Illinois Privacy Violations
LYONS NATIONAL BANK: Otero Files Suit in W.D. New York
MARADA INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Haughton Claims
MAX CREDIT: Adams Overdraft Fees' Suit Removed to M.D. Ala.
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Canadian Govt. to Join Opioid Crisis Suit
MDL 2873: Chisholm Claims PFAS Exposure From Toxic AFFF Products
MDL 2873: Croom Alleges Injury Over Exposure to Toxic PFAS
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Caused Cancer, Aguirre Alleges
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Caused Cancer, Chisholm Alleges
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Caused Cancer, Gangway Alleges
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Caused Cancer, Hileman Alleges
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Caused Cancer, Koeppe Alleges
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Caused Cancer, Martinez Alleges
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Caused Cancer, McNally Alleges
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Caused Cancer, Sanders Alleges
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Caused Injury, Poulson Alleges
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Causes Injury, Martin Alleges
MDL 2873: Faces Bertino Suit Over AFFF Product Exposure
MDL 2873: Faces Johnson Suit Over AFFF Product Exposure
MDL 2873: Massarelli Sues Over Cancer-Causing AFFF Products
MDL 2873: Muzyka Sues Over AFFF Product Exposure
MDL 2972: Blackbaud Must Oppose Cohen Class Cert. Bid by June 9
MDL 2972: Blackbaud Must Oppose Duranko Class Cert. by June 9
MDL 2972: Blackbaud Must Oppose Eisen Class Cert. Bid by June 9
MDL 2972: Blackbaud Must Oppose Gignac Class Cert. Bid by June 9
MDL 2972: Blackbaud Must Oppose Sloane Class Cert. Bid by June 9
MONARCH RECOVERY: Class Certified in Rocke Collection Letter Suit
NCB MANAGEMENT: Meyer Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
NCB MANAGEMENT: Suh Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
NEW YORK, NY: Ramos Sues Over Racial Discrimination
NEW YORK, NY: Seeks June 15 Extension to Oppose Class Cert. Bid
NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Pope Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
NFI MANAGEMENT: Navarrete Suit Removed to C.D. California
NIKE USA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Sustainability Claims
NINTENDO CO: Faces Class Suit Over "Immoral" Mario Kart Lootboxes
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Faces Securities Suit Over Misleading Documents
NUTRISHUS BRANDS: Zarzuela Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ONNIT LABS: Martin Suit Removed to C.D. California
OPENDOOR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in AZ
OUTER INC: Lovette Files Suit in C.D. California
PARAGON DIE: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Langerak Suit Claims
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Faces Class Suit Over Bike Recall Notice
PERFECT CORP: Thomas Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
PILOT CATASTROPHE: Clark Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
PLAYTIKA HOLDING: Continues to Defend Bar-Asher Class Suit in NY
PNC BANK: Court Narrows Claims in Ratulowski Suit
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Faces Young Suit Over Unlawful Debt Collection
ROBESON HEALTH CARE: McKenzie Files Suit in E.D. North Carolina
SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CA: Barnes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CA: Patron Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SANDERSON FARMS: Broiler Class Settlement Final Hearing Set Aug. 25
SBM SITE: Arredondo-Macias Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
SEATGEEK INC: Settles Class Suit Over COVID–19 Event Ticket
Refunds
SEC TRANSPORTATION: Trotter Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SHIFTPIXY INC: Faces Splond Labor Suit in Nevada Court
SIEGE ELECTRIC: O'Brien Sues Over Delayed Payment of Wages
SPIRIT AIRLINES: Mandeng Wiretapping Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa.
SR1701 INSTALLATION: Villalobos Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SSM HEALTH: Hawkins' Suit Removed to E.D. Mo.
STANFORD HEALTH: Gibson Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
SUCCESSFULMATCH.COM: Massel Sues Over BIPA Violations
SUMMIT HEALTH: Stewart Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SUNLIGHT FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Fung Securities Fraud Suit
SUNLIGHT FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Mumpower Class Suit in NC
SYSCO CORPORATION: Trottier Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
TESLA MOTORS: Baer Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
TMX FINANCE: Berry Files Suit in S.D. Georgia
TRANSDEV ALTERNATIVE: Gunawan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Thompson Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
TUFTS MEDICAL CENTER: McManus Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
UNITED STATES: Alaimaleata Files Suit in D. Hawaii
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: PETA Appeals Prelim. Injunction Order
VIENNA CONVALESCENT: Armas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
WALMART INC: Hearing for Class Certification Bid Set for July 7
WELLS FARGO: Faces Racist, Discriminatory Lending Class Action Suit
WIRELESS VISION: Turenne Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
WITH PRIDE AIR: Nolasco Sues Over Installers' Unpaid Wages
ZOOX INC: Wei Files Suit v. Former Shareholders
*********
1ST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL: Faces Laney Suit Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
1st Franklin Financial Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended February 28, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 11, 2023, that in March 2023, a
class action lawsuit captioned "Laney v. 1st Franklin Financial
Corporation," was filed against the company in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
The complaint generally assert claims of negligence, breach of
implied contract and in violation of the Georgia Deceptive
Practices Act, on behalf of a putative class of individuals whose
personal information was compromised in the November 2022
cyber-attack on the company and related data breach.
1st Franklin Financial Corporation is a financial services company
based in Georgia.
1ST FRANKLIN FINANCIAL: Faces Moreland Suit Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
1st Franklin Financial Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended February 28, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 11, 2023, that in March 2023, a
class action lawsuit captioned "Moreland v. 1st Franklin Financial
Corporation," was filed against the company in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
The complaints generally assert claims of negligence, breach of
implied contract, on behalf of a putative class of individuals
whose PII was accessed in the November 2022 cyber-attack on the
Company and related data breach.
1st Franklin Financial Corporation is a financial services company
based in Georgia.
3M COMPANY: Amestoy Sues Over Exposure to Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Amestoy and Margaret Amestoy, and other similarly situated
v. 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company;
ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA US,
INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.;
CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA,
INC.; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; 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 P.L.C.,
INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC., a/k/a
Chubb National Foam; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC,
LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC
FIRE & SECURITIES AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC., f/n/a GE Interlogix,
Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-01442-RMG (D.S.C., April 10, 2023), is
brought for personal injury damages 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 PFAS, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS 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. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The 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, Plaintiff seek to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff
Thomas Amestoy's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff
further seek 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 active fires during his working
career as a civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with colorectal
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:
Charles R. Houssiere, III, Esq.
Michael R. Null, Esq
CHARLES R. HOUSSIERE, III
1990 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 800
Houston, TX 77056-3812
Phone: 713-626-3700
Facsimile: 713-626-3709
Email: choussiere@hdhtex.com
mnull@hdhtex.com
3M COMPANY: Bankhead Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Bankhead and Helen Bankhead, his wife, 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.; BUCK EYE 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; KIDDIE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDIE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case No. 2:23-cv-01395-RMG (D.S.C., April 6,
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 disease, lymphoma and/or other medical conditions 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:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-855-6060
Facsimile: 732-726-4860
3M COMPANY: Biggs Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
---------------------------------------------------
Larry Biggs and Martha Biggs, his wife, 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.; BUCK EYE 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; KIDDIE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDIE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case No. 2:23-cv-01396-RMG (D.S.C., April 6,
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 and/or other medical conditions 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:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-855-6060
Facsimile: 732-726-4860
3M COMPANY: Bradley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
-----------------------------------------------------
Bryan Bradley and Regina Bradley, his wife, 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.; BUCK EYE 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; KIDDIE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDIE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case No. 2:23-cv-01397-RMG (D.S.C., April 6,
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 and/or other medical conditions 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:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-855-6060
Facsimile: 732-726-4860
3M COMPANY: Southerland Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
-------------------------------------------------------------
Earl Southerland and Lavon Southerland, his wife, 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.; BUCK EYE 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; KIDDIE-FENWAL,
INC.; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case No.
2:23-cv-01410-RMG (D.S.C., April 6, 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 and/or other medical conditions 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:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-855-6060
Facsimile: 732-726-4860
ADOBE INC: Faces Privacy Lawsuit Over Extraction of Personal Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Doe, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. Adobe Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 23STCV11136 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May
16, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's alleged unlawful extraction
of private health and personally identifiable information from
Kaiser Members' communications with the Kaiser Website.
Through Defendant's code embedded on the Kaiser Website, Defendant
has allegedly vacuumed up information about Kaiser Members' medical
conditions, immunizations, prescriptions, physician information,
and other private data, including healthcare search terms, videos
watched, and links accessed. All of that information is linked to
particular patients because Defendant takes that data together with
unique identifiers that allow Defendant to identify the
corresponding Kaiser Member. Accordingly, the Plaintiff claims for
the Defendant's violations of the California Invasion of Privacy
Act, Article I of the California Constitution, the California
Unfair Competition Law, and invasion of privacy, unjust
enrichment.
Adobe Inc. is a publicly traded software company incorporated under
the laws of Delaware with its principal executive offices located
in San Jose, California and additional corporate offices in Los
Angeles. The company is organized into three reportable segments:
Digital Media, Digital Experience, and Publishing and Advertising.
Within its Digital Experience segment, Adobe offers a variety of
products and solutions that manage the customer experience within a
cloud-based platform, including Adobe Analytics. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ekwan E. Rhow, Esq.
Marc E. Masters, Esq.
Barr Benyamin, Esq.
BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM, DROOKS,
LINCENBERG & RHOW, P.C.
1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-2100
E-mail: erhow@birdmarella.com
mmasters@birdmarella.com
bbenyamin@birdmarella.com
- and -
Jonathan Rotter, Esq.
Kara M. Wolke, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: jrotter@glancylaw.com
kwolke@glancylaw.com
prajesh@glancylaw.com
- and –
Eric M. George, Esq.
Keith J. Wesley, Esq.
ELLIS GEORGE CIPOLLONE O'BRIEN ANNAGUEY LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 3000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 274-7100
Facsimile: (310) 275-5697
Email: egeorge@egcfirm.com
kwesley@egcfirm.com
- and -
Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
Cameron Partovi, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 254-6808
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com
cpartovi@tzlegal.com
AETNA INC: Rougeau Sues Over Inadequate Data Security
-----------------------------------------------------
Cindy Rougeau, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AETNA INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00635 (D. Conn., May 16,
2023), is brought seeks to hold Aetna responsible for the injuries
Aetna inflicted on Plaintiff and approximately 3,000,0001 similarly
situated persons ("Class Members") due to Aetna's impermissibly
inadequate data security, which caused the personal information of
Plaintiff and those similarly situated to be exfiltrated by
unauthorized access by cybercriminals (the "Data Breach" or
"Breach") between January 28, 2023 and January 30, 2023.2 Upon
information and belief, the cybercriminals who perpetrated the
Breach is a Russian linked hacker/ransomware group responsible for
numerous other hacking events.
The data that Aetna caused to be exfiltrated by cybercriminals were
highly sensitive. Upon information and belief, the exfiltrated data
included personal identifying information ("PII") like individuals'
names, addresses, dates of birth, member identification numbers,
date of health plan coverage, Social Security numbers, and/or
employer names.
Upon information and belief, prior to and through the date of the
Data Breach, Aetna obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and
PHI and then maintained that sensitive data in a negligent and/or
reckless manner. As evidenced by the Data Breach, Aetna
inadequately maintained its network, platform, software, and
technology partners—rendering these easy prey for cybercriminals.
Upon information and belief, the risk of the Data Breach was known
to Aetna. Thus, Aetna was on notice that its inadequate data
security created a heightened risk of exfiltration, compromise, and
theft.
Then, after the Data Breach, Aetna failed to provide timely notice
to the affected Plaintiff and Class Members--thereby exacerbating
their injuries. Ultimately, Aetna deprived Plaintiff and Class
Members of the chance to take speedy measures to protect themselves
and mitigate harm. Simply put, Aetna impermissibly left Plaintiff
and Class Members in the dark--thereby causing their injuries to
fester and the damage to spread. Even when Aetna finally notified
Plaintiff and Class Members of their PII and PHI's exfiltration,
Aetna failed to adequately describe the Data Breach and its
effects.
The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered--and will continue to
suffer--from the loss of the benefit of their bargain, unexpected
out-of-pocket expenses, lost or diminished value of their PII and
PHI, emotional distress, and the value of their time reasonably
incurred to mitigate the fallout of the Data Breach. Through this
action, Plaintiff seeks to remedy these injuries on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated individuals whose PII and PHI
were exfiltrated and compromised in the Data Breach, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a member of health plans who use Aetna for
delivering health services.
Aetna provides medical, pharmacy, dental, behavioral health, group
life, disability, and health care management services to patients
in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian P. Murray, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave., Suite 358
New York, NY 10169
Phone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
Email: bmurray@glancylaw.com
- and –
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Marcio W. Valladares, Esq.
Ra O. Amen, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 223-5505
Fax: (813) 223-5402
Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
MValladares@forthepeople.com
Ramen@forthepeople.com
ANTIOCH UNIVERSITY: Vissing Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Helena Vissing, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ANTIOCH UNIVERSITY, an Ohio Corporation, Case No.
23STCV07770 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 10, 2023), is
brought under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, codified
at California Labor Code ("Labor Code") ("PAGA") for failure to pay
proper wages.
The Defendants violation of the California Labor Code, for its
failure to issue accurate itemized wage statements in violation of
Labor
Code; pay wages timely in violation of Labor Code; pay wages for
all hours worked in violation of Labor Code and the IWC Wage Order
No. 4-2001 ("Wage Order No. 4"); pay hourly and separately for rest
breaks at the average hourly rate in violation of Labor Code and/or
failure to authorize and permit paid off duty rest breaks in
violation of Wage Order No. 4 and Labor Code; and pay missed rest
break premium pay in violation of Labor Code and Wage Order No. 4;
and pay all wages due at the time of discharge from employment in
violation of Labor Code, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an adjunct instructor to
teach in academic terms between Spring 2017 and through to and
including Spring 2022.
The Defendant is a private university with its headquarters located
in Yellow Springs, Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julian Hammond, Esq.
Polina Brandler, Esq.
Ari Cherniak, Esq.
HAMMONDLAW, P.C.
1201 Pacific Ave Suite 600
Tacoma, WA 98402
Phone: (310) 601-6766
Fax: (310) 295-2385
Email: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com
pbrandler@hammondlawpc.com
acherniak@hammondlawpc.com
APA CORP: Continues to Defend Kulp Minerals Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
APA Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 4, 2023, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Kulp Minerals class suit in the Fifth Judicial
District.
On or about April 7, 2023, Apache was sued in a purported class
action in New Mexico styled Kulp Minerals LLC v. Apache
Corporation, Case No. D-506-CV-2023-00352 in the Fifth Judicial
District.
The Kulp Minerals case has not been certified and seeks to
represent a group of owners allegedly owed statutory interest under
New Mexico law as a result of purported late oil and gas payments.
The amount of this claim is not yet reasonably determinable.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims
asserted in this lawsuit.
Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Apache Corporation (NYSE:APA) is
an independent energy company. Both domestically and
internationally, the Company explores for, develops and produces
natural gas, crude oil and natural gas liquids.
ATHLETICA HEALTH: Quintero Sues Over Unsolicited Text Message
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Quintero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ATHLETICA HEALTH AND FITNESS CORAL SPRINGS, Case No.
CACE-23-012460 (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., April 11, 2023),
is brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the
"TCPA"), and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA") as a
result of the Defendant's unsolicited text message marketing.
The Defendant engages in unsolicited text message marketing,
including to individuals who have registered their telephone
numbers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry, and to those who have
not provided Defendant with their prior express written consent as
required by the FTSA. 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 Plaintiffs and the Class
members' telephones. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks an
injunction, statutory damages, and/or actual liquidated damages on
behalf of Plaintiff and the Class members 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."
The Defendant is a Florida limited liability company and a
"telephone solicitor."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954.400.4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Rachel Dapeer, Esq.
DAPEER LAW, P.A.
20900 NME 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Phone: 305-610-5223
Email: rachel@dapeer.com
BAJAJ FOOD CORP: Tarax Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Silvia Micaela Tzarax Tarax, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BAJAJ FOOD CORP. d/b/a EVERYDAY
SAVINGS, and PADAM BAJAJ, as an individual, Case No. 1:23-cv-04057
(S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2023), is brought to recover damages for the
Defendants' egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour
laws, the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Laws
arising out of the Defendants failure to pay overtime wages.
Although the Plaintiffs regularly worked over 40 hours or more per
week, the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiffs at a wage rate of
time and a half for their hours regularly worked over 40 in a work
week, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in
the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants.
BAJAJ FOOD CORP. d/b/a BAJAJ FOOD CORP., is a New York domestic
business corporation, organized under the laws of the State of New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Phone: 718-263-9591
BARRETT BUSINESS: Settlement Deal in Kaanaana Suit for Court Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barrett Business Services Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2023, that the
settlement agreement in the Kaanaana labor law suit is subject to
the approval of the California Superior Court.
On November 21, 2012, David Kaanaana, a former staffing employee,
filed a class action wage and hour lawsuit against BBSI in the
California Superior Court on behalf of himself and certain other
employees who worked at County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los
Angeles County ("the District").
The trial court ruled in plaintiffs' favor regarding certain
alleged meal break violations but ruled in favor of BBSI with
respect to the application of the California prevailing wage law to
the District and other claims. These latter rulings were appealed
by the plaintiffs to the California Court of Appeal.
On November 30, 2018, the California Court of Appeal for the Second
Appellate District returned its decision in Kaanaana v. Barrett
Business Services, Inc., overruling the trial court's decision to
dismiss the prevailing wage claim, ruling that the work in question
at the District constituted "public works" under the applicable
law, and also ruling that plaintiffs' were entitled to additional
remedies with regard to the meal break violations under California
law.
On January 9, 2019, BBSI filed a petition of review to the
California Supreme Court.
On February 27, 2019, the California Supreme Court granted the
petition to review the Court of Appeal's decision with respect to
the prevailing wage issue.
A decision from the California Supreme Court was issued March 29,
2021 affirming the Court of Appeal decision and concluding that the
recycling sorting work performed by the staffing employees in
question was a "public work" and therefore would be subject to
prevailing wage requirements.
No damages were awarded in the appeals process.
The case was remanded to Superior Court for any such determination
with respect to both the prevailing wage issue and any additional
remedies for the meal break violations.
On December 7, 2021 the parties engaged in a mediation effort which
resulted in a settlement agreement on December 22, 2021.
The settlement is subject to customary court approval.
Barrett Business Services, Inc. (BBSI) is a provider of business
management solutions for small and mid-sized companies. The
Company
has developed a management platform that integrates a
knowledge-based approach from the management consulting industry
with tools from the human resource outsourcing industry.[BN]
BEACHBODY LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Fitness Coaches' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jaime Ding reports that join Beachbody to shed those pounds, help
others lose weight and get rich in the process.
That was the Santa Monica fitness company's pitch to attract its
fitness coaches, but plaintiffs allege in a class-action lawsuit
May 22, 2023 that they were used as low-cost labor to help
Beachbody get rich instead.
Beachbody, which recently rebranded its diet and exercise programs
as BODi, was co-founded in 1998 by Carl Daikeler as a distributor
of home exercise DVDs. It has since expanded into a $3-billion
publicly traded health and fitness empire peddling products
including diet shakes and apparel.
Its secret sauce? A vast network of more than 300,000 coaches who
encourage their "Challenge Groups" to follow Beachbody exercise
regimens, buy Beachbody products and then recruit more weight-loss
hopefuls and coaches.
The lead plaintiff in the case is Jessica Lyons of Lake Arrowhead,
a schoolteacher who joined Beachbody as a coach in 2016. Lyons and
others are being represented by Tycko & Zavareei, a leading
consumer protection class-action law firm, and Clarkson Law in Los
Angeles.
"I thought becoming a coach for Beachbody was my opportunity to add
a second stream of income with an added bonus of helping others
reach their fitness goals," Lyons said. "I didn't realize how much
Beachbody would demand of me and how little income I would see in
return."
Coaches begin by earning commissions off product sales to new
customers, but as they climb the ranks and recruit more coaches
underneath them, they begin earning additional income from the
sales of the entire downline organization. Beachbody's highest
earner, who is at the "15-star diamond" level, makes more than $2
million a year, Forbes reported. But in 2021, 25.8% of coaches did
not receive a single commission check, according to the lawsuit.
Beachbody "has been able to build its business through unpaid
workers for years," said Kristen Simplicio, a partner with Tycko &
Zavareei. "And these people have been by and large making very
little money for doing a lot of work."
Beachbody did not respond to a request for comment.
During her time with the company, Lyons used $20,000 in personal
funds to pay for expenses related to her coaching role with
Beachbody, including buying new products to try out, the monthly
service fee and traveling to Beachbody's annual conference for
coaches, the lawsuit said.
She earned an average of only $50 a month in commission while often
working more than 50 hours a month.
Another Beachbody coach in San Francisco said she was convinced to
join the company after discovering a high-earning coach on YouTube
living a glamorous lifestyle. She didn't expect to be rich when she
joined, but hoped to be a coach full time and earn a reasonable
income. But after three years, she found a full-time job and scaled
back her activity with Beachbody.
"It would've been nice [to earn more] because I definitely put a
lot of time into it," she said, " [but] I knew going into it, it's
probably not going to make me a ton of money."
The work she did included doing Beachbody workouts to maintain her
fitness and back up her personal testimonials, creating content for
Instagram, reaching out to people and responding to messages, and
following up with clients.
Beachbody has long classified its coaches as independent
contractors. But in 2019, the California Legislature passed a key
law -- codifying a California Supreme Court decision -- that raised
the bar for determining whether a worker is an independent
contractor. Although an exemption for those engaged in in-person
consumer sales or wholesale is carved out in the legislation, the
lawsuit argues that the work Beachbody coaches do -- promoting the
company and its products, recruiting new customers and handling
customer service inquiries -- falls outside this exemption.
"With the MLM [multilevel marketing] industry in particular, we've
known for a very long time that it's very problematic," Simplicio
said. "There are endless reports about how people who go in just do
not make any money or they wind up losing money, and those people
are disproportionately women . . . because they're hoping to make
some extra money and help raise their families."
The class-action lawsuit is the first of its kind in utilizing the
new legislation to take a multilevel marketing company to court.
The case seeks to require Beachbody to pay coaches four years'
worth of unpaid wages and business expenses, and the company could
be on the hook for thousands of dollars of statutory penalties
under California labor code.
"The idea is in California, time worked should be paid. That's at
least what our state's labor laws and policies are," said Glenn
Danas, a partner at Clarkson. "At the end of the day, Beachbody is
profiting at the expense of workers who are not being paid for the
time they're putting into running Beachbody's business." [GN]
BNSF RAILWAY: Court Certifies Class in Macias "Land Tort" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LETICIA MACIAS, ET AL., v.
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, ET AL., Case No. 2:19-cv-02305-TC-GEB (D.
Kan.), the Hon. Judge Toby Crouse entered an order:
1. denying the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of:
"all residents of the Argentine Neighborhood within a
30-block
area;" and
2. granting in part and denying in part and the Defendants'
motion
to strike.
In Harlow, the court found that proceeding as a class was superior
to the cost, inefficiency, and unnecessary duplicity of individual
suits.
But essential to that conclusion was the fact that joinder was
impracticable because the class consisted of hundreds of
individuals who resided in seven states and the District of
Columbia, ranging from coast to coast. Denying certification thus
would have required plaintiffs to bring individual suits in
multiple jurisdictions, generating the harms the court sought to
avoid. That is not the case here. All class members live in the
same neighborhood and press the same claims against the same
defendants in the same jurisdiction, the Court says.
The Plaintiffs assert trespass, negligence, and nuisance claims
against the Defendants for water damage to their homes in
connection with local flooding during a series of significant
storms.
The suit consists of several land tort claims against the
Defendants, including trespass, public and private nuisance,
negligence, and an additional claim for inverse condemnation
against the Defendant Unified Government, all arising from four
floods.
the Plaintiffs Leticia Macias, Elizabeth Magana Zamora, San Juanita
Schneider, Juan Garcia, and Timothy Curry are residents of the
Argentine Neighborhood. Each sustained property damage during one
or more of the floods.
BNSF is one of North America's freight transportation companies.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 11, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IvOKaM at no extra charge.[CC]
BPROTOCOL FOUNDATION: Faces Class Suit Over Unregistered Security
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Torpey at finance.yahoo.com reports that Bancor, a prominent
decentralized finance (DeFi) player, is facing a class-action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas. The lawsuit targets Bancor, its operator BProtocol
Foundation, and its founders, alleging that the company deceived
investors about its impermanent loss protection mechanism (ILP) and
operated as an unregistered security.
The lawsuit includes charges such as violations of the Securities
Act of 1933 and the Exchange Act of 1934, breach of contract, and
unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs argue that they suffered losses
of nearly 50% of their investments in the LP Program and are
seeking restitution, damages, and interest.
Bancor, through its BProtocol Foundation, played a pioneering role
in DeFi by introducing liquidity pools powered by automated market
makers (AMMs) and self-executing smart contracts. However, the
lawsuit alleges that Bancor's v2.1 product, which promised
protection against impermanent losses, operated at a deficit, and
the ILP mechanism was a false promise. The defendants are accused
of attempting to mask the deficit by introducing a new product, v3,
while maintaining control over the platform's operations and
violating decentralized principles.
Bancor suspended its ILP in June 2022, resulting in substantial
losses for investors. [GN]
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Newton Seeks Reply Brief Extension to May 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD A. NEWTON, SR.,
Individually and on behalf of a Class of Individuals Similarly
Situated, v. BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
1:20-cv-02001-AT (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order extending time to file his reply brief in support of the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
The Plaintiff's response to Brighthouse's motion to provisionally
seal is presently due on May 15, 2023. The Plaintiff has requested,
and the Defendant has agreed (subject to the Court's approval),
that the deadline to reply also be extended to May 31, 2023.
The Plaintiff moved to certify a class on February 27, 2023.
Pursuant to a prior scheduling order, the Plaintiff's reply in
support of his motion for class certification is currently due on
May 17, 2023.
Due to the number of issues raised in the briefing, the Plaintiff
has requested, and the Defendant has agreed (subject to the Court's
approval), that the deadline to reply be extended by a period of
two weeks from May 17, 2023, to May 31, 2023.
Brighthouse Life is a major provider of annuities and life
insurance in the United States.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 11, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42WJHYW at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roy E. Barnes, Esq.
J. Cameron Tribble, Esq.
BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC
31 Atlanta Street
Marietta, GA 30060
Telephone: (770) 227-6375
Facsimile: (770) 227-6373
E-mail: roy@barneslawgroup.com
ctribble@barneslawgroup.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Nikole M. Crow, Esq.
Jennifer S. Collins, Esq.
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
271 17th Street NW
Atlanta, GA 30363
Telephone: (404) 872-7000
E-mail: Nikole.crow@wbd-us.com
Jennifer.Collins@wbd-us.com
- and -
Joseph M. McLaughlin, Esq.
Joshua C. Polster, Esq.
Anthony Carmen Piccirillo, Esq.
Amy Dawson, Esq.
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
425 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 455-2000
E-mail: jmclaughlin@stblaw.com
Joshua.polster@stblaw.com
Anthony.Piccirillo@stblaw.com
Amy.dawson@stblaw.com
BUZZFEED.COM INC: Hunthausen Sues Over Privacy Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
DREW HUNTHAUSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BUZZFEED, INC., a Delaware corporation dba
WWW.BUZZFEED.COM; Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00900-AJB-WVG (S.D.
Cal., May 16, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's violations of the
Video Privacy Protection Act.
When a visitor watches a video on the website, the Defendant
disclosed Plaintiff's video viewing habits to three different third
parties (Facebook, Google, and TikTok) who harvest private consumer
data for profit. As a result of Defendant's actions, Plaintiff is
now bombarded with targeted advertising based upon his video
viewing habits whenever Plaintiff uses any device connected to the
Internet, says the suit.
Buzzfeed, Inc. is a for-profit corporation with its principal place
of business in New York, New York. It is an internet media company
with a focus on digital media that offers multiple videos for
consumers to view and play via the Website, which is available
throughout the US. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation
4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 706-6464
Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
C-MAC INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over BIPA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Andy Nghiem at madisonrecord.com reports that class action lawsuit
alleges C-Mac, Inc. violated employees' privacy under state law by
requiring them to use a fingerprint reader system to clock in and
out of work.
Plaintiff Adriana Bowers filed a class action lawsuit in the
Madison County Circuit Court against C-Mac, Inc., citing invasion
of privacy, negligence and carelessness in violation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).
According to the lawsuit, Bowers is a former employee of C-Mac,
Inc. During her employment, Bowers was allegedly required to use a
fingerprint reader system to clock in and out of work.
The lawsuit states that BIPA requires that prior to collecting
biometric data, such as fingerprints, companies must inform
employees in writing that biometric data will be collected and
stored. It also states that employees must be informed in writing
why the biometric data is being collected and how long it will be
stored. Companies must also receive a written release from the
employee for the collection of biometric data.
Bowers alleges that C-mac invades the privacy of its employees by
collecting and storing their fingerprints without informed consent.
She claims the company never received a release from her allowing
the collection of her fingerprints, and she never authorized the
company to collect her fingerprints for this use.
The plaintiff is seeking monetary damages for herself and the
proposed class, plus court costs, interest, attorney fees and any
other relief the court deems proper. She is also asking the court
to issue an order requiring the defendant to cease the collection
of biometric data without informed written consent.
The plaintiff is represented by attorneys Brandon M. Wise and Adam
Florek of Peiffer, Wolf, Carr, Kane, Conway & Wise, LLC in St.
Louis.
Madison County Circuit Court case number 2023LA000613. [GN]
CEDAR RIDGE: Faces Patients Class Suit Over Systemic Understaffing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Nghiem of Madison - St. Clair Record reports that a class
action lawsuit alleges Cedar Ridge Care and Rehabilitation Center
endangers residents by purposely understaffing its facility in
order to save money on staffing costs.
"For years, Cedar Ridge has engaged in a profit-driven scheme in
which it entices thousands of residents to its facility, and then
systematically and knowingly understaffs the facility leading to
dangerous, distressing, and grossly unsanitary living conditions
for the residents," the suit states.
"Cedar Ridge perpetrates this scheme by failing to ensure that the
adequate number of staff are present in the facility for each shift
to undertake necessary care and tasks and by failing to ensure that
qualified staff are present in the facility for each shift," it
continues.
Two anonymous plaintiffs filed the class action lawsuit as Jane
Does 1 and 2. Jane Doe #1 is a 76-year-old Medicaid beneficiary who
resided at Cedar Ridge in 2022. Jane Doe #2 is Jane Doe #1's
guardian.
The suit was filed through O'Fallon attorney Brandon Wise in the
St. Clair County Circuit Court against the Cedar Ridge Health and
Rehabilitation Center LLC and Michael Altobella, citing negligence,
carelessness and and breach of contract in violation of the
Illinois Nursing Home Care Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act.
Altobella was named a defendant as partial owner of the Cedar Ridge
Health and Rehabilitation Center, the suit states.
According to the lawsuit, Cedar Ridge Health and Rehabilitation
Center has knowingly failed to hire sufficient staff to provide
proper care to its residents or even meet the minimum number of
hours of care mandated by Illinois law. The lawsuit states that as
a result of this understaffing, residents at the facility face
unsafe conditions and neglect.
"And indeed, this risk of harm has materialized into actual harm
time and time again," the suit states. "For example, due to the
lack of adequate staff, Cedar Ridge residents have experienced
pressure ulcers and falls, and in at least one instance, a resident
escaped the facility in extremely cold weather resulting in
hypothermia (and, Cedar Ridge did not know about the escape until
informed by the police, who found the resident 'down a hill').
Residents also endure the inappropriate use of antipsychotic
medication as chemical restraints for staff convenience."
The lawsuit states that Cedar Ridge knowingly engages in systemic
understaffing in order to cut costs and increase profits. The
company allegedly saves millions of dollars a year at the expense
of residents' wellbeing.
Cedar Ridge was allegedly cited in 2023 by the Illinois Department
of Public Health for being understaffed.
According to the lawsuit, Cedar Ridge violates the state's Nursing
Home Care Act, which prohibits Illinois nursing facilities from
neglecting residents and safeguards them against abuse, and that
it's oppressive business practices violate the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
The plaintiffs seek damages for themselves and everyone in their
class action lawsuit plus court costs, attorney fees and any other
relief the court deems proper. They are also seeking injunctive
action to prohibit the defendants from neglecting residents and
desist from unfair and unlawful business practices.
The plaintiffs are represented by the Peiffer, Wolf, Carr, Kane,
Conway, & Wise, law firm in O'Fallon.
St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 23LA0444 [GN]
CIGNA HEALTH: Reset of Class Cert Hearing to August 2 Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RJ et al., v. CHLIC et al,
Case No. 5:20-cv-02255-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order resetting the hearing presently scheduled
for June 15, 2023, for August 24, 2023
This hearing has been rescheduled once previously on January 31,
2023, from May 4, 2023, to June 15, 2023, by order of the Court to
accommodate additional time for the briefing pertaining to the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Cigna Health offers life and health insurance services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 10, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ohNtxb at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew M. Lavin, Esq.
Aaron R. Modiano, Esq.
ARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY LLP
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 350S
Washington, D.C. 20037
Telephone: (202) 677-4030
Facsimile: (202) 677-4031
E-mail: matt.lavin@agg.com
aaron.modiano@agg.com
- and -
David M. Lilienstein, Esq.
Katie J. Spielman, Esq.
DL LAW GROUP
345 Franklin St.
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 678-5050
Facsimile: (415) 358-8484
E-mail: david@dllawgroup.com
katie@dllawgroup.com
CLASSIC MOLDING: Matias Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Noe Matias, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated persons, known and
unknown v. Classic Molding Co., Inc., Case No. 2023 CH 01833 was
removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April
6, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-02177 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Classic Molding Company is recognized as a leader in custom plastic
injection molding.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel I Schlade, Esq.
6232 N. Pulaski, #300
Chicago, IL 60646
Phone: (773) 550-3775
Email: danschlade@gmail.com
- and -
James Dore, Esq.
JUSTICIA LABORAL LLC
6232 North Pulaski Rd., Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60646
Phone: (773) 415-4898
Email: jdore@justicialaboral.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Bonnie Keane DelGobbo, Esq.
Amy Lynn Lenz, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 4500
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 416-6200
Email: bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com
alenz@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Joel C. Griswold, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
200 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 2300
Orlando, FL 32801
Phone: (407) 649-4088
Email: jcgriswold@bakerlaw.com
COLORADO: Anderson Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TROY ANDERSON,
individually and on behalf of a CLASS of similarly situated
persons, v. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-01290-SKC (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order certifying a Class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of:
"all current and future inmates of the Colorado State
Penitentiary
who are, or may in the future be, placed in Soft Housing. Mr.
Anderson further requests that the Court appoint him as
representative plaintiff and Hogan Lovells as class counsel."
The case is about a widely known risk to inmate safety created by
the informal policy or practice at CSP of housing at-risk offenders
together in designated day halls to address specific security
concerns. Offenders and prison staff alike refer colloquially to
this policy or practice as "Soft Housing. " Mr. Anderson challenges
CSP's policy or practice of placing CSP inmates in Soft Housing,
which exists as an alternative to Protective Custody (PC). PC is a
formal
housing designation governed by written Colorado Department of
Corrections (CDOC) policy.
Soft Housing, on the other hand, is handled informally, but it
nevertheless has the effect of stigmatizing inmates in CSP, and
making those inmates targets for retaliation and physical harm.
Mr. Anderson and similarly situated offenders at CSP are all
subject to placement in "Soft Housing" or "Soft Pods" at the
facility.
Soft Housing refers to CSP's practice of using a series of "day
halls" to house inmates who are vulnerable to assault or who
otherwise require protection from the general CSP population.
Inmates who are debilitated, vulnerable, or at risk of being
assaulted or killed by other inmates are placed in specific living
units with other "like-minded", "like-issue[d] ", and at-risk
offenders rather than the general population.
Colorado Department is the principal department of the Colorado
state government that operates the state prisons.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 11, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MnVQzm at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathaniel H. Nesbitt, Esq.
Katy L. Forsstrom, Esq.
Clara C. Troyer, Esq.
E. Lindsay Dofelmier, Esq.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
1601 Wewatta Street, Suite 900
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 899-7300
Facsimile: (303) 899-7333
E-mail: nathaniel.nesbitt@hoganlovells.com
katy.forsstrom@hoganlovells.com
clara.troyer@hoganlovells.com
lindsay.dofelmier@hoganlovells.com
COMMUNITY ACTION: Ortega Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Action
Partnership of San Luis Obispo County, Inc. The case is styled as
Annette Ortega, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Community Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo County,
Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0004889 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Joaquin Cty., April 6, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Community Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo County, Inc.
(CAPSLO) -- https://capslo.org/ -- is a social services
organization in San Luis Obispo, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM
9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: 949-379-6250
Fax: (949) 379-6251
Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com
CONAGRA BRANDS: Settles Class Action Over Oils' False Ads for $3M
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Fields of The Breeze 96.1 reports that a $3 million dollar
class action lawsuit has been settled with ConAgra over its former
brand, Wesson Oil, and if you bought any of the products you could
be entitled to a part of the settlement.
WHY DID CONAGRA GET SUED?
The lawsuit filed alleged that Wesson Oil was marketed as all
"natural" falsely. The lawsuit claims the oil was made from GMOs
and was not all-natural as it was advertised.
WAS CONAGRA GUILTY OF THE CHARGES?
Conagra has not admitted to any wrongdoing or accepted the
accusations of falsely advertising GMO products as "Natural". The
settlement was arrived at to avoid further court costs, and the
judge in the case did not rule anyone as being wrong or right
WHAT PRODUCTS ARE PART OF THE LAWSUIT?
The Wesson Oil products that are included were marketed as
"Natural"
Wesson Vegetable Oil,
-- Wesson Corn Oil,
-- Wesson Best Blend
HOW MUCH IS THE LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT FOR?
ConAgra has agreed to settle the lawsuit out of Court for $3
Million.
HOW MUCH MONEY AM I OWED?
If you qualify to be part of the settlement, the estimated payout
is at $0.15 per item qualified Wesson Oil product that you
purchased. The payout will be adjusted depending on the amount of
qualified claims.
HOW DO I SUBMIT A CLAIM?
If you purchased Wesson Oil between January 12th, 2008, and July
1st, 2017 you are able to file a claim. You can file a claim HERE
WHEN IS THE DEADLINE TO FILE A CLAIM?
If you think you qualify for part of the settlement, you need to
file a claim by Monday, May 22nd, 2023.
Kids Fishing Pole Combo Recall
A recall has been issued for the Lil Anglers Recalls Children's
Fishing Rods Sold with Kid Casters No Tangle Combos. [GN]
CONSOLIDATED WORLD: Court Orders to Pay TCPA Suit Notification Cost
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernie Pazanowski of Bloomberg Law reports that shifting the costs
to notify absent class members about an existing suit to the
defendant was proper after the class expanded, the Seventh Circuit
said.
Even though class action plaintiffs are generally required to pay
for notification costs, cost shifting was appropriate here because
the defendant's liability had already been established in the suit,
the opinion by Judge Diane P. Wood said May 19.
Consolidated World Travel Inc. was sued under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for using prerecorded voice messages to
reach out to consumers. [GN]
CONTEXTLOGID INC: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
ContextLogic Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the consolidated IPO-related class suits in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Beginning in May 2021, four putative class action lawsuits were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company, its directors, certain of its
officers and the underwriters named in its initial public offering
("IPO") registration statement alleging violations of securities
laws based on statements made in its registration statement on Form
S-1 filed with the SEC in connection with its IPO and seeking
monetary damages.
One of these cases has since been dismissed by the plaintiff and
the remaining three have been coordinated and consolidated.
In May 2022, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs, who subsequently
filed an amended consolidated class action complaint pursuant to
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act.
On April 10, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and
assert only claims made under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act.
The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend them.
ContextLogic Inc. is a mobile electronic commerce company. The
Company provides a discovery-based shopping platform, which
connects merchants' products to users based on user preferences.
The company is based in San Francisco, California.
COOPER RIDGE: Challender Sues Over Civil Rights Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Melinda Challender, Jessica Greene, Brittany Kritz, Darnell
Mudgett, Mikaela Schaefer, and Ashley Trylch, on their own behalf
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NORTHWEST
MICHIGAN SURGERY CENTER, L.L.C. d/b/a COPPER RIDGE SURGERY CENTER,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00344-JMB-PJG (W.D. Mich., April 3, 2023), is
brought against the Defendants deliberate flouting of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") and Michigan's Elliot-Larsen Civil
Rights Act ("ELCRA") when it blanketly denied Plaintiffs' religious
accommodation requests from its mandatory COVID-19 vaccine mandate
based on a purported "undue hardship."
All Plaintiffs submitted their religious accommodation requests
detailing their sincerely held bona fide religious beliefs
precluding vaccination. There is no factual predicate in the record
to suggest that Plaintiffs lacked sincerity in their religious
beliefs. The Plaintiffs' requests for accommodation included
scripture and anecdotal illustrations of their sincerely held
religious beliefs precluding vaccination. All Plaintiffs sought to
make daily decisions, including those regarding vaccination and
other medical decisions, through faith-based reasoning.
The Plaintiffs sincerely held religious beliefs precluded them from
taking the COVID-19 vaccine. The Plaintiffs' accommodation requests
also proposed several reasonable accommodations, including mask
wearing, social distancing, daily and/or weekly testing, and
working remotely in lieu of vaccination.
Although all Plaintiffs submitted their religious accommodation
requests in a timely manner before the November 30, 2021 deadline,
Defendant delayed making its determinations until January 2022 as a
result of the CMS Mandate being enjoined. All Plaintiffs remained
unvaccinated and worked in Defendant's facility for the entire
month of December 2021 with no ill effects on Defendant's
operations or worsening in the health of Defendant's employees and
patients, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs (Challender, Challender) were Medical Records
Clerks; the Plaintiff Kritz was a Clinical Registered Nurse; the
Plaintiff Mudgett was an Operating Room Aid; the Plaintiff Schaefer
was a Radiology Technician; the Plaintiff Trylch was an Operating
Room Registered Nurse for the Defendant.
The Defendant is a Michigan domestic limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Traverse City, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noah S. Hurwitz, Esq.
Kara F. Krause, Esq.
HURWITZ LAW PLLC
340 Beakes St., Ste. 125
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Phone: (844) 487-9489
Email: Noah@hurwitzlaw.com
Kara@hurwitzlaw.com
CRUNCH GYM: Grant Files Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crunch Gym, LLC. The
case is styled as Garion Grant, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Crunch Gym, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-02871-KPF (S.D.N.Y., April 6, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Crunch -- http://www.crunch.com/-- is a U.S.-based brand of over
400 franchised and corporate owned fitness clubs located in the
United States, Puerto Rico, Canada, Spain, Portugal, Costa Rica,
and Australia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arun Gopal Ravindran, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 203-4573
Email: aravindran@hedinhall.com
CURALEAF INC: Settles Suit Over Oregon Labeling Mixup for $100,000
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicolas Jose Rodriguez of Benzinga reports that Massachusetts-based
cannabis company Curaleaf has settled another class-action lawsuit
related to its Select brand CBD drops containing THC.
What Happened?
The settlement, the second in the case, stems from when the company
mixed up its two lines of products – one with CBD and the other
with THC, causing confusing states for some of its consumers who
were not expecting to get stoned from their CBD drops.
Oregon state regulators had to recall the brand's 1,000mg
unflavored Select CBD drops, labeled as "Broad Spectrum," but that
contained THC. And then the brand's 1,000-mg bottles of unflavored,
Select THC Tincture had to be recalled for not containing THC.
The company attributed the incident to unintentional human error.
This latest settlement, totaling $100,000, will establish a fund to
compensate the affected consumers, allowing them to claim $150-$200
each if they purchased mislabeled Select CBD drops after June 19,
2021.
The settlement was reached after negotiations with plaintiff Ronald
Williamson, who filed the motion in Oregon federal court seeking
approval.
Williamson's attorneys plan to seek no more than 25% of the fund to
cover court costs and legal fees.
This is not the first time for Curaleaf. The company agreed to
another settlement for approximately $50,000. [GN]
DEUTSCHE BANK: Agrees to Settle Sex Trafficking Suit for $75-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at lawandcrime.com reports that Deutsche Bank agreed
to pay $75 million to resolve a proposed class action lawsuit on
behalf of Jeffrey Epstein survivors who claim the German lender
knowingly profited from the predator's sex trafficking scheme.
"The settlement reached with Deutsche Bank is an important moment
for sex trafficking victims because it establishes that those who
hold the purse strings are accountable under the law," attorney
Sigrid McCawley, who represents the survivors, said in a
statement.
"This settlement signifies real progress for the rights of
victims," she added.
First reported by the Wall Street Journal, the deal will resolve
one of a flurry of cases against financial institutions that did
business with Epstein. Deutsche previously agreed to pay $25
million to settle a shareholder lawsuit over its Epstein ties, and
its latest agreement represents the largest payout by a bank over
sex-trafficking liabilities, according to a spokesperson for the
survivors.
Two lawsuits against JPMorgan Chase, which counted Epstein as a
client between 1998 and 2013, remain pending. One was filed by the
survivors, and another was brought by the Virgin Islands
government.
After JPMorgan severed ties with Epstein, Deutsche took over as his
bank of choice, and the survivors' lawsuit alleged the German
lender turned a blind eye to red flags for sex trafficking. Epstein
had been a registered sex offender after pleading guilty to
soliciting prostitution from a minor in 2008, but he remained a
JPMorgan client for five more years after that. Few major banks
would do business with Epstein after JPMorgan cut ties with him,
but Deutsche had lower standards, as a financial institution then
known for pursuing "high risk, high reward" clients like Russian
oligarchs, the survivors alleged.
When Deutsche took over, the survivors say, Epstein only grew more
brazen -- and allegedly even arranged "sham marriages" to illegally
bring his victims to the United States. These arrangements were
facilitated by payments conducted through the bank to a crooked
immigration attorney and accounts opened in the victims' names,
according to the lawsuit.
Deutsche Bank declined to comment on the settlement, but the bank
expressed regret about Epstein's onboarding in 2020, the year after
the disgraced financier's jailhouse death.
"We acknowledge our error of onboarding Epstein in 2013 and the
weaknesses in our processes, and have learnt from our mistakes and
shortcomings," Deutsche Bank said at the time.
That year, Deutsche agreed to pay $150 million to New York State
regulators at the end of its investigation into its relationship
with Epstein and and correspondent banking relationships with
Danske Bank Estonia and FBME Bank, which were involved in money
laundering scandals tied to Russian oligarchs.
That New York Department of Financial Services probe helped spark
the shareholder lawsuit against Deutsche. With the latest
settlement, Deutsche's existing liabilities from its relationship
with Epstein appear finally to have been cleared.
JPMorgan's possible liabilities endure, and the bank will appear in
court May 26, on the survivors' motion for class certification. The
bank's CEO Jamie Dimon is slated for his deposition that same
day.[GN]
DREAMWEAR INC: Dougan Appeals Judgment in Doe Suit to 3rd Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
KWAME L. DOUGAN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing the lawsuit entitled Jane Doe 1, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Dreamwear Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1-21-cv-16178, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, was brought against
the Defendants for alleged employment discrimination pursuant to 40
U.S.C. Section 2000e-2 and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
On Oct. 14, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which
the Defendants moved to dismiss on Oct. 28, 2021.
On Feb. 10, 2022, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss through an Order entered by Judge Noel L. Hillman.
On Mar. 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which the Defendants moved to dismiss again on May 4, 2022.
On Mar. 31, 2023, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss. On the same day, judgment was entered in favor of the
Defendants against Kwame L. Dougan and Scotch & Palm Law Group in
the amount of $23,753 for legal fees and expenses pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 and Local Rule 54.2.
The appellate case is captioned Fredeline Desire, et al. v.
Dreamwear Inc., et al., Case No. 23-1847, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on May 5, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees FREDELINE DESIRE, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Kwame L. Dougan, Esq.
SCOTCH & PALM LAW GROUP
141 Harris Road
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (917) 754-0181
Defendants-Appellees DREAMWEAR INC., et al. are represented by:
Jeffrey Douglas, Esq.
KANE KESSLER
666 Third Avenue, 23rd Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 519-5183
- and -
David A. Gold, Esq.
KANE KESSLER
666 Third Avenue, 23rd Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (570) 236-6417
Non-Parties-Appellants KWAME L. DOUGAN, et al., appear pro se.
DS NATURALS: Lesh Must File Class Cert. Bid by Dec. 19
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROL LESH, v. DS
NATURALS, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-01036-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order setting the
following deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16
and Civil Local Rule 16-10:
Event Deadline
Amendment of Pleadings/ Joinder: July 19,
2023
Deadline for the Plaintiff to file motion Dec. 19,
2023
for class certification and produce
any expert report(s) in support of the
motion:
Deadline for the Defendant to oppose the motion Feb. 13,
2024
for class certification and produce any
expert report(s) in support of the opposition:
Deadline for the Plaintiff to file reply in April 9,
2024
support of class certification:
Hearing on motion for class certification: May 9,
2024
D's Naturals produces and markets protein bars.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oiJKPN at no extra charge.[CC]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Dunbar Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENNIS DUNBAR, v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09079-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST motion to stay the
Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its burden of
proof.
The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm,
and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the
injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of
success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh
against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is
inappropriate."
DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members,
it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST
disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open
to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors
of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their
favor without their express consent would undermine public
confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial
system.
DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on
April 10, 2023.
On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed
arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment
Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case.
On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an
emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST
Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of
the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their
respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in
concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through
any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs'
individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such
settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the
Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees
and costs were awarded."
DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C
Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and
operations outsourcing services to the financial services and
healthcare industries.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MrCL0n at no extra charge.[CC]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Garvey Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEANN GARVEY, v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09097-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST motion to stay the
Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its burden of
proof.
The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm,
and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the
injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of
success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh
against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is
inappropriate."
DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members,
it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST
disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open
to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors
of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their
favor without their express consent would undermine public
confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial
system.
DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on
April 10, 2023.
On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed
arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment
Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case.
On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an
emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST
Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of
the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their
respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in
concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through
any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs'
individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such
settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the
Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees
and costs were awarded."
DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C
Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and
operations outsourcing services to the financial services and
healthcare industries.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44RXfqh at no extra charge.[CC]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Hamilton Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hamilton v. DST Systems
Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-09019 (W.D. Mo., Filed Aug. 20, 2021), the
Hon. Judge Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST motion
to stay the Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its
burden of proof.
The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm,
and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the
injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of
success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh
against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is
inappropriate."
DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members,
it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST
disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open
to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors
of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their
favor without their express consent would undermine public
confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial
system.
DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on
April 10, 2023.
On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed
arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment
Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case.
On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an
emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST
Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of
the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their
respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in
concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through
any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs'
individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such
settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the
Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees
and costs were awarded."
DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C
Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and
operations outsourcing services to the financial services and
healthcare industries.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BlojAG at no extra charge.[CC]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Harris Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFF HARRIS v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09125-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST motion to stay the
Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its burden of
proof.
The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm,
and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the
injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of
success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh
against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is
inappropriate."
DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members,
it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST
disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open
to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors
of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their
favor without their express consent would undermine public
confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial
system.
DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on
April 10, 2023.
On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed
arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment
Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case.
On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an
emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST
Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of
the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their
respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in
concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through
any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs'
individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such
settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the
Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees
and costs were awarded."
DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C
Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and
operations outsourcing services to the financial services and
healthcare industries.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O4P0kv at no extra charge.[CC]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Highfill Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY HIGHFILL v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09046-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST motion to stay the
Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its burden of
proof.
The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm,
and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the
injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of
success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh
against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is
inappropriate."
DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members,
it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST
disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open
to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors
of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their
favor without their express consent would undermine public
confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial
system.
DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on
April 10, 2023.
On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed
arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment
Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case.
On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an
emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST
Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of
the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their
respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in
concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through
any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs'
individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such
settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the
Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees
and costs were awarded."
DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C
Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and
operations outsourcing services to the financial services and
healthcare industries.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nRukSF at no extra charge.[CC]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Horan Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOAN HORAN, v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09120-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST motion to stay the
Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its burden of
proof.
The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm,
and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the
injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of
success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh
against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is
inappropriate."
DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members,
it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST
disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open
to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors
of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their
favor without their express consent would undermine public
confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial
system.
DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on
April 10, 2023.
On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed
arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment
Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case.
On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an
emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST
Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of
the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their
respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in
concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through
any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs'
individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such
settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the
Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees
and costs were awarded."
DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C
Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and
operations outsourcing services to the financial services and
healthcare industries.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42UA2ly at no extra charge.[CC]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Hursh Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THERESA HURSH, v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09017-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST motion to stay the
Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its burden of
proof.
The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm,
and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the
injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of
success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh
against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is
inappropriate."
DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members,
it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST
disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open
to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors
of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their
favor without their express consent would undermine public
confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial
system.
DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on
April 10, 2023.
On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed
arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment
Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case.
On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an
emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST
Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of
the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their
respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in
concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through
any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs'
individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such
settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the
Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees
and costs were awarded."
DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C
Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and
operations outsourcing services to the financial services and
healthcare industries.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nYG2Lc at no extra charge.[CC]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Shultz Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shultz, v. DST SYSTEMS,
INC., Case No. (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Nanette K. Laughrey
entered an order denying DST motion to stay the Court's injunction
because it has failed to meet its burden of proof.
The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm,
and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the
injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of
success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh
against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is
inappropriate."
DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members,
it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST
disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open
to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors
of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their
favor without their express consent would undermine public
confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial
system.
DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on
April 10, 2023.
On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed
arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment
Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case.
On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an
emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST
Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of
the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their
respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in
concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through
any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs'
individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such
settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the
Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees
and costs were awarded."
DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C
Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and
operations outsourcing services to the financial services and
healthcare industries.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Mp67fP at no extra charge.[CC]
EASYWORKFORCE SOFTWARE: Illegally Collects Biometrics, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA TAPIA-RENDON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EASYWORKFORCE SOFTWARE, LLC
Defendant, Case No. 2023LA000486 (Ill. Cir., 18th Judicial, Dupage
Cty., May 11, 2023) is a class action alleging violations of the
Biometric Information Privacy Act.
According to the complaint, EasyWorkforce obtained Plaintiff's
biometrics without providing the notice required by statute. While
EasyWorkforce was in possession of Plaintiff's and the Class'
biometric identifiers and information, EasyWorkforce failed to
maintain a publicly available retention schedule detailing the
length of time it would maintain Plaintiff's and the Class'
biometrics and guidelines for permanently destroying the same.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, attorneys'
fees, costs, and injunctive relief as authorized by BIPA.
Through a staffing agency, Plaintiff worked for United Tape &
Finishing Co., Inc., a manufacturer with a facility located in
Woodridge, Illinois.
EasyWorkforce develops and sells workplace software and
equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Dominick Larry, Esq.
NICK LARRY LAW LLC
1720 W. Division St.
Chicago, IL 60622
Telephone: (773) 694-4669
E-mail: nick@nicklarry.law
- and -
Thomas R. Kayes, Esq.
THE CIVIL RIGHTS GROUP, LLC
2045 W. Grand Ave., Suite B, PMB 62448
Chicago, IL 60612
Telephone: (708) 722-2241
E-mail: tom@civilrightsgroup.com
EL MANGO DELI: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Guardado Says
---------------------------------------------------------
ABIMAEL MURCIA GUARDADO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EL MANGO DELI GROCERY CORP. and
DELMI AVELAR, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-03643
(E.D.N.Y., May 16, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
Plaintiff Guardado residing at Roosevelt, NY 11575 was employed by
El Mango Deli Grocery Corp., from May 2010 until March 2021.
Allegedly, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff's overtime wages
for all hours regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week at a
wage rate of one and a half times the regular wage. In addition,
the Defendants violated Plaintiff's rights by failing to pay
Plaintiff an additional hour of pay at minimum wage for each day
worked more than 10 hours, in violation of the New York Minimum
Wage Act and its implementing regulations, says the Plaintiff.
EL MANGO DELI GROCERY CORP., is a New York domestic business
corporation, organized under the laws of the State of New York with
principal executive offices located at 229 Fulton Ave., Hempstead,
New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
FARMERS GROUP: Lim Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-------------------------------------------------------
Paul Lim, Daniel Salabaj, Lorina Nuessle, Anthony Meyer, David
Bolton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. FARMERS GROUP INC., FIRE UNDERWRITERS ASSOCIATION, and TRUCK
UNDERWRITERS ASSOCIATION, Case No. 23STCV07597 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Los Angeles Cty., April 6, 2023), is brought revolving around the
Defendants violating three fundamental principles that apply when a
fiduciary attorney-in fact manages a reciprocal insurance exchange:
In fulfilling its duty to act in the best interests of the
subscribers, the attorney-in-fact cannot take compensation that is
excessive; The attorney-in-fact must fully disclose how it will
calculate its compensation to the subscribers; and The
attorney-in-fact must avoid conflicts of interest and to address
the harms caused by Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties, to
recover excessive fees, to retrieve all benefits improperly
obtained, and to receive any additional equitable or remedial
relief deemed appropriate by the Court.
The Defendants manage entities called reciprocal insurance
exchanges, which are a unique form of self-insurance. The
third-party attorney-in-fact management company is not itself an
insurance company but is retained by subscribers in the reciprocal
insurance exchange to assist with management functions. Reciprocal
insurance exchanges operate differently than conventional insurance
companies, as policyholders, referred to as subscribers, are both
the owners and the insureds. Reciprocal exchanges are
unincorporated associations of subscribers owned by the
subscribers. Because exchanges lack a separate legal identity, the
subscribers appoint a third-party called an attorney-in-fact to act
as their agent and manage the exchange for their benefit.
Plaintiffs are subscribers in at least one of three reciprocal
insurance exchanges organized under the California Insurance Code
and doing business under the Farmers brand: Farmers Insurance
Exchange, Fire Insurance Exchange, and Truck Insurance Exchange
(collectively, the Exchanges).
Despite being for-profit entities, Defendant attorneys-in-fact lack
any ownership stake in the subscribers' Exchanges that would
entitle them to part of the Exchanges' surplus or excess premiums.
The only compensation Defendants can receive is for the services
they provide. The amount of such compensation must be a direct
result of Defendants' pursuit of the best interests of the
subscribers, and it cannot be excessive. Defendants' fiduciary
responsibilities prohibit them from exploiting their positions of
trust for their own financial gain at the expense of Plaintiffs and
the subscribers they serve.
The Defendants' responsibility to adhere to strict fiduciary
duties, and Plaintiffs' and the subscribers' rights to demand
compliance to protect their ownership interests by enforcing those
fiduciary duties if breached, present another key difference
between the Exchanges and conventional for-profit insurers.
Enforcement of Defendants' fiduciary obligations is critical to
this unique relationship because although a reciprocal exchange
model can offer substantial advantages to its owners, the
subscribers, the relationship can also present significant
opportunities for abuse.
The Defendants here have done just what Professor Reinmuth warned
of and violated their fiduciary obligations. Plaintiffs bring this
legal action to address Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties,
which include: Taking excessive compensation, with Defendants'
profits exceeding 100% of their expenses even though the profits of
other companies who do more are approximately 20%, rarely over 30%,
and never approach 100% of the expenses incurred; Obtaining
subscribers' agreement for compensation terms, such as 20% or 25%
of premiums, that Defendants know are excessive and unsustainable,
and that Defendants know would put the Exchanges in financial peril
if they enforced these terms; and Failing to disclose to
subscribers the method for calculating attorney-in-fact fees
Defendants do collect, including that Defendants guarantee
themselves risk-free profits by taking 7% of the subscribers'
premiums--while also shifting billions of dollars in expenses onto
the Exchanges--to pay themselves yearly profits exceeding $1
billion and 100% of their attorney-in-fact expenses.
As result of Defendants breaching their fiduciary duties,
Defendants are improperly siphoning nearly all the excess premium
out of the subscribers' Exchanges and funneling it to FGI's parent
company, insurance giant Zurich Insurance Group Ltd. ("Zurich"),
for the benefit of Zurich and its shareholders, thus leaving the
subscribers' Exchanges without adequate surplus and taking money
for themselves that, if Defendants had not breached their fiduciary
duties, could have benefited Plaintiffs and subscribers, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs are subscribers, and thus an owner, of Farmers
Insurance Exchange.
Farmers Group, Inc. ("FGI"), d/b/a Farmers Underwriters
Association, is upon information and belief a corporation organized
under the laws of State of Nevada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gretchen M. Nelson, Esq.
Gabriel S. Barenfeld, Esq.
NELSON & FRAENKEL LLP
601 S. Figueroa St., Suite 2050
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (844) 622-6469
Facsimile: (213) 622-6019
Email: gnelson@nflawfirm.com
gbarenfeld@nflawfirm.com
FEDEX GROUND: Derieux Must File Class Cert. Bid by Nov. 9
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCIS M. DERIEUX,
individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-13645-NLH-EAP (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Pascal
entered an amended scheduling order as follows:
1. No later than May 16, 2023, the Defendants Dali
Transportation,
Inc. and Barrington Logistics, Inc. shall inform the
Plaintiff
whether any employees performed home delivery services and
were
paid on a piece meal plan but whose title was not home
delivery
driver.
2. The Defendants Dali Transportation, Inc. and Barrington
Logistics, Inc. shall provide to the Plaintiff the number of
employees by year who performed home delivery services and
were
paid on a piecemeal plan, as well as the state of their
domicile.
3. No later than June 16, 2023, the Defendants Dali
Transportation,
Inc. and Barrington Logistics shall provide their
supplemental
discovery responses to the Plaintiff.
4. Fact Discovery. Pretrial factual discovery is extended to
August
31, 2023.
5. Expert Discovery. All expert reports and expert disclosures
pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2) on behalf of the
Plaintiff
shall be served upon counsel for the Defendants no later than
August 31, 2023.
6. All expert reports and expert disclosures pursuant to FED. R.
CIV. P. 26(a)(2) on behalf of the Defendants shall be served
upon counsel for the Plaintiff no later than October 16,
2023.
7. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due by
November 9, 2023.
8. The Defendant FedEx Ground's opposition to class
certification is due by December 14, 2023. The Defendant Barrington
Logistics and Dali Transportation's opposition to class
certification is due by
December 29, 2023.
Fedex provides package delivery services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 10, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41VXkGz at no extra charge.[CC]
FIGS INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Figs Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 4, 2023, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the consolidated Securities Act class suits in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.
On November 1, 2022, a putative class action complaint was filed
against us and certain of our executive officers and directors in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California alleging, among other things, violations of the
Securities Act and Exchange Act for allegedly making false and
misleading statements in our initial public offering in May 2021
and thereafter.
An additional putative class action complaint was filed against the
Company, certain of its executive officers and directors,
stockholders and the underwriters to its IPO, in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on December
8, 2022, making similar allegations to the previously referenced
purported class action.
On February 14, 2023, the court consolidated the two complaints and
appointed lead plaintiffs.
On April 10, 2023, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint against the Company, certain of its executive officers
and directors, stockholders and the underwriters to its IPO,
alleging, among other things, violations of the Securities Act and
Exchange Act for allegedly making false and misleading statements
between May 27, 2021 and February 28, 2023, with respect to its
ability to predict customer demand and to manage its supply chain,
inventory, air freight usage and costs.
The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages and attorneys'
fees and costs.
The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against such
claims; however, it cannot be certain of the outcome of its ongoing
proceedings and, if determined adversely to the Company, its
business and financial condition may be adversely affected.
FIGS, INC. engages in the design and production of scrubs for men
and women.[BN]
FORTRA LLC: Underwood Files Suit in D. Minnesota
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fortra LLC. The case
is styled as Branton Underwood, K.U. (minor) through Branton
Underwood, next friend, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated v. Fortra LLC, Case No. 0:23-cv-00872-SRN-DTS
(D. Minn., April 6, 2023).
The nature of suit stated as Other P.I. for Other Contract.
Fortra -- https://www.fortra.com/ -- is a cybersecurity
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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
FURRER INC: Conidi Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jennifer Conidi, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. FURRER INC d/b/a CLICLIME.COM
and DOES 1-10, Case No. 2023CH02142 was removed from the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois to the Northern District of Illinois
on April 6, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-02185.
The Plaintiff alleges six causes of action against Furrer Inc. for
violations of the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act ("BIPA"). The
Complaint alleges Furrer Inc.'s website contains a tool which
allows users to take a photograph of their face using their
computer's or mobile device's camera. The Plaintiff allegedly used
the tool on February 7 and/or February 16, 2023, which took a
photograph of her face without her consent.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David B. Levin, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
707 Skokie Blvd., Suite 600
Northbrook, LL 60062
Phone: 224-218-0882
Fax: 866-633-0228
Email: dlevin@toddflaw.com
- and -
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21031 Ventura Blvd., suite 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Phone: 323-306-4234
Fax: 866-633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Joshua J. Brady, Esq.
Zachary L. Enstrom, Esq.
GALANIS, POLLACK, JACOBS & JOHNSON, SC
413 N. Second Street, Suite 150
Milwaukee, WI 53203
Email: jbrady@gpjlaw.gqm
zenstrom@gpilaw.com
G J PROPERTY: Perez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Antonio Blanco Perez, an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. G J PROPERTY SERVICES, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
23STCV07648 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 6, 2023), is
brought under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004
("PAGA") plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, for Plaintiff
and all other aggrieved current and former employees of Defendants
during the Civil Penalty Period as a result of the Defendants
failure to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff.
The Defendants had and have a policy or practice of failing to pay
overtime wages to Plaintiff and other Aggrieved Employees in the
State of California in violation of California state wage and hour
laws as a result of, without limitation, Plaintiff and other
Aggrieved Employees working over 8 hours per day, 40 hours per
week, and/or 7 straight workdays in a workweek without paying them
proper overtime wages, as a result of, without limitation, failing
to accurately track and/or pay for all minutes actually worked;
engaging, suffering, or permitting employees to work off the clock,
including, without limitation, by requiring employees: to remain
on-call, to suffer under Defendants' control to complete pre-shift
tasks before clocking in and post-shift tasks after clocking out,
to clock out for meal periods and continue working, to don and doff
uniforms off the clock, to attend company meetings off the clock,
to make phone calls or drive off the clock; failing to include all
forms of remuneration, including non-discretionary bonuses,
incentive pay, meal allowances, and other forms of remuneration
into the regular rate of pay for the pay periods where overtime was
worked and the additional compensation was earned for the purpose
of calculating the overtime rate of pay; detrimental rounding of
employee time entries, editing and/or manipulation of time entries
to show less hours than actually worked, and for paying straight
pay instead of overtime pay to the detriment of Plaintiff and other
Aggrieved Employees, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is informed and believes that the Plaintiff worked
for the Defendants from November of 2006 through at least June of
2022.
G J PROPERTY SERVICES 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.
Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq.
Felipe Gomez, 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@tomorrowlaw.com
jeff@tomorrowlaw.com
felipe@tomorrowlaw.com
GARDEN GROVE: Burklund Must File Class Cert Bid by June 12
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VINCE BURKLUND, as an
individual on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. GARDEN GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a
California public school district; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case
No. 8:22-cv-01132-DOC-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge David O.
Carter entered an order granting the Parties' joint ex parte
application seeking to continue the existing class certification
schedule granted as follows:
1) The Plaintiff's deadline to file his June 12, 2023
Motion for Class Certification is:
2) The Defendant must file its Opposition June 28, 2023
to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification by:
3) The Plaintiff must file his Reply to July 6, 2023
the Defendant's Opposition by:
4) The Court will hear the Plaintiff's July 17, 2023
Motion for Class Certification on:
Garden Grove is a public school district in California.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 10, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45jrneg at no extra charge.[CC]
GATEHOUSE MEDIA: Ewalt Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN EWALT, et al., v.
GATEHOUSE MEDIA OHIO HOLDINGS II, INC., d/b/a THE COLUMBUS
DISPATCH, Case No. 2:19-cv-04262-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiffs John Ewalt, Steve Wylie, and Bonnie Navarre move the
Court to certify the following class:
"All persons who purchased a subscription for delivery of The
Columbus Dispatch and had the length of the subscription
shortened
based on charges for one or more premium editions."
The Plaintiffs also move the Court to be appointed as class
representatives and to have Todd H. Neuman, Rick L. Ashton, Jeffrey
R. Corcoran, and Allen Stovall Neuman & Ashton LLP appointed as
class counsel.
More specifically, the class includes all persons who (1) purchased
a subscription for delivery of The Columbus Dispatch; and (2) had
the length of the subscription shortened based on charges for one
or more premium editions. The class definition meets the
ascertainability requirement, the Plaintiffs contend.
Gatehouse is a full-service advertising agency.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 11, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BMnLUt at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Todd H. Neuman, Esq.
Rick L. Ashton, Esq.
Jeffrey R. Corcoran, Esq.
ALLEN STOVALL NEUMAN & ASHTON LLP
10 W. Broad St., Ste. 2400
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 221-8500
Facsimile: (614) 221-5988
E-mail: neuman@aksnlaw.com
ashton@asnalaw.com
corcoran@asnalaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael J. Zbiegien, Jr., Esq.
Lynn Rowe Larsen, Esq.
Daniel H. Bryan, Esq.
James D. Abrams, Esq.
Jonathan Olivito, Esq.
TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
200 Public Square, Suite 3500
Cleveland, OH 44114-2302
Telephone: (216) 241-2838
Facsimile: (216) 241-3707
E-mail: mzbiegien@taftlaw.com
llarsen@taftlaw.com
dbryan@taftlaw.com
jabrams@taftlaw.com
jolivito@taftlaw.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Court OKs Jefferson Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RILLA JEFFERSON, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS,
LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-02576-JPM-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge
Jon P. McCalla entered an order:
-- granting in part the Defendant's motion for summary judgment;
and
and
-- granting the plaintiff's motion for class certification.
Summary Judgment is granted as to the Plaintiff's claims regarding
loss of use damages and injunctive relief. Summary Judgment is
denied as to the Plaintiff's breach of contract and breach of
express warranty claims, and the Plaintiff may proceed under a
diminution of
value theory of damages.
The class is defined as follows:
"Initial purchasers and lessees of new "class vehicles, "
2017-18
GMC Acadias, who purchased or leased their vehicles in
Tennessee."
The Court therefore modifies the class to include purchasers and
lessees of all 2017-18 GMC Acadias.
The Plaintiff alleges that she began to experience a Shift-to-Park
(STP) defect shortly after she purchased the subject vehicle.
The Plaintiff brings this action asserting breach of express
warranty under Tennessee law and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
and breach of contract under Tennessee law.
The Plaintiff is an adult resident of Memphis, Tennessee. The
Plaintiff purchased a new 2017 GMC Acadia for $30,270 from Sunrise
Buick in Bartlett, Tennessee on October 25, 2017.
The Defendant markets, manufactures, sells, and provides a limited
warranty for motor vehicles, including the GMC Acadia.
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 11, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IyjcBc at no extra charge.[CC]
GOOGLE LLC: Court Dismisses Schneider Class Action Over Content ID
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Donahue of Billboard Pro reports that a federal judge on
Monday (May 22, 2023) dealt a major blow to a lawsuit that claims
YouTube enables piracy by restricting access to copyright tools
like Content ID, refusing to allow the case to proceed as a class
action that could have included tens of thousands of
rightsholders.
The lawsuit, filed by a composer named Maria Schneider, claims that
YouTube has become a "hotbed of piracy" because the platform
provides "powerful copyright owners" like record labels with
Content ID to block and monetize unauthorized uses of their
content, but fails to do the same for "ordinary owners."
But in his ruling on Monday (May 22, 2023), Judge James Donato said
that Schneider could not team up with tens of thousands of other
rightsholders who she claims suffered similar harm from YouTube's
policies, dramatically reducing the scope of the lawsuit.
Cases can only be "certified" as class actions if the various
accusers share similar complaints against the defendant. And in
Schneider's case, Judge Donato said different rightsholders would
have very different cases against YouTube.
"It has been said that copyright claims are poor candidates for
class-action treatment, and for good reason," the judge wrote.
"Every copyright claim turns upon facts which are particular to
that single claim of infringement [and] every copyright claim is
also subject to defenses that require their own individualized
inquiries."
Filed in 2020, Schneider's lawsuit claims that YouTube (owned by
Google parent Alphabet) forces songwriters and other smaller rights
holders to use "vastly inferior and time-consuming manual means" of
policing infringement, allowing piracy of their material to
flourish on the platform.
For its part, YouTube says it's done nothing wrong. In court
documents, the company has argued that it's spent "spent over $100
million developing industry-leading tools" to prevent piracy, but
that it limits access because "in the hands of the wrong party,
these tools can cause serious harm."
With a trial date looming next month, attorneys for Schneider had
urged Judge Donato to let the case move forward as a class action.
An expert retained by her legal team suggested that the class "at a
minimum" would include between 10,000 and 20,000 aggrieved
copyright owners.
"The Copyright Act does not countenance such blatant disregard of
individual artists' intellectual property rights," her attorneys
wrote. "Class actions were created for this institutionalized
misbehavior that relies upon the disincentives and lack of
resources for a lawsuit absent collective action. A class action is
the superior method through which YouTube's participation in and
facilitation of copyright infringement can be held to account."
But in Monday's (May 22, 2023) ruling, Judge Donato strongly
disagreed. He said the many individual claims against YouTube would
require "highly individualized inquiries into the merits,"
including a case-by-case assessment of whether YouTube possibly had
a valid license to those particular songs.
"Whether YouTube has a license for a particular work will be a
matter of intense inquiry at trial," the judge wrote. "The answer
to this inquiry will depend upon facts and circumstances unique to
each work and copyright claimant."
Monday's (May 22, 2023) order won’t end the case, but it will now
proceed to trial based only on copyrights owned by Schneider and
two other plaintiffs (Uniglobe Entertainment and AST Publishing).
The lawsuit is scheduled for a June 12 trial, though it's unclear
if that date will be changed in the wake of Monday's (May 22, 2023)
decision.
An attorney for Schneider and a representative for YouTube did not
immediately return requests for comment on Monday's (May 22, 2023)
order. [GN]
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Unprotected Health Info
---------------------------------------------------------
On May 12, 2023, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C., a preeminent law firm in
obtaining redress for consumers, filed a class action lawsuit
against Google LLC (Doe v. Google LLC, 5:23-cv-02343 (N.D. Cal.))
alleging that Google LLC wrongfully collected identifiable health
data from individuals who used certain healthcare websites.
The complaint alleges Google LLC collected individuals' health data
through sophisticated tracking technology, including Google
Analytics, incorporated on the websites of major institutions,
including the Planned Parenthood website, the Keck Medicine of USC
website, and the Sharp HealthCare website. This technology was
likely incorporated on hundreds of additional healthcare websites
as well.
The health data Google collected includes details about an
individual's medical conditions, prescriptions, and doctor's
appointments. This information may have been used in connection
with Google LLC's advertising practices.
About Lowey Dannenberg
Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. is a national law firm representing
consumers in privacy actions. The firm has significant experience
in prosecuting multi-million-dollar lawsuits and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of its clients.[GN]
GUARANTEED RATE: Mazlumyan Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
CALVIN MAZLUMYAN, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved
Employees; Plaintiff v. GUARANTEED RATE, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
23SMCV02051 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles-Santa Monica Cty., May 10,
2023) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor policies and
practices in violation of the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to provide employment
records; failure to pay overtime and double time; failure to
provide rest and meal periods; failure to pay minimum wages;
failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage
statements; failure to pay reporting time wages; failure to pay
split shift wages; failure to pay all wages earned on time; failure
to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation; failure to
reimburse necessary, business-related expenses; and failure to
provide notice of paid sick time and accrual.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants with the job title of
Vice President of Mortgage Lending from December 29, 2020 until
January 19, 2023.
Guaranteed Rate, Inc. is a California-based mortgage lending
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
Diana Zadykyan, Esq.
HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 696-2306
Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
diana@hbklawyers.com
HDOS ACQUISITION: Cosgaya Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HDOS Acquisition,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Brittani Cosgaya, on behalf of
all other similarly situated employees v. HDOS Acquisition, LLC,
Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2023-00337777-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., April 11, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Hdos Acquisition, LLC was founded in 2014. The Company's line of
business includes the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks for
on-premise consumption..[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William L. Marder, Esq.
POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
501 San Benito St # 200
Hollister, CA 95023
Phone: 831-531-4214
Fax: 831-634-0333
Email: bill@polarislawgroup.com
- and -
Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
HYUN LEGAL, APC
515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316
Phone: 213-488-6555
Fax: 213-488-6554
Email: dhyun@hyunlegal.com
HOME EXPRESS: Sorto Sues Over Failure to Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Antonio Monge Sorto, Richard Bohorquez, Steven Daniel
Canales, Jose Cortez Alvarado, Jaime Castaneda, and Omar Nogueda,
individuals on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. HOME EXPRESS DELIVERY SERVICE LLC DBA TEMCO LOGISTICS,
a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 TO 50, Case No.
(Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., April 6, 2023), is brought pursuant
to California Code of Civil Procedure as a result of the Defendants
failure to pay all minimum and overtime wages.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and the
Class Members, as a class action, against Defendants for: failure
to pay all minimum wages, failure to pay all overtime wages,
failure to provide rest periods and pay missed rest period
premiums, failure to provide meal periods and pay missed meal
period premiums, failure to maintain accurate employment records,
failure to pay wages timely during employment, failure to pay all
wages earned and unpaid at separation, to indemnify all necessary
business expenditures, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage
statements, and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law
("UCL") (Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200-17210).
The Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the
California Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Order
applicable to the facts of this case is IWC Wage Order-2001 (the
"Applicable Wage Order") and possibly others that may be
applicable. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend or modify the
definition of "Applicable Wage Order" with greater specificity or
add additional IWC Wage Orders if additional applicable wage orders
are discovered in litigation, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt hourly
employees in the County of Alameda.
The Defendants were authorized to and doing business in Alameda
County.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
Laura Supanich, Esq.
Anne Kramer, Esq.
Maria Burciaga, Esq.
MELMEDLAWGROUP P.C.
1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 824-3828
Fax: (310) 862-6851
Email: jm@melmedlaw.com
lms@melmedlaw.com
ak@melmedlaw.com
mb@melmedlaw.com
HUDSON CBD FLATBUSH: Boggia Sues Over Manipulation of Rent
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Boggia, Jill Swanson, Erin Moore, and Christopher Turner,
on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated v.
HUDSON CBD FLATBUSH LLC, Case No. 153157/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New
York Cty., April 6, 2023), is brought against the Defendant for
manipulating the way they assessed a unit's rent.
The Building participates in the 421-a Program, which requires
landlords to register their units with the Division of Housing and
Community Renewal ("DHCR"), and that such housing be treated as
rent-stabilized. Defendant has evaded the 421-a Program's
requirements, and governing rent stabilization laws, in two ways,
both via the improper use of "concessions."
First, the initial legal regulated rent to be registered for an
apartment in a 421-a building must be the "monthly rent charged and
paid by the tenant," and all subsequent rent increases are to be
derived from that initial payment. For example, Plaintiff Turner,
the first tenant of unit 12G, received a two-month rent concession.
Based upon its initial rent listings on Streeteasy, (an online
rental listing website), the Building's owner provided similar rent
concessions to many of the Building's initial tenants.
In fact, those initial rent listings advertise the apartment's "net
effective rent," as the unit's true rent. That net effective rent
represents the sum that was actually "charged and paid," and that
lower amount should have been registered as the initial rent with
DHCR, but was not.
By manipulating the way it assessed a unit's rent, Defendant was
able to register a unit with at initial rent higher than what was
actually charged, and all subsequent increases, such as vacancy
increases and Rent Guidelines Board increases, were based off of
that higher, impermissible figure.
Plaintiffs' true legal regulated rent must be calculated pursuant
to the rent laws. And the correct amount of Plaintiffs' legal
regulated rent can only be determined after discovery. The
aforementioned conduct evinces an attempt by Defendant to
circumvent the requirements of New York City's rent regulations,
all at the expense of the Building's many tenants.
In addition, Streeteasy advertisements show that Defendant utilized
rent concessions on subsequent tenancies, enabling Defendant to
circumvent the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act's
preferential rent limitations, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs resides at the Building.
Hudson CBD 22. Flatbush LLC is a foreign corporation which is the
Building's fee owner.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lucas A. Ferrara
Roger A. Sachar Jr.
NEWMAN FERRARA LLP
1250 Broadway, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Phone: (212) 619-5400
Email: lferrara@nfllp.com
rsachar@nfllp.com
HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CA: Judge Tosses Cannabis Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
TG Branfalt at ganjapreneur.com reports that a U.S. magistrate
judge has thrown out the class action lawsuit filed by landowners
in Humboldt County, California who claimed the county fined them
hundreds of thousands of dollars - without an investigation or
opportunity to defend themselves - for allegedly cultivating
cannabis without a permit, Courthouse News reports. The five
landowners filed the lawsuit in October 2022. U.S. Magistrate Judge
Robert M. Illman dismissed the lawsuit in full and did not give the
plaintiffs leave to amend.
The plaintiffs claimed after California legalized cannabis for
adult use, the county created an abatement program to fine
landowners that have "committed traditional nuisances and
permitting violations" to grow cannabis without a permit. However,
the plaintiffs argued the county blindly correlates code violations
with the assumption of cannabis cultivation which exponentially
increases the fines from initial violations. The plaintiffs also
claimed that the county based some of its allegations of illegal
cannabis farming off "crude arial images" without probable cause.
One of the plaintiffs claimed he was fined $90,000 for growing
cannabis but he was actually growing vegetables for his restaurant.
Illman ruled that the county had actually dropped most of his fines
about a week before the class action lawsuit was filed.
In the dismissal order, Illman used the term "implausible" to
describe the plaintiff's claims about 20 times. In an interview
with Courthouse News, Jared McClain, the attorney for the
plaintiffs, of the Institute of Justice, argued that the lawsuit
"didn't allege anything" that they "weren't going to be able to
prove a trial" and that the county "doesn't even deny" a lot of
what is alleged in the complaint. [GN]
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Reaches Settlement in Vehicle Thefts' Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Claims Journal reports that Hyundai Motor America and Kia America
said May 19, 2023 they have reached a settlement to resolve a
class-action lawsuit prompted by a surge in vehicle thefts.
The settlement could be valued at $200 million and covers about 9
million 2011-2022 model year Hyundai and Kia vehicles in the U.S.,
the companies said.
The cars are not equipped with push-button ignitions and
immobilizing anti-theft devices. That has allowed thieves to easily
steal them using just a screwdriver and a USB cord, creating a
recent rash of auto thefts across the country.
The settlement will provide cash compensation to customers who
suffered theft-related losses or damage not covered by insurance
– as well as reimbursement for insurance deductibles, increased
insurance premiums and other losses, Kia and Hyundai said.
A software upgrade will also be provided to eligible owners. For
customers with vehicles that cannot accommodate the software
upgrade, the agreement will provide a reimbursement of up to $300
for anti-theft devices.
Kia and Hyundai have also given impacted customers tens of
thousands of free steering wheel locks through local law
enforcement and direct shipments, the companies said.
The total settlement amount will depend on how many customers
participate.
"Hyundai and Kia failed to sell cars equipped with fundamental
anti-theft features, and that was not a victimless act," attorney
Elizabeth A. Fegan of Fegan Scott, one of the law firms
representing the plaintiffs, said in a statement. "We are pleased
with the settlement reached and its immediate ability to hinder
thieves, as well as compensate victims of thefts that have already
occurred."
The proposed settlement is expected to be reviewed in court for
preliminary approval in July.
The wave of Hyundai and Kia thefts began in 2021 and spread
nationally, with a spike last summer, fueled by instructional
videos posted on TikTok and other social media sites. Some police
departments report continued thefts despite the automakers'
unveiling of anti-theft software nearly three months ago.
Both Jason Erb, Hyundai Motor North America's chief legal officer,
and John Yoon, Kia America's chief legal officer, stressed that the
companies are committed to customer safety.
"We appreciate the opportunity to provide additional support for
our owners who have been impacted by increasing and persistent
criminal activity targeting our vehicles," Erb said. [GN]
IL POSTINO: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Garcia Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
JULIO TELLEZ GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IL POSTINO, INC. and LUIGI RUSSO,
as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04053 (S.D.N.Y., May
16, 2023) seeks to recover damages from the Defendants' violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
Plaintiff Garcia was employed by the Defendants as a cook and grill
worker while performing related miscellaneous duties from September
2017 until May 2018; from August 2021 until November 2021 and from
October 2022 until January 2023. The Defendants allegedly did not
pay Garcia at a wage rate of one and a half for his hours regularly
worked over 40 hours in a work week, a blatant violation of the
overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. In addition,
the Defendants also failed to post notices of the minimum wage and
overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location
of their employment as required by both the NYLL and the FLSA, says
the Plaintiff.
Il Postino, Inc., is a New York domestic business corporation,
organized under the laws of the State of New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
ILLINOIS: Appeals Reconsideration Bid Denial in Boone Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al. are taking an appeal
from a court order denying in part their motion to dismiss and
their motion for reconsideration in the lawsuit entitled Alvin
Boone, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Illinois Department of Corrections, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-03229-JES-JEH, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of Illinois.
The Plaintiffs, who worked in congregate facilities operated by the
State of Illinois, claimed that a condition of their employment
requiring that they either receive a Covid-19 vaccine, or obtain a
medical or religious exemption and undergo regular Covid-19
testing, violated their rights under federal and state law. Dist.
Ct. Doc. 20. The Plaintiffs alleged that getting vaccinated for
Covid-19 violated their religious beliefs due to the alleged use of
aborted fetal cells during the vaccine development process. In
challenging the vaccine or testing requirement, the Plaintiffs
raised five counts. First, the Plaintiffs claimed that the
Defendants discriminated against them because of their religious
beliefs under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e et seq. Id. at 22-23.
Second, they claimed that the vaccine requirement violated the
emergency use authorization part of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics
Act. The Plaintiffs' third claim was that section 13.5 of the
Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act (HCRC Act)
"violate[d]" the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 775
ILCS 35/1 et seq. Dist. Ct. Doc. 20 at 26-28. Fourth, they claimed
that section 13.5 violated the Free Exercise Clauses of the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section
3 of the Illinois Constitution. Id. at 28-29. And fifth, they
claimed that section 13.5 violated the Equal Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and
Article I, Section 2 of the Illinois Constitution.
The Defendants moved to dismiss all five claims. On Nov. 19, 2022,
the Court issued an order granting the motion in part and denying
it in part. The Defendants sought reconsideration of the order to
the extent that the Court declined to dismiss counts 3, 4, and 5.
The district court issued an order on February 3, 2023, denying the
Defendants' motion for reconsideration.
The appellate case is captioned Alvin Boone, et al. v. Illinois
Department of Corrections, et al., Case No. 23-8012, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on May 5,
2023. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Respondents ALVIN BOONE, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Bethany D. Hager, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF BETHANY HAGER
Suite 105
917 North Walnut Street
Danville, IL 61832
Telephone: (217) 497-3486
E-mail: bhagerlaw@gmail.com
Defendants-Petitioners ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.
are represented by:
Joshua D. Ratz, Esq.
ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL
500 S. Second St.
Springfield, IL 62701
Telephone: (217) 782-9094
Facsimile: (217) 524-5091
E-mail: joshua.ratz@ilag.gov
- and -
Laura K. Bautista, Esq.
ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL
500 S. Second St.
Springfield, IL 62701
Telephone: (217) 557-0261
Facsimile: (217) 524-5091
E-mail: Laura.Bautista@ilag.gov
INDEPENDENT LIVING: Salzano Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Salzano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. INDEPENDENT LIVING SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-21323-KMW (S.D. Fla., April 6, 2023), is brought against
Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personal
identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information
("PHI") (collectively, "Private Information") of more than 4.2
million individuals.
As part of its business, Defendant obtained the PII and PHI of
Plaintiff and Class Members, by collecting it directly from
Plaintiff and Class Members or from their medical providers. By
taking possession and control of Plaintiff's and Class Members'
Private Information, Defendant assumed a duty to securely store and
protect that sensitive information. With this action, Plaintiff and
the Class seek to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it
caused them resulting from the massive and preventable disclosure
of such sensitive and personal information.
On July 5, 2022, Defendant learned of a data breach on its network
that occurred between June 30, 2022, and July 5, 2022 (the "Data
Breach"). Defendant determined that, during the Data Breach, an
unknown actor accessed and/or acquired the unencrypted PII and PHI
of Plaintiffs and Class Members. On March 14, 2023, Defendant began
notifying Plaintiff, Class Members, and various states Attorneys
General of the Data Breach.
The Defendant admits that the unencrypted PII and PHI that was
accessed and/or acquired by an unauthorized actor included names,
addresses, dates of birth, state ID numbers, Social Security
numbers, taxpayer ID numbers, financial account information,
Medicare/Medicaid IDs, diagnosis codes/diagnosis information,
admission/discharge dates, mental/physical conditions, treatment
information, food delivery information, prescription information,
billing/claims information, and health insurance information.
The exposed PII and PHI of Plaintiff and Class Members can be sold
on the dark web or used to commit identity theft. Hackers can
access and then offer for sale the unencrypted, unredacted PII and
PHI 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, and the sharing and detrimental use of
their sensitive information.
The PII and PHI was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or
careless acts and omissions and the failure to protect the PII and
PHI of Plaintiff and Class Members. In addition to Defendant's
failure to prevent the Data Breach, Defendant waited more than
eight months after the Data Breach occurred to report it to the
state Attorneys General and the affected victims. The Defendant
also purposefully maintained secret the specific vulnerabilities
and root causes of the breach and has not informed Plaintiff and
Class Members of that information.
As a result of this delayed response, Plaintiff and Class Members
were left in the dark and had no idea their PII and PHI had been
compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant
risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social,
and financial harm, including the sharing and detrimental use of
their sensitive Private Information. This risk will remain for
their respective lifetimes, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff provided his PII and PHI, indirectly or directly, to
Defendant on the condition that it be maintained as confidential
and with the understanding that Defendant would employ reasonable
safeguards to protect his Private Information.
ILS "offers a comprehensive range of turnkey payer services
including 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 Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan F Aylstock, Esq.
Caitlyn P Miller, Esq.
Maury Goldstein, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: 850-202-1010
Facsimile: 850-916-7449
Email: baylstock@awkolaw.com
cmiller@awkolaw.com
mgoldstein@awkolaw.com
- and -
Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
Lirit A. King, Esq.
BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP
31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Phone: (805) 270-7100
Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
lking@bradleygrombacher.com
INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL: Sanabria Sues Over Automated Telephonic Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------------
James Sanabria, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL NETWORK, LLC D/B/A ASAP TRAVEL,
Case No. 4:23-cv-01646-JST (N.D. Cal., April 6, 2023), is brought
for legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions
of the Defendant in sending automated telephonic sales calls, in
the form of text messages, to his cellular telephone and the
cellular telephones of numerous other individuals across Florida,
in clear violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act
("FTSA").
Specifically, Defendant utilized an "automated system for the
selection or dialing of telephone numbers" to transmit the subject
text messages to Plaintiff's Number because such messages were sent
from telephone numbers used to message consumers en masse; because
Defendant's dialing equipment includes features substantially
similar to a predictive dialer, inasmuch as it is capable of making
numerous calls or texts simultaneously; and because the hardware
and software used by Defendant to send such messages have the
capacity to both select numbers to be dialed and to dial such
numbers in an automated fashion. And indeed, Defendant (or another
person Defendant knowingly allowed to act on its behalf) actually
transmitted the text messages at issue in this case to Plaintiff in
an automated fashion, with hardware and software that automatically
selected and dialed Plaintiff's Number and the other telephone
numbers to which it transmitted such text messages. The Plaintiff
has never provided his prior "prior express written consent" to the
Defendant or any other party acting on Defendant's behalf to
authorize the subject telephonic sales calls to the Number by means
of an "automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone
numbers," says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Florida.
International Travel Network, LLC d/b/a ASAP Travel is a discount
travel company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
Arun G. Ravindran, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: + 1 (305) 357-2107
Facsimile: + 1 (305) 200-8801
Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com
aravindran@hedinhall.com
JAKKS PACIFIC: Faces Villarica Labor Suit in California Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jakks Pacific, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 14, 2023, that a putative class action lawsuit
was filed on May 18, 2021 in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles captioned "Isaiah
Villarica v. Jakks Pacific, Inc."
Plaintiff formerly worked in one of the company's warehouses and
was retained via Workforce Enterprises, a provider of temporary
employees. The lawsuit alleges that the company violated various
California Labor Code provisions governing wage and hour
requirements, including that the company failed to pay all minimum
and overtime wages owed, provide legally compliant meal and rest
periods, or reimburse business expenses. The lawsuit further
alleges derivative wage and hour claims for failure to timely pay
all wages owed at separation of employment, failure to provide
accurate wage statements, and unfair business practices.
Jakks Pacific, Inc. is a multi-line, multi-brand toy company based
in California.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Gomez Files Appeal in Remicade Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE GOMEZ is taking an appeal from court orders in the lawsuit
entitled National Employees Health Plan, et al., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Johnson
& Johnson, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2-17-cv-04326, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
This consolidated, putative class indirect-purchaser antitrust
action is brought by Plaintiffs Local 295 Employer Group Welfare
Fund and National Employees Health Plan against Defendants Johnson
& Johnson and Janssen Biotech, Inc. for alleged anticompetitive
conduct related to their infliximab biologic, Remicade, in
violation of federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer
protection laws.
On March 15, 2023, the Court granted final approval of the parties'
settlement and dismissed the action. In doing so, it issued a
Memorandum and Order.
Jose Gomez filed a Praecipe for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 and Motion for Extension of Time
to File Notice of Appeal Per Rule 4(a)(5)(A)(ii). However, the
Court finds that its March 15, 2023 Order constituted a separate
document for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 and
therefore denied Gomez's Praecipe. The Court also denied Gomez's
motion for an extension of time.
The appellate case is captioned In re: Remicade Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 23-1798, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit, filed on May 5, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees NATIONAL EMPLOYEES HEALTH PLAN, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Randi D. Bandman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD
30 Vesey Street, Suite 200
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 693-1058
- and -
Natalie F. Bennett, Esq.
MILLER SHAH
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (610) 540-5505
- and -
Alexandra S. Bernay, Esq.
Arthur L. Shingler, III, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD
655 W Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
- and -
Ross E. Elfand, Esq.
WHITE & CASE
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 819-8695
- and -
Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
MILLER SHAH
1625 N. Commerce Parkway, Suite 320
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326
Telephone: (954) 903-3170
- and -
David W. Mitchell, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 247-6088
- and -
Scott E. Perwin, Esq.
KENNY NACHWALTER
1441 Brickell Avenue
Four Seasons Tower, Suite 1100
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 373-1000
Defendants-Appellees JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al. are represented by:
Sara A. Arrow, Esq.
William F. Cavanaugh, Jr., Esq.
Emma Ellman-Golan, Esq.
Jeffrey F. Kinkle, Esq.
George A. LoBiondo, Esq.
Abigail E. Marion, Esq.
Stephanie Teplin, Esq.
Danhui Xu, Esq.
PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER
1133 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 336-2031
(212) 336-2793
(212) 336-2214
(212) 336-2675
(212) 336-2008
(212) 336-2563
(212) 336-2000
(212) 336-2657
- and -
Thomas O. Barnett, Esq.
Ashley E. Bass, Esq.
Jeffrey Cao, Esq.
Carol Weiland, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING
850 10th Street NW
One City Center
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 662-5407
(202) 662-5109
- and -
Leslie E. John, Esq.
Elizabeth V. Wingfield, Esq.
BALLARD SPAHR
1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 864-8212
(215) 864-8128
- and -
Nolan C. Knight, Esq.
MUNSCH HARDT KOPF HARR & DINAN
500 N. Akard Street
3800 Lincoln Plaza
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 855-7516
Plaintiff-Appellant JOSE GOMEZ appears pro se.
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: CPAP Suit Sent to Canada's Law Firm Consortium
-------------------------------------------------------------------
sleepreviewmag.com reports that the Supreme Court of British
Columbia has entrusted a national consortium of law firms with the
carriage of a class action related to the recall of Philips' CPAP
and ventilator devices.
The national consortium comprises Rice Harbut Elliot LLP, Sotos
LLP, Thomson Rogers, Bob Buckingham Law, Consumer Law Group Inc,
and Valent Legal.
On June 23, 2021, Health Canada recalled approximately 35 devices
that were manufactured with a polyester-based polyurethane sound
abatement foam, due to the risk that the foam could degrade and/or
emit certain chemicals, resulting in possible injury to the users.
On Sept. 1, 2021, Philips announced it would repair or replace all
recalled devices within approximately 12 months.
The class action, which will move forward to certification by the
consortium, was initiated by John Morel of Nanaimo, British
Columbia, who seeks to recover damages for economic loss, medical
monitoring, personal injuries, emotional distress, and the loss of
use of the devices on behalf of all Canadians who used the devices.
Morel's action was selected to proceed by the court, which held
that one national team pursuing these claims is in the best
interests of the proposed class.
The national class is anticipated to include approximately 100,000
Canadians who rely on the devices.
The certification hearing is expected to take place in early 2024.
Potential class members are encouraged to register for more
information here. [GN]
KPMG LLP: Stevenson Securities Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KIM STEVENSON and HOWARD TARLOW, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GREG W.
BECKER, DANIEL J. BECK, ROGER F. DUNBAR, KAREN HON, ERIC A.
BENHAMOU, JOHN S. CLENDENING, RICHARD D. DANIELS, ALISON DAVIS,
JOEL P. FRIEDMAN, JEFFREY N. MAGGIONCALDA, BEVERLY KAY MATTHEWS,
MARY J. MILLER, KATE D. MITCHELL, JOHN F. ROBINSON, GAREN K.
STAGLIN, and KPMG LLP, Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-413949, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on May 10, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-02277 to the proceeding.
The complaint relates to the registration statement and prospectus
filed on March 17, 2021 and March 18, 2021 in connection with
shares to be issued for a transaction in which Silicon Valley Bank,
a wholly-owned subsidiary of SVBFG, acquired and merged with Boston
Private. The complaint alleges that former Boston Private
shareholders received approximately 1.9 million shares of the
Subject Security pursuant to offering documents that contained
untrue statements of material fact and materially incomplete
statements and omitted to state other material facts necessary to
make the statements made in the offering documents not misleading
in violation of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933.
KPMG LLP operates as an audit firm offering accounting, auditing,
internal audit, compliance, corporate recovery, forensic
accounting, assurance, tax, risk management, and financial advisory
services.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael A. Mugmon, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
One Front Street, Suite 3500
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (628) 235-1000
Facsimile: (628) 235-1001
E-mail: michael.mugmon@wilmerhale.com
- and -
Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 230-8800
Facsimile: (212) 230-8888
E-mail: michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com
- and -
Timothy J. Perla, Esq.
Erika M. Schutzman, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 526-6000
Facsimile: (617) 526-5000
E-mail: timothy.perla@wilmerhale.com
erika.schutzman@wilmerhale.com
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Shareholder Suit in NV Court Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Las Vegas Sands Corp. (LVSC) disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2023, that in October 22,
2020, The Daniels Family 2001 Revocable Trust, a putative purchaser
of the company's shares, filed a purported class action complaint
in the U.S. District Court against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson and
Patrick Dumont.
The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that LVSC made
materially false or misleading statements, or failed to disclose
material facts, from February 27, 2016 through September 15, 2020,
with respect to its operations at Marina Bay Sands, its compliance
with Singapore laws and regulations, and its disclosure controls
and procedures.
On March 8, 2021, lead plaintiffs filed a purported class action
amended complaint against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson, Patrick Dumont,
and Robert G. Goldstein, alleging similar violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act over the same time period of
February 27, 2016 through September 15, 2020. In May 7, 2021, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
Lead olaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on
July 6, 2021, and the defendants filed their reply on August 5,
2021. On March 28, 2022, the U.S. District Court entered an order
dismissing the amended complaint in its entirety. The U.S. District
Court dismissed certain claims with prejudice but granted
plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint with respect to the other
claims by April 18, 2022.
In April 8, 2022, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration and
to Extend Time to File the Amended Complaint, requesting the U.S.
District Court to reconsider certain aspects of its March 28, 2022
order and to extend the deadline for them to file an amended
complaint.
The defendants filed an opposition to the motion on April 22, 2022.
In April 18, 2022, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. In
May 18, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to
dismiss on June 17, 2022, and the defendants filed their reply on
July 8, 2022.
Las Vegas Sands Corp. is a casino and resort company based in
Nevada.
LAZER SPOT: Urrutia Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ERICKA NATALY ESCOBAR URRUTIA and REBECCA DAWN
STEWART, individuals and class representatives on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated non-exempt former and
current employees, Plaintiffs v. LAZER SPOT, INC., a Georgia
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. CIVSB2228377, was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of San Bernardino to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on May 11,
2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:23-cv-00849 to the proceeding.
The complaint asserts 10 causes of action: (1) failure to provide
required meal periods; (2) failure to provide required rest
periods; (3) failure to pay overtime wages; (4) failure to pay
minimum wage; (5) failure to timely pay wages; (6) failure to pay
all wages due to discharged and quitting employees; (7) failure to
maintain required records; (8) failure to furnish accurate itemized
statements; (9) failure to indemnify employees for necessary
expenditures incurred in discharge of duties; and (10) unfair and
unlawful business practices.
Lazer Spot, Inc. provides yard management services.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael Afar, Esq.
Justin J. Jackson, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Telephone: (310) 277-7200
E-mail: mafar@seyfarth.com
jujackson@seyfarth.com
LITHIA MOTORS: Singh Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Tirath Singh, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated v. Lithia Motors, Inc., BRYAN DEBOER, JOHN NORTH
III, SCOTT HILLIER, SIDNEY DEBOER, MARK D. DEBOER, CHUN-WAI C.
LIANG, MARK SMITH, PRISCILLA ROBINSON, DYLAN MASSIH, EDWARD IMPERT,
LITHIA EATONTOWN-F LLC doing business as: DCH FORD OF EATONTOWN,
LITHIA EATONTOWN-F LLC doing business as: DCH KAY HONDA, LITHIA
EATONTOWN-F LLC doing business as: DCH PARAMUS HONDA, LITHIA
EATONTOWN-F LLC doing business as: DCH FREEHOLD TOYOTA, LITHIA
EATONTOWN-F LLC doing business as: DCH ACADEMY HONDA, LITHIA
EATONTOWN-F LLC doing business as: BMW OF BLOOMFIELD, LITHIA
RAMSEY-M LLC doing business as: MINI OF RAMSEY, LITHIA RAMSEY-T LLC
doing business as: PRESTIGE TOYOTA OF RAMSEY, LITHIA RAMSEY-B LLC
doing business as: BMW OF RAMSEY, LITHIA RAMSEY-L LLC doing
business as: PRESTIGE LEXUS OF RAMSEY, LITHIA PARAMUS-M LLC doing
business as: MERCEDES-BENZ OF PARAMUS, LITHIA HAMILTON-H LLC doing
business as: HAMILTON HONDA, SHARLENE REALTY LLC doing business as:
DCH BRUNSWICK TOYOTA, DCH MONMOUTH LLC doing business as: BMW OF
FREEHOLD, DCH ESSEX LLC doing business as: DCH MILLBURN AUDI, DCH
MONTCLAIR ACURA LLC doing business as: DCH MONTCLAIR ACURA, UNION H
LLC doing business as: PLANET HONDA, BARRY POLLACK, SHERRY
STRATTON, Case No. MON L 632 23 was removed from the Superior Court
Of New Jersey, Monmouth County, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey on April 10, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-02026-ZNQ-DEA to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Lithia Motors, Inc. -- https://www.lithiamotors.com/ -- is an
American nationwide automotive dealership group headquartered in
Medford, Oregon.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew R. Wolf, Esq.
THE DANN LAW FIRM PC
1520 U.S Highway 130, Suite 101
North Brunswick, NJ 08902
Phone: (732) 545-7900
Fax: (732) 545-1030
Email: awolf@dannlaw.com
- and -
Moshe O. Boroosan, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOSHE BOROOSAN, P.C.
1318 Avenue J., 2nd Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11230
Phone: (718) 719-9101
Email: moshe@boroosanlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Donald Thaddeus Okner, Esq.
DWYER, CONNELL & LISBONA
100 Passaic Avenue
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Phone: (973) 276-1800
Email: dokner@dcllaw.com
- and -
Bruce Eric Baldinger, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF BRUCE E. BALDINGER, LLC
365 South Street
Morristown, NJ 07960
Phone: (908) 218-0060
Fax: (908) 707-4509
Email: bbaldinger@baldingerlaw.com
LLR INC: Must Oppose Van Class Cert. Bid in 60 Days
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATIE VAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LLR, INC., d/b/a
LuLaRoe; and LULAROE, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-00197-JMK (D. Alaska),
the Hon. Judge Joshua M. Kindred entered an order regarding joint
status report and future class certification scheduling as
follows:
1. Consistent with the Ninth Circuit's decision at Docket 163,
the
Order Granting Class Certification at Docket 127 is vacated.
2. The Plaintiffs Amended Motion for Class Certification at
Docket
167 is accepted as filed and, for the purposes of the
briefing
schedule contained herein, will be treated as if it were
filed
on the same day as this Order.
3. The Defendants' Opposition to the Plaintiffs' Amended Motion
for
Class Certification is due 60 days from the date of this
Order.
4. The Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of its Amended Motion for
Class
Certification is due 14 days from the date that the
Defendants'
Opposition is filed.
LLR is multi-level marketing scheme/company that sells women's
clothing.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BI7C2s at no extra charge.[CC]
LOOK BOTH WAYS: Ackerman Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Look Both Ways
Insurance LLC. The case is styled as Laura Ackerman, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Look Both Ways
Insurance LLC doing business as: Millennium Health Advisors, Case
No. 3:23-cv-00886-AJB-DEB E.D. Va., May 16, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Look Both Ways Insurance LLC doing business as Millennium Health
Advisors -- https://www.millenniumhealthadvisors.com/ -- offers
free services to any American looking for an efficient way to find
the best affordable healthcare coverage.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Peter Robinson, III, Esq.
1934 Old Gallows Road, Suite 350K
Vienna, VA 22181
Phone: (703) 789-4800
Email: william@robinsonslaw.com
LUCKY2MEDIA LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Illinois Privacy Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Haydock at cookcountyrecord.com reports that a new class
action lawsuit claims the company that operates personal
information search site GoLookUp has violated Illinois privacy law
by allegedly profiting from aggregating people's personal
information and allegedly selling it online to people willing to
pay for their background scraping services.
The lawsuit was filed in Cook County Circuit Court on May 11 by
named plaintiffs Tiffany Bryant and Lachrisia Jakes on behalf of
themselves and others. It accuses Lucky2Media, which does business
as GoLookUp, of violations against the Illinois Right to Privacy
Act (IRPA) for allegedly using individuals' personal identity for
commercial purposes without first gaining their express consent.
A Delaware based internet company, GoLookUp is a public data
aggregation service providing "free peeks" to guests, but for its
paid customers, comprehensive personal information about
individuals can be obtained through paid subscriptions or single
use fees. GoLookUp claims it is able to search millions of public
records databases to obtain detailed, personal information about an
individual a customer wishes to search.
Through a process, known interchangeably in the industry as web
scraping, data mining, web harvesting and data extraction, GoLookUp
collects, stores, and retrieves website data into a usable format,
such as in a spreadsheet or databases. According to the complaint,
businesses can use this information by converting unstructured data
on the internet into organized, structured data. Businesses
frequently use scraping internally for due diligence,
comparative/competitive analysis, tracking purposes and more,
leveraging the information mined through mostly automated means
such as bots and crawlers to attempt to gain competitive
advantages.
However, in the lawsuit, the plaintiffs claim GoLookUp improperly
uses those processes for commercial profit. The IRPA law allows
such information to be gathered and used by GoLookUp and other
scraping services like Spokeo, Whitepages, Inteli, Been Verified,
Instant Checkmate, and others, so long as it is not using that
information commercially, for monetizing purposes.
Similar lawsuits have been filed in the past against other personal
information gathering sites, including Instant Checkmate,
Whitepages, Spokeo, BeenVerified and Intelius, all centered on the
same basic complaint: Users were allegedly lured with free public
record information only to be enticed to get the motherlode if they
are willing to pay for a monthly subscription or a 5-day use fee
for the privilege of viewing and using, deep level extracted data
containing detailed personal information including phone numbers,
financial information, family members, addresses and more.
The suit contends the enticement coming with a free simple search
viewing at no charge, was used for monetary gain to attract new
paid services for customers, and did so without the express, prior
consent of the individual whose information was being collected,
allegedly violating IRPA.
Both named plaintiffs, Bryant and Jakes, each attested that in
March of 2023 they discovered their information had been aggregated
by GoLookUp and allegedly used for allegedly improper commercial
purposes.
The fate of the suit against GoLookUp remains unclear, based on
past similar lawsuits.
Some of the prior lawsuits failed.
Others, however, have bested attempts to dismiss. Notably, a 2020
decision from a federal judge in a similar class action allowed
lawsuits to continue against Instant Checkmate and Whitepages. That
decision appears to have paved the way for potentially more
lawsuits, as with GoLookUp.
With regard to the lawsuit vs InstantCheckmate, U.S. District Judge
Gary Feinerman, described InstantCheckmate's process as "a textbook
example under the IRPA of using a person's identity for a
commercial purpose." The company had claimed the law does not apply
because the preview only displayed publicly available information.
The judge, however, ruled the law covers all aspects of a person's
identity, without distinguishing whether the information came from
public or private sources.
Plaintiffs are seeking actual and punitive damages, court costs and
legal fees.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit against GoLookUp are represented by
Attorney Patrick J. Solberg of Anderson + Wanca, Rolling Meadows.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuits against InstantCheckmate and Whitepages
are represented by attorneys with the firm of Beaumont Costales, of
Chicago. [GN]
LYONS NATIONAL BANK: Otero Files Suit in W.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Lyons National
Bank, et al. The case is styled as Juan Otero, Kelly Otero,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The
Lyons National Bank, Case No. 6:23-cv-06196-EAW (W.D.N.Y., April 6,
2023).
The nature suit is stated as Banks and Banking.
Lyons National Bank -- https://bankwithlnb.com/ -- provides banking
and financial services to both businesses and individuals.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James J. Bilsborrow, Esq.
WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
700 Broadway
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 558-5856
Fax: (646) 293-7937
Email: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Lisa L. Smith, Esq.
Sam Williams, Esq.
PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP
One Canalside
125 Main Street
Buffalo, NY 14203-2887
Phone: (716) 847-8336
Fax: (716) 852-6100
Email: lsmith@phillipslytle.com
swilliams@phillipslytle.com
MARADA INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Haughton Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
RUEL HAUGHTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MARADA INDUSTRIES, INC., d/b/a COSMA BODY
ASSEMBLY MICHIGAN, a Michigan corporation, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-11160-SDK-KGA (E.D. Mich., May 16, 2023) arises out of the
Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant from approximately January 2,
2019 through April 24, 2023 as a non-exempt, hourly employee.
Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, on occasions
where he worked the third shift, he earned a shift differential.
However, the Defendant failed to incorporate its shift
differentials into its hourly employee' regular hourly rate
calculation, resulting in prima facie violations of the FLSA. In
addition, the Defendant allegedly refused to pay Plaintiff and all
putative collective members the legally required amount of overtime
compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek, the Plaintiff asserts.
Marada Industries, Inc., is a Michigan corporation that operates
under the assumed name of Cosma Body Assembly Michigan. The company
produces automotive systems, assemblies, modules, and components,
which are supplied to General Motors, Ford and Stellantis, as well
as BMW, Mercedes, Volkswagen, Toyota, Tesla, and Tata Motors, among
others.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
Kalamazoo, MI 49007
Telephone: (269) 250-7500
E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com
- and –
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Town Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
- and -
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
Laura Supanich, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C.
1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 824-3828
E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com
lms@melmedlaw.com
MAX CREDIT: Adams Overdraft Fees' Suit Removed to M.D. Ala.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PAMELA ADAMS and DONOVAN SISTRUNK, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MAX
CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 46-cv-2023- 900037, was removed
from the Circuit Court of Macon County, Alabama, to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama on May 11,
2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Alabama assigned Case
No. 3:23-cv-00316 to the proceeding.
The Complaint sets forth two theories of liability. First,
Plaintiffs allege that MAX has violated and continues to violate
Federal Reserve Regulation E by (1) failing to provide members with
a notice segregated from all information clearly describing MAX's
overdraft service, and (2) providing an opt-in disclosure that is
unclear, confusing, incomplete and inaccurate. Second, Plaintiffs
allege that MAX violates its agreement with its members by
reimbursing itself for bank fees with Supplemental Security Income
(SSI) deposited by the Social Security Administration into the bank
accounts of members receiving SSI. The Plaintiffs allege causes of
action for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and conversion.
MAX Credit Union is a state-chartered credit union based in
Montgomery, Alabama.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Stuart Richter, Esq.
2029 Century Park East, Suite 2600
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3012
Telephone: (310) 788-4685
Facsimile: (310) 712-8261
E-mail: stuart.richter@katten.com
- and -
Brian P. Strength, Esq.
STRENGTH & CONNALLY, LLC
402 N. Main St. P.O. Box 830810
Tuskegee, AL 36083
Telephone: (334) 727-7762
Facsimile: (334) 460-2773
E-mail: bs@strengthconnally.com
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Canadian Govt. to Join Opioid Crisis Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saba Aziz at Global News reports that the federal government has
said it will join a class-action lawsuit against consulting firm
McKinsey & Company over concerns about its role in the country's
opioid crisis.
The legal action was brought forward by British Columbia in
December 2021 over the firm's alleged marketing campaigns to boost
opioid sales.
That lawsuit also named all provinces and territories, as well as
Canada, as proposed class members, according to the office of
Carolyn Bennett, the federal minister of mental health and
addictions.
"The legal action by British Columbia against McKinsey & Company is
still at a very early stage and is ongoing," her office told Global
News in a statement.
"Their certification process is scheduled to occur in winter 2024.
Should this class action be certified, the federal government will
also formally become a class member in it."
The firm was forced to pay nearly $800 million in settlements in
2021 over its alleged promotion of opioid sales as the crisis
gripped the United States.
At Ottawa's request, the B.C. government amended its legislation in
October 2022, so that Canada, in addition to B.C., has a
legislative basis for claiming damages from the pharmaceutical
industry in relation to the opioid crisis.
Bennett's office said it wants all governments to recover
health-care costs from any companies that acted inappropriately in
the marketing and distribution of opioids.
"We will continue to explore all options to ensure that companies
are held accountable for their role in the toxic drug and overdose
crisis if they acted inappropriately in the marketing and
distribution of opioids."
A total of 7,560 Canadians lost their lives to opioids that year -
which means 21 deaths in a day. This was up from 3,747 in 2020,
representing a 101 per cent increase and a 162 per cent increase
from 2016.
McKinsey has also faced scrutiny about federal contracts it was
awarded following revelations the firm's work for Ottawa has
expanded rapidly since Justin Trudeau's Liberal government came to
power in 2015.
A House of Commons committee is currently studying those federal
contracts. [GN]
MDL 2873: Chisholm Claims PFAS Exposure From Toxic AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT CHISHOLM, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01980-RMG
(D.S.C., May 10, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, AFFF containing PFAS that was designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by the Defendants was
so hazardous, toxic, and dangerous to human health that the act of
designing, formulating, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and
selling this AFFF was unreasonably dangerous under the
circumstances. The AFFF designed, formulated, manufactured,
marketed, distributed, and sold by Defendants was defectively
designed and the foreseeable risk of harm could and would have been
reduced or eliminated by the adoption of a reasonable alternative
design that was not unreasonably dangerous. The Defendants'
defective design and formulation of AFFF containing PFAS was a
direct and proximate cause of the contamination of the blood and/or
body of Plaintiff and the persistence and accumulation of PFAS in
Plaintiff's blood and/or body, says the suit.
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. He was diagnosed with
kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products,
the suit asserts.
The Chisholm case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Telephone: (205) 879-5000
Facsimile: (205) 879-5901
MDL 2873: Croom Alleges Injury Over Exposure to Toxic PFAS
----------------------------------------------------------
TIMMY CROOM, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01982-RMG
(D.S.C., May 10, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, AFFF containing PFAS that was designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by the Defendants was
so hazardous, toxic, and dangerous to human health that the act of
designing, formulating, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and
selling this AFFF was unreasonably dangerous under the
circumstances. The AFFF designed, formulated, manufactured,
marketed, distributed, and sold by Defendants was defectively
designed and the foreseeable risk of harm could and would have been
reduced or eliminated by the adoption of a reasonable alternative
design that was not unreasonably dangerous. The Defendants'
defective design and formulation of AFFF containing PFAS was a
direct and proximate cause of the contamination of the blood and/or
body of Plaintiff and the persistence and accumulation of PFAS in
Plaintiff's blood and/or body, says the suit.
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. He was diagnosed with
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products, the suit asserts.
The Croom case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Telephone: (205) 879-5000
Facsimile: (205) 879-5901
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Caused Cancer, Aguirre Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES AGUIRRE, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01973-RMG
(D.S.C., May 10, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, AFFF containing PFAS that was designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by the Defendants was
so hazardous, toxic, and dangerous to human health that the act of
designing, formulating, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and
selling this AFFF was unreasonably dangerous under the
circumstances. The AFFF designed, formulated, manufactured,
marketed, distributed, and sold by Defendants was defectively
designed and the foreseeable risk of harm could and would have been
reduced or eliminated by the adoption of a reasonable alternative
design that was not unreasonably dangerous. The Defendants'
defective design and formulation of AFFF containing PFAS was a
direct and proximate cause of the contamination of the blood and/or
body of Plaintiff and the persistence and accumulation of PFAS in
Plaintiff's blood and/or body, says the suit.
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. He was diagnosed with
liver cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products,
the suit asserts.
The Aguirre case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Telephone: (205) 879-5000
Facsimile: (205) 879-5901
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Caused Cancer, Chisholm Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT CHISHOLM, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01980-RMG
(D.S.C., May 10, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, AFFF containing PFAS that was designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by the Defendants was
so hazardous, toxic, and dangerous to human health that the act of
designing, formulating, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and
selling this AFFF was unreasonably dangerous under the
circumstances. The AFFF designed, formulated, manufactured,
marketed, distributed, and sold by Defendants was defectively
designed and the foreseeable risk of harm could and would have been
reduced or eliminated by the adoption of a reasonable alternative
design that was not unreasonably dangerous. The Defendants'
defective design and formulation of AFFF containing PFAS was a
direct and proximate cause of the contamination of the blood and/or
body of Plaintiff and the persistence and accumulation of PFAS in
Plaintiff's blood and/or body, says the suit.
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. He was diagnosed with
kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products,
the suit asserts.
The Chisholm case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Telephone: (205) 879-5000
Facsimile: (205) 879-5901
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Caused Cancer, Gangway Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH GANGWAY, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01993-RMG
(D.S.C., May 10, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, AFFF containing PFAS that was designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by the Defendants was
so hazardous, toxic, and dangerous to human health that the act of
designing, formulating, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and
selling this AFFF was unreasonably dangerous under the
circumstances. The AFFF designed, formulated, manufactured,
marketed, distributed, and sold by Defendants was defectively
designed and the foreseeable risk of harm could and would have been
reduced or eliminated by the adoption of a reasonable alternative
design that was not unreasonably dangerous. The Defendants'
defective design and formulation of AFFF containing PFAS was a
direct and proximate cause of the contamination of the blood and/or
body of Plaintiff and the persistence and accumulation of PFAS in
Plaintiff's blood and/or body, says the suit.
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. He was diagnosed with
thyroid cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products, the suit asserts.
The Gangway case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Telephone: (205) 879-5000
Facsimile: (205) 879-5901
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Caused Cancer, Hileman Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JERMONY HILEMAN, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01994-RMG
(D.S.C., May 10, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, AFFF containing PFAS that was designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by the Defendants was
so hazardous, toxic, and dangerous to human health that the act of
designing, formulating, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and
selling this AFFF was unreasonably dangerous under the
circumstances. The AFFF designed, formulated, manufactured,
marketed, distributed, and sold by Defendants was defectively
designed and the foreseeable risk of harm could and would have been
reduced or eliminated by the adoption of a reasonable alternative
design that was not unreasonably dangerous. The Defendants'
defective design and formulation of AFFF containing PFAS was a
direct and proximate cause of the contamination of the blood and/or
body of Plaintiff and the persistence and accumulation of PFAS in
Plaintiff's blood and/or body, says the suit.
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. He was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products, the suit asserts.
The Hileman case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Telephone: (205) 879-5000
Facsimile: (205) 879-5901
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Caused Cancer, Koeppe Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG KOEPPE, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01996-RMG
(D.S.C., May 10, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, AFFF containing PFAS that was designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by the Defendants was
so hazardous, toxic, and dangerous to human health that the act of
designing, formulating, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and
selling this AFFF was unreasonably dangerous under the
circumstances. The AFFF designed, formulated, manufactured,
marketed, distributed, and sold by Defendants was defectively
designed and the foreseeable risk of harm could and would have been
reduced or eliminated by the adoption of a reasonable alternative
design that was not unreasonably dangerous. The Defendants'
defective design and formulation of AFFF containing PFAS was a
direct and proximate cause of the contamination of the blood and/or
body of Plaintiff and the persistence and accumulation of PFAS in
Plaintiff's blood and/or body, says the suit.
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. He was diagnosed with
bladder cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products, the suit asserts.
The Koeppe case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Telephone: (205) 879-5000
Facsimile: (205) 879-5901
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Caused Cancer, Martinez Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK MARTINEZ, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01998-RMG
(D.S.C., May 10, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, AFFF containing PFAS that was designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by the Defendants was
so hazardous, toxic, and dangerous to human health that the act of
designing, formulating, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and
selling this AFFF was unreasonably dangerous under the
circumstances. The AFFF designed, formulated, manufactured,
marketed, distributed, and sold by Defendants was defectively
designed and the foreseeable risk of harm could and would have been
reduced or eliminated by the adoption of a reasonable alternative
design that was not unreasonably dangerous. The Defendants'
defective design and formulation of AFFF containing PFAS was a
direct and proximate cause of the contamination of the blood and/or
body of Plaintiff and the persistence and accumulation of PFAS in
Plaintiff's blood and/or body, says the suit.
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. He was diagnosed with
kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products,
the suit asserts.
The Martinez case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Telephone: (205) 879-5000
Facsimile: (205) 879-5901
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Caused Cancer, McNally Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
SIDNEY MCNALLY, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02000-RMG
(D.S.C., May 10, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, AFFF containing PFAS that was designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by the Defendants was
so hazardous, toxic, and dangerous to human health that the act of
designing, formulating, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and
selling this AFFF was unreasonably dangerous under the
circumstances. The AFFF designed, formulated, manufactured,
marketed, distributed, and sold by Defendants was defectively
designed and the foreseeable risk of harm could and would have been
reduced or eliminated by the adoption of a reasonable alternative
design that was not unreasonably dangerous. The Defendants'
defective design and formulation of AFFF containing PFAS was a
direct and proximate cause of the contamination of the blood and/or
body of Plaintiff and the persistence and accumulation of PFAS in
Plaintiff's blood and/or body, says the suit.
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. He was diagnosed with
kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products,
the suit asserts.
The McNally case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Telephone: (205) 879-5000
Facsimile: (205) 879-5901
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Caused Cancer, Sanders Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
BOBBY SANDERS, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02004-RMG
(D.S.C., May 10, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, AFFF containing PFAS that was designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by the Defendants was
so hazardous, toxic, and dangerous to human health that the act of
designing, formulating, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and
selling this AFFF was unreasonably dangerous under the
circumstances. The AFFF designed, formulated, manufactured,
marketed, distributed, and sold by Defendants was defectively
designed and the foreseeable risk of harm could and would have been
reduced or eliminated by the adoption of a reasonable alternative
design that was not unreasonably dangerous. The Defendants'
defective design and formulation of AFFF containing PFAS was a
direct and proximate cause of the contamination of the blood and/or
body of Plaintiff and the persistence and accumulation of PFAS in
Plaintiff's blood and/or body, says the suit.
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. He was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products, the suit asserts.
The Sanders case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Telephone: (205) 879-5000
Facsimile: (205) 879-5901
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Caused Injury, Poulson Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHEAL POULSON, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02003-RMG
(D.S.C., May 10, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, AFFF containing PFAS that was designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by the Defendants was
so hazardous, toxic, and dangerous to human health that the act of
designing, formulating, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and
selling this AFFF was unreasonably dangerous under the
circumstances. The AFFF designed, formulated, manufactured,
marketed, distributed, and sold by Defendants was defectively
designed and the foreseeable risk of harm could and would have been
reduced or eliminated by the adoption of a reasonable alternative
design that was not unreasonably dangerous. The Defendants'
defective design and formulation of AFFF containing PFAS was a
direct and proximate cause of the contamination of the blood and/or
body of Plaintiff and the persistence and accumulation of PFAS in
Plaintiff's blood and/or body, says the suit.
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. He was diagnosed with
ulcerative colitis as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products, the suit asserts.
The Poulson case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Telephone: (205) 879-5000
Facsimile: (205) 879-5901
MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Causes Injury, Martin Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
GERALD MARTIN, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01997-RMG
(D.S.C., May 10, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, AFFF containing PFAS that was designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by the Defendants was
so hazardous, toxic, and dangerous to human health that the act of
designing, formulating, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and
selling this AFFF was unreasonably dangerous under the
circumstances. The AFFF designed, formulated, manufactured,
marketed, distributed, and sold by Defendants was defectively
designed and the foreseeable risk of harm could and would have been
reduced or eliminated by the adoption of a reasonable alternative
design that was not unreasonably dangerous. The Defendants'
defective design and formulation of AFFF containing PFAS was a
direct and proximate cause of the contamination of the blood and/or
body of Plaintiff and the persistence and accumulation of PFAS in
Plaintiff's blood and/or body, says the suit.
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. He was diagnosed with
ulcerative colitis as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products, the suit asserts.
The Martin case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Telephone: (205) 879-5000
Facsimile: (205) 879-5901
MDL 2873: Faces Bertino Suit Over AFFF Product Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------
DONALD BERTINO, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01977-RMG
(D.S.C., May 10, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, AFFF containing PFAS that was designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by the Defendants was
so hazardous, toxic, and dangerous to human health that the act of
designing, formulating, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and
selling this AFFF was unreasonably dangerous under the
circumstances. The AFFF designed, formulated, manufactured,
marketed, distributed, and sold by Defendants was defectively
designed and the foreseeable risk of harm could and would have been
reduced or eliminated by the adoption of a reasonable alternative
design that was not unreasonably dangerous. The Defendants'
defective design and formulation of AFFF containing PFAS was a
direct and proximate cause of the contamination of the blood and/or
body of Plaintiff and the persistence and accumulation of PFAS in
Plaintiff's blood and/or body, says the suit.
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. He was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products, the suit asserts.
The Bertino case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Telephone: (205) 879-5000
Facsimile: (205) 879-5901
MDL 2873: Faces Johnson Suit Over AFFF Product Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------
JAY JOHNSON, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01995-RMG
(D.S.C., May 10, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, AFFF containing PFAS that was designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by the Defendants was
so hazardous, toxic, and dangerous to human health that the act of
designing, formulating, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and
selling this AFFF was unreasonably dangerous under the
circumstances. The AFFF designed, formulated, manufactured,
marketed, distributed, and sold by Defendants was defectively
designed and the foreseeable risk of harm could and would have been
reduced or eliminated by the adoption of a reasonable alternative
design that was not unreasonably dangerous. The Defendants'
defective design and formulation of AFFF containing PFAS was a
direct and proximate cause of the contamination of the blood and/or
body of Plaintiff and the persistence and accumulation of PFAS in
Plaintiff's blood and/or body, says the suit.
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. He was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products, the suit asserts.
The Johnson case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Telephone: (205) 879-5000
Facsimile: (205) 879-5901
MDL 2873: Massarelli Sues Over Cancer-Causing AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD MASSARELLI, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01999-RMG
(D.S.C., May 10, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, AFFF containing PFAS that was designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by the Defendants was
so hazardous, toxic, and dangerous to human health that the act of
designing, formulating, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and
selling this AFFF was unreasonably dangerous under the
circumstances. The AFFF designed, formulated, manufactured,
marketed, distributed, and sold by Defendants was defectively
designed and the foreseeable risk of harm could and would have been
reduced or eliminated by the adoption of a reasonable alternative
design that was not unreasonably dangerous. The Defendants'
defective design and formulation of AFFF containing PFAS was a
direct and proximate cause of the contamination of the blood and/or
body of Plaintiff and the persistence and accumulation of PFAS in
Plaintiff's blood and/or body, says the suit.
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. He was diagnosed with
testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products, the suit asserts.
The Massarelli case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Telephone: (205) 879-5000
Facsimile: (205) 879-5901
MDL 2873: Muzyka Sues Over AFFF Product Exposure
------------------------------------------------
LOUIS MUZYKA, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02002-RMG
(D.S.C., May 10, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, AFFF containing PFAS that was designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by the Defendants was
so hazardous, toxic, and dangerous to human health that the act of
designing, formulating, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and
selling this AFFF was unreasonably dangerous under the
circumstances. The AFFF designed, formulated, manufactured,
marketed, distributed, and sold by Defendants was defectively
designed and the foreseeable risk of harm could and would have been
reduced or eliminated by the adoption of a reasonable alternative
design that was not unreasonably dangerous. The Defendants'
defective design and formulation of AFFF containing PFAS was a
direct and proximate cause of the contamination of the blood and/or
body of Plaintiff and the persistence and accumulation of PFAS in
Plaintiff's blood and/or body, says the suit.
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. He was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products, the suit asserts.
The Muzyka case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Telephone: (205) 879-5000
Facsimile: (205) 879-5901
MDL 2972: Blackbaud Must Oppose Cohen Class Cert. Bid by June 9
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cohen v. Blackbaud Inc.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00948 (D.S.C. Filed Feb. 10, 2021), the Hon. Judge
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., entered an amended scheduling order as
follows:
Event Deadline
-- Blackbaud's opposition to class June 9, 2023
Certification:
-- Blackbaud's rebuttal class June 9, 2023
certification expert disclosure:
-- Blackbaud's Daubert Motion on June 9, 2023
Plaintiffs' class certification
Experts:
-- Plaintiffs' deadline to file a Aug. 3, 2023
motion seeking leave to submit
rebuttal expert information with
reply brief:
-- Plaintiffs' response in opposition Sept. 11, 2023
to Blackbaud's Daubert Motions on
Plaintiffs' class certification
Experts:
-- Blackbaud's reply in support of its Oct. 20, 2023
Daubert motion on Plaintiffs' class
certification experts:
-- Plaintiffs' reply in support of their Oct. 20, 2023
motion for class certification:
-- Plaintiffs' Daubert Motions on Oct. 20, 2023
Blackbaud rebuttal class
certification experts:
-- Plaintiffs' reply in support on Jan. 22, 2024
their Daubert Motions on
Blackbaud's rebuttal class
certification experts:
-- Hearing on class certification: TBD
and Daubert Motions:
The Cohen case is consolidated in the Blackbaud, Inc., Customer
Data Breach. The Lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972.
The Plaintiffs in the actions allegedly received data breach
notices from the following organizations: Atrium Health; Bread for
the World; Crystal Stairs; Episcopal High School; Light of Life
Rescue Mission; Planned Parenthood; St. David's Center for Child
and Family Development; University of Wisconsin -- Eau Claire;
WakeMed Foundation; and Manhattan School of Music
The Plaintiffs in the potential tag-along actions allegedly
received notices from Allina Health; Bank Street College of
Education; Childrens' Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota; Harvard
College; Inova Health System; KidsQuest Children's Museum; Lower
East Side Tenement Museum; Mt. Sinai Health System; Northwest
Memorial Healthcare; Nuvance Health; Planned Parenthood; Stetson
University; Stony Brook University Hospital; and UMass Memorial
Medical Center.
The actions allege that numerous other schools, universities,
healthcare institutions, and non-profit organizations were affected
by the data breach. The Plaintiffs allege that the personal
information compromised by the breach includes user names, email
addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, social security numbers,
credit card numbers, bank account numbers, financial profiles,
passwords, and health information.
The common factual questions include:
(1) Blackbaud's data security practices and whether the
practices
met industry standards;
(2) how the unauthorized access occurred;
(3) the extent of personal information affected by the breach;
(4) when Blackbaud knew or should have known of the breach;
(5) the investigation into the breach; and
(6) the alleged delay in disclosure of the breach to Blackbaud
clients and affected consumers.
Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community—nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42DBF7b at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Blackbaud Must Oppose Duranko Class Cert. by June 9
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Duranko v. Blackbaud Inc.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00054 (D.S.C. Filed Jan. 7, 2021), the Hon. Judge
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., entered an amended scheduling order as
follows:
Event Deadline
-- Blackbaud's opposition to class June 9, 2023
Certification:
-- Blackbaud's rebuttal class June 9, 2023
certification expert disclosure:
-- Blackbaud's Daubert Motion on June 9, 2023
Plaintiffs' class certification
Experts:
-- Plaintiffs' deadline to file a Aug. 3, 2023
motion seeking leave to submit
rebuttal expert information with
reply brief:
-- Plaintiffs' response in opposition Sept. 11, 2023
to Blackbaud's Daubert Motions on
Plaintiffs' class certification
Experts:
-- Blackbaud's reply in support of its Oct. 20, 2023
Daubert motion on Plaintiffs' class
certification experts:
-- Plaintiffs' reply in support of their Oct. 20, 2023
motion for class certification:
-- Plaintiffs' Daubert Motions on Oct. 20, 2023
Blackbaud rebuttal class
certification experts:
-- Plaintiffs' reply in support on Jan. 22, 2024
their Daubert Motions on
Blackbaud's rebuttal class
certification experts:
-- Hearing on class certification: TBD
and Daubert Motions:
The Duranko case is consolidated in the Blackbaud, Inc., Customer
Data Breach. The Lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972.
The Plaintiffs in the actions allegedly received data breach
notices from the following organizations: Atrium Health; Bread for
the World; Crystal Stairs; Episcopal High School; Light of Life
Rescue Mission; Planned Parenthood; St. David's Center for Child
and Family Development; University of Wisconsin -- Eau Claire;
WakeMed Foundation; and Manhattan School of Music
The Plaintiffs in the potential tag-along actions allegedly
received notices from Allina Health; Bank Street College of
Education; Childrens' Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota; Harvard
College; Inova Health System; KidsQuest Children's Museum; Lower
East Side Tenement Museum; Mt. Sinai Health System; Northwest
Memorial Healthcare; Nuvance Health; Planned Parenthood; Stetson
University; Stony Brook University Hospital; and UMass Memorial
Medical Center.
The actions allege that numerous other schools, universities,
healthcare institutions, and non-profit organizations were affected
by the data breach. The Plaintiffs allege that the personal
information compromised by the breach includes user names, email
addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, social security numbers,
credit card numbers, bank account numbers, financial profiles,
passwords, and health information.
The common factual questions include:
(1) Blackbaud's data security practices and whether the
practices
met industry standards;
(2) how the unauthorized access occurred;
(3) the extent of personal information affected by the breach;
(4) when Blackbaud knew or should have known of the breach;
(5) the investigation into the breach; and
(6) the alleged delay in disclosure of the breach to Blackbaud
clients and affected consumers.
Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community—nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3W7VxwU at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Blackbaud Must Oppose Eisen Class Cert. Bid by June 9
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Philip Eisen v. Blackbaud
Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04358 (D.S.C. Filed Dec. 15, 2020), the Hon.
Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., entered an amended scheduling order
as follows:
Event Deadline
-- Blackbaud's opposition to class June 9, 2023
Certification:
-- Blackbaud's rebuttal class June 9, 2023
certification expert disclosure:
-- Blackbaud's Daubert Motion on June 9, 2023
Plaintiffs' class certification
Experts:
-- Plaintiffs' deadline to file a Aug. 3, 2023
motion seeking leave to submit
rebuttal expert information with
reply brief:
-- Plaintiffs' response in opposition Sept. 11, 2023
to Blackbaud's Daubert Motions on
Plaintiffs' class certification
Experts:
-- Blackbaud's reply in support of its Oct. 20, 2023
Daubert motion on Plaintiffs' class
certification experts:
-- Plaintiffs' reply in support of their Oct. 20, 2023
motion for class certification:
-- Plaintiffs' Daubert Motions on Oct. 20, 2023
Blackbaud rebuttal class
certification experts:
-- Plaintiffs' reply in support on Jan. 22, 2024
their Daubert Motions on
Blackbaud's rebuttal class
certification experts:
-- Hearing on class certification: TBD
and Daubert Motions:
The Eisen case is consolidated in the Blackbaud, Inc., Customer
Data Breach. The Lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972.
The Plaintiffs in the actions allegedly received data breach
notices from the following organizations: Atrium Health; Bread for
the World; Crystal Stairs; Episcopal High School; Light of Life
Rescue Mission; Planned Parenthood; St. David's Center for Child
and Family Development; University of Wisconsin -- Eau Claire;
WakeMed Foundation; and Manhattan School of Music
The Plaintiffs in the potential tag-along actions allegedly
received notices from Allina Health; Bank Street College of
Education; Childrens' Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota; Harvard
College; Inova Health System; KidsQuest Children's Museum; Lower
East Side Tenement Museum; Mt. Sinai Health System; Northwest
Memorial Healthcare; Nuvance Health; Planned Parenthood; Stetson
University; Stony Brook University Hospital; and UMass Memorial
Medical Center.
The actions allege that numerous other schools, universities,
healthcare institutions, and non-profit organizations were affected
by the data breach. The Plaintiffs allege that the personal
information compromised by the breach includes user names, email
addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, social security numbers,
credit card numbers, bank account numbers, financial profiles,
passwords, and health information.
The common factual questions include:
(1) Blackbaud's data security practices and whether the
practices
met industry standards;
(2) how the unauthorized access occurred;
(3) the extent of personal information affected by the breach;
(4) when Blackbaud knew or should have known of the breach;
(5) the investigation into the breach; and
(6) the alleged delay in disclosure of the breach to Blackbaud
clients and affected consumers.
Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community—nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42Dv8cF at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Blackbaud Must Oppose Gignac Class Cert. Bid by June 9
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gignac, et al., v.
Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00419 (D.S.C., Filed Feb. 10,
2021), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., entered an amended
scheduling order as follows:
Event Deadline
-- Blackbaud's opposition to class June 9, 2023
Certification:
-- Blackbaud's rebuttal class June 9, 2023
certification expert disclosure:
-- Blackbaud's Daubert Motion on June 9, 2023
Plaintiffs' class certification
Experts:
-- Plaintiffs' deadline to file a Aug. 3, 2023
motion seeking leave to submit
rebuttal expert information with
reply brief:
-- Plaintiffs' response in opposition Sept. 11, 2023
to Blackbaud's Daubert Motions on
Plaintiffs' class certification
Experts:
-- Blackbaud's reply in support of its Oct. 20, 2023
Daubert motion on Plaintiffs' class
certification experts:
-- Plaintiffs' reply in support of their Oct. 20, 2023
motion for class certification:
-- Plaintiffs' Daubert Motions on Oct. 20, 2023
Blackbaud rebuttal class
certification experts:
-- Plaintiffs' reply in support on Jan. 22, 2024
their Daubert Motions on
Blackbaud's rebuttal class
certification experts:
-- Hearing on class certification: TBD
and Daubert Motions:
The Gignac case is consolidated in the Blackbaud, Inc., Customer
Data Breach. The Lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972.
The Plaintiffs in the actions allegedly received data breach
notices from the following organizations: Atrium Health; Bread for
the World; Crystal Stairs; Episcopal High School; Light of Life
Rescue Mission; Planned Parenthood; St. David's Center for Child
and Family Development; University of Wisconsin -- Eau Claire;
WakeMed Foundation; and Manhattan School of Music
The Plaintiffs in the potential tag-along actions allegedly
received notices from Allina Health; Bank Street College of
Education; Childrens' Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota; Harvard
College; Inova Health System; KidsQuest Children's Museum; Lower
East Side Tenement Museum; Mt. Sinai Health System; Northwest
Memorial Healthcare; Nuvance Health; Planned Parenthood; Stetson
University; Stony Brook University Hospital; and UMass Memorial
Medical Center.
The actions allege that numerous other schools, universities,
healthcare institutions, and non-profit organizations were affected
by the data breach. The Plaintiffs allege that the personal
information compromised by the breach includes user names, email
addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, social security numbers,
credit card numbers, bank account numbers, financial profiles,
passwords, and health information.
The common factual questions include:
(1) Blackbaud's data security practices and whether the
practices
met industry standards;
(2) how the unauthorized access occurred;
(3) the extent of personal information affected by the breach;
(4) when Blackbaud knew or should have known of the breach;
(5) the investigation into the breach; and
(6) the alleged delay in disclosure of the breach to Blackbaud
clients and affected consumers.
Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community—nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3odoFWV at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Blackbaud Must Oppose Sloane Class Cert. Bid by June 9
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sloane v. Blackbaud Inc.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-04380 (D.S.C. Filed Dec. 17, 2020), the Hon. Judge
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., entered an amended scheduling order as
follows:
Event Deadline
-- Blackbaud's opposition to class June 9, 2023
Certification:
-- Blackbaud's rebuttal class June 9, 2023
certification expert disclosure:
-- Blackbaud's Daubert Motion on June 9, 2023
Plaintiffs' class certification
Experts:
-- Plaintiffs' deadline to file a Aug. 3, 2023
motion seeking leave to submit
rebuttal expert information with
reply brief:
-- Plaintiffs' response in opposition Sept. 11, 2023
to Blackbaud's Daubert Motions on
Plaintiffs' class certification
Experts:
-- Blackbaud's reply in support of its Oct. 20, 2023
Daubert motion on Plaintiffs' class
certification experts:
-- Plaintiffs' reply in support of their Oct. 20, 2023
motion for class certification:
-- Plaintiffs' Daubert Motions on Oct. 20, 2023
Blackbaud rebuttal class
certification experts:
-- Plaintiffs' reply in support on Jan. 22, 2024
their Daubert Motions on
Blackbaud's rebuttal class
certification experts:
-- Hearing on class certification: TBD
and Daubert Motions:
The Sloane case is consolidated in the Blackbaud, Inc., Customer
Data Breach. The Lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972.
The Plaintiffs in the actions allegedly received data breach
notices from the following organizations: Atrium Health; Bread for
the World; Crystal Stairs; Episcopal High School; Light of Life
Rescue Mission; Planned Parenthood; St. David's Center for Child
and Family Development; University of Wisconsin -- Eau Claire;
WakeMed Foundation; and Manhattan School of Music
The Plaintiffs in the potential tag-along actions allegedly
received notices from Allina Health; Bank Street College of
Education; Childrens' Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota; Harvard
College; Inova Health System; KidsQuest Children's Museum; Lower
East Side Tenement Museum; Mt. Sinai Health System; Northwest
Memorial Healthcare; Nuvance Health; Planned Parenthood; Stetson
University; Stony Brook University Hospital; and UMass Memorial
Medical Center.
The actions allege that numerous other schools, universities,
healthcare institutions, and non-profit organizations were affected
by the data breach. The Plaintiffs allege that the personal
information compromised by the breach includes user names, email
addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, social security numbers,
credit card numbers, bank account numbers, financial profiles,
passwords, and health information.
The common factual questions include:
(1) Blackbaud's data security practices and whether the
practices
met industry standards;
(2) how the unauthorized access occurred;
(3) the extent of personal information affected by the breach;
(4) when Blackbaud knew or should have known of the breach;
(5) the investigation into the breach; and
(6) the alleged delay in disclosure of the breach to Blackbaud
clients and affected consumers.
Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community—nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41HGFqn at no extra charge.[CC]
MONARCH RECOVERY: Class Certified in Rocke Collection Letter Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERWYN ROCKE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MONARCH RECOVERY MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-11736-RWZ (D.
Mass.), the Hon. Judge Rya W. Zobel entered an order certifying a
class of:
(a) all individuals with address in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts
(b) to whom Defendant sent an initial collection letter
attempting
to collect a consumer debt owed to First Premier Bank
(c) which states "Unless you notify this office in writing
within
30 days after receiving this notice that you dispute the
validity of this debt, or any portion thereof, this office
will assume that this debt is valid,"
(d) which letter was sent on between October 23, 2019 to
October
23, 2020.
The Court also entered an order:
1. designating Sherwyin Rocke as Class Representative in the
Action; and
2. authorizing Ari Marcus, Esq., and Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. of
the
firm Marcus & Zelman, LLC is authorized to serve as Class
Counsel for the Class in this action.
Monarch Recovery is a third-party debt recovery agency specializing
in bank and retail credit cards, mortgages, and medical bills.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 11, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IvFfbu at no extra charge.[CC]
NCB MANAGEMENT: Meyer Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NCB Management
Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Kylie Meyer,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NCB
Management Services, Inc., Bank of America Corporation, Case No.
2:23-cv-01340-KNS (E.D. Pa., April 6, 2023).
The nature suit is stated as Other Fraud for Other Contract.
NCB -- https://www.ncbi.com/ -- is a national accounts receivable
management company and debt buyer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
SHUB & JOHNS LLC
Four Tower Bridge
200 Barr Harbor Dr., Suite 400
West Conshohocken, PA 19428
Phone: (610) 477-8380
Email: bjohns@shublawyers.com
- and -
Mark B. Desanto, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Ste. 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 875-3046
Email: mdesanto@bm.net
The Defendant is represented by:
David J. Shannon, Esq.
Michael Salvati, Esq.
Vlada Tasich, Esq.
MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN
2000 Market Street, Suite 2300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 575-2615
Email: djshannon@mdwcg.com
masalvati@mdwcg.com
vxtasich@mdwcg.com
- and -
Daniel C. Fleming, Esq.
WONG FLEMING PC
1500 John F. Kennedy Blvd
Two Penn Center Plaza, Suite 810
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: (215) 546-2776
Email: dfleming@wongfleming.com
NCB MANAGEMENT: Suh Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NCB Management
Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Howard Suh,
individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v. NCB
Management Services, Inc., Bank of America Corporation, Case No.
2:23-cv-01338-KNS (E.D. Pa., April 6, 2023).
The nature suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
NCB -- https://www.ncbi.com/ -- is a national accounts receivable
management company and debt buyer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
SHUB & JOHNS LLC
Four Tower Bridge
200 Barr Harbor Dr., Suite 400
West Conshohocken, PA 19428
Phone: (610) 477-8380
Email: bjohns@shublawyers.com
The Defendant is represented by:
David J. Shannon, Esq.
Michael Salvati, Esq.
Vlada Tasich, Esq.
MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN
2000 Market Street, Suite 2300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 575-2615
Email: djshannon@mdwcg.com
masalvati@mdwcg.com
vxtasich@mdwcg.com
NEW YORK, NY: Ramos Sues Over Racial Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------
Darrell Ramos, on behalf of himself individually, and on behalf of
similarly situated other persons v. CITY OF NEW YORK and NEW YORK
CITY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM ("NYCERS"), and NEW YORK CITY
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Case No. 510727/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
Kings, Cty., April 10, 2023), is brought for relief for Disparate
Impact and Intentional racial discrimination for purposes of
preserving institutional and structural discrimination against
persons of Black/African American and Hispanic descent, as well as
other persons of minority descent, thereby wrongfully depriving the
Plaintiff of the terms, conditions, and privileges of employment,
said discrimination violates the Equal Protection Clause of the New
York State Human Rights Laws ("NYSHRL"), and the New York City
Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL").
On June 1, 2000, the Plaintiff, Darrel Ramos, was appointed to the
Department as a uniform staff member holding the rank of Correction
Officer. On December 31, 2021, Mr. Ramos' employment was terminated
as a Correction Officer for the City of New York.
Since Mr. Ramos entered service of the Department of June 1, 2000,
after June 27, 1976, and before April 1, 2012, Mr. Ramos had the
option of enrolling in NYCERS' Tier 3 Retirement Plan, pursuant to
Article 14 of the New York State Retirement and Social Service Law
("RSSL"), allowing Mr. Ramos to retire after 20 years of service
with the Department. Mr. Ramos was employed by the Department from
June 1, 2000, through December 31, 2021, for a total 21 'A years of
service.
However, according to the Defendant NYCERS, as of his date of
termination, he had less than 20 years of service with the
Department. In fact, according to January 1, 2023, NYCERS
Retirement Summary, Mr. Ramos had 18 years and 7 months and 1 day
of service time with the Department (i.e., Mr. Ramos needed 1 years
and 3 months more to reach 20 years of service with the
Department), and his retirement date, were Mr. Ramos employed with
the Department as of January 1, 2023, would be October 6, 2023,
just 10 months more.
Not only is the NYCERS calculation wrong both as to how much time
Mr. Ramos had with the Department, and it statements are
inconsistent, evincing the Defendants' wrongdoing, but also as
matter of statutory law Mr. Ramos had 21 A years of service time
with the Department.
Additionally, since Mr. Ramos had purchased his 12 months prior
youth time he spent working as a summer youth, Mr. Ramos had an
additional 12-month service time, such that as of the date of his
unlawful termination, he had 22 A years of service time. Mr. Ramos'
original retirement date, upon entering the Department's service
was June 1, 2020. However, upon Mr. Ramos' purchases of his prior
youth time, his date of retirement changed from June 1, 2020, to
June 1, 2019. The issue arises from Mr. Ramos' underlying
suspension. The underlying suspension began in April 2016. However,
the underlying suspension became unpaid in September 2016, and
remained as such through December 31, 2018, for a period of 28
months, although the total underlying suspension period was 31
months.
The Defendants have taken the position that the 28 months of the
underlying suspension is a break in service, therefore, Mr. Ramos'
date of retirement was pushed from June 1, 2020, sometime into the
distant future. Therefore, Plaintiff moves this Court for relief,
mandating that the Defendants, who have a history4 of purposefully
accounting for service time, properly state such, afford Mr. Ramos
his full-service retirement, and related relief, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff who is of Hispanic and Black/African American descent
is a former uniform staff member of the New York City Department
("the Department"), with his employment ending on or about January
1, 2022.
CITY OF NEW YORK was and is a municipal corporation duly organized
and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
E. Dubois Raynor, Esq.
CIVIL RIGHTS CONSORTIUM
Managing Attornery
89-07 Jamaica Avenue
Woodhaven, New York 11421
Phone: (855) 246-2776, Ext. 702
NEW YORK, NY: Seeks June 15 Extension to Oppose Class Cert. Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as O'Leary v. New York City
Department of Education, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01911-WFK-RML
(E.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting
a 30-day extension for them to oppose the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.
The Defendants seek to move the deadline from May 15, 2023, to June
15, 2023, and the time for plaintiff to reply and fully submit the
motion to June 30, 2023.
The New York City Department of Education is the department of the
government of New York City that manages the city's public school
system.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 10, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3q0i8zB at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Kami Barker, Esq.
THE CITY OF NEW YORK
LAW DEPARTMENT
100 CHURCH STREET
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (646) 960-1103
Facsimile: (212) 356-2439
E-mail: kbarker@law.nyc.gov
NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Pope Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeslyn Pope, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-02210-TWT
(N.D. Ga., May 16, 2023), is brought against Defendant for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable
information ("PII") including, but not limited to, Plaintiff's and
Class Members' names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security
numbers, (collectively, "Private Information" or "PII").
NextGen experienced a data breach between March 19, 2023, and April
14, 2023, in which unauthorized third-parties were able to access
certain files on its network. During the course of its business
operations, Defendant acquired, collected, utilized, and derived a
benefit from Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information.
Therefore, Defendant owed and otherwise assumed statutory,
regulatory, and common law duties and obligations, including to
keep Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information
confidential, safe, secure, and protected from the type of
unauthorized access, disclosure, and theft that occurred in the
Data Breach.
On March 30, 2023, Defendant was "alerted to suspicious activity on
its NextGen Office System. An investigation determined that there
was a cybersecurity incident between March 29, 2023, and April 14,
2023, in which unauthorized third parties accessed Plaintiff's and
Class Members' Private Information stored on Defendant's network
(the "Data Breach").
The Defendant launched an investigation into the Data Breach and
confirmed that an unauthorized actor accessed its system and
certain files containing Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private
Information, including, but not limited to, the following: name,
Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and home addresses. Based
on the Notice of Data Breach Letter, Defendant admits that
Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was unlawfully
accessed by a third party.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those
similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding
of Class Members' Private Information that it collected and
maintained, and for failing to provide adequate notice to Plaintiff
and other Class Members that their information had been subject to
the unauthorized access of an unknown third party and precisely
what specific type of information was accessed.
The Defendant maintained the Private Information in a negligent
manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on
computer systems and networks that were in a condition vulnerable
to cyberattack. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the
Data Breach and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's
and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to
Defendant; and, thus, Defendant was on notice that failing to take
appropriate protective measures would expose and increase the risk
that the Private Information could be compromised and stolen, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff provided her Private Information to Defendant and
trusted that the information would be safeguarded according to
state and federal law.
The Defendant NextGen "provides electronic health records and
practice
management solutions to doctors and medical professionals."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Tate, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP
235 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 400
Atlanta, GA 30303
Phone: (404) 282-4806
Email: atate@peifferwolf.com
- and -
Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP
818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
St. Louis, MO 63104
Phone: (314) 833-4825
Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com
NFI MANAGEMENT: Navarrete Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Zuban Isidor Navarrete, an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. NFI Management Services,
LLC, OTS Solutions, LLC, On Time Management and Staffing, NFI
Industries, Inc., Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
23STCV04505 was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April
10, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02665-FMO-MAR to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights for Employment
Discrimination.
NFI -- https://www.nfiindustries.com/ -- is a leading third-party
logistics provider that offers award-winning domestic and
international supply chain solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarah Hannah Cohen, Esq.
David D. Bibiyan, 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: sarah@tomorrowlaw.com
david@tomorrowlaw.com
jeff@tomorrowlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Alvin Arceo, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON PC
16 Dargate Court
Sacramento, CA 95838
Phone: (415) 433-1940
Fax: (415) 399-8490
Email: aarceo@littler.com
- and -
Allison S. Wallin, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON PC
2049 Century Park East 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 553-0308
Fax: (800) 715-1330
Email: AWallin@littler.com
NIKE USA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Sustainability Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
internationalleathermaker.com reports that plaintiff Maria
Guadalupe Ellis filed the complaint with a Missouri federal court,
claiming that Nike presents its products as sustainable or
environmentally friendly despite its materials not living up to
these statements.
Ellis is primarily targeting Nike's use of recycled synthetic
materials, marketed as "green" and in "an effort to increase
profits and to gain an advantage over its lawfully acting
competitors".
The lawsuit cites the Federal Trade Commission's Green Guides,
which don't have legal weight but are a guideline for companies to
avoid misrepresenting the environmental benefits of products and
services. Ellis asserts that Nike's materials are not "sustainable
and/or environmentally responsible materials" and that a limited
number of the products actually contain recycled materials.
According to Ellis, the company is encouraging consumers to "buy
more clothes or throw away garments sooner, in the belief they can
be recycled in some magic machine". She also claims harm on the
basis that she purchased products based on the company's
sustainable marketing language and "would not have purchased the
products at all or would have been willing to pay a substantially
reduced price for [them] if she had known that they were not
sustainable and made from sustainable and environmentally friendly
materials".
Under this price premium allegation, Ellis is also accusing Nike of
violating the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and is seeking
certification of her proposed class action, injunctive relief and
monetary damages. [GN]
NINTENDO CO: Faces Class Suit Over "Immoral" Mario Kart Lootboxes
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Totilo of Axios Gaming reports that with backing from his
father, a young gamer has filed a potential class action lawsuit
against Nintendo over "immoral" microtransactions in the company's
Mario Kart Tour mobile game.
Why it matters: The heat is now on Nintendo, as it's been on other
big game companies, over one of the most lucrative and
controversial ways to make money in the industry.
Details: The suit calls for refunds for all minors in the U.S. who
paid to use Mario Kart Tour's "Spotlight Pipes," which delivered
players in-game rewards using undisclosed odds.
Until last year, Mario Kart Tour players could spend real money to
repeatedly activate the pipes, in the hope they'd randomly produce
useful upgrades.
Between the lines: The suit alleges that Nintendo intentionally
made the game difficult to proceed in without paying, using "dark
patterns," an industry term for tricking consumers, to steer
players toward spending more.
Such practices are alleged to violate Washington State's Consumer
Protection Act and California business law.
The suit was filed in March but emerged on the federal docket last
week after it was moved out of state court. Its plaintiff,
identified as N.A., spent more than $170 on Mario Kart Tour
microtransactions, via his father's credit card, which was linked
to their Nintendo user account.
What they're saying: "Defendant's lootbox mechanism capitalized on
and encouraged addictive behaviors akin to gambling," according to
N.A.'s suit.
It states that minors are particularly susceptible to systems that
involve surprise rewards.
Be smart: Nintendo discontinued use of spotlight pipes in Mario
Kart Tour last September, switching to a system that lets players
directly purchase items offered in its in-game shop.
The company did not respond to Axios' requests for comments about
the suit.
Yes, but: A similar lawsuit filed early last year against Take Two
Interactive over microtransactions was sent to arbitration last
October in a partial win for the game-maker.
The same class action firm is representing plaintiffs in both
cases.
The big picture: The monetization of modern video games has been
drawing more governmental and legal scrutiny in recent years.
In December, the Federal Trade Commission fined Fortnite maker Epic
Games $520 million in part for using "dark patterns" to dupe
players into making unintentional purchases.
And, for years, European authorities have considered whether FIFA
Ultimate Team, the $1 billion lootbox-style revenue stream for
Electronic Arts, constituted illegal gambling or not.
In March, a Canadian judge said an attempted class action suit
against EA's Ultimate Team was "bound to fail" in terms of an
illegal gambling claim but could proceed with allegations of
deceptive practices. [GN]
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Faces Securities Suit Over Misleading Documents
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OHIO CARPENTERS PENSION FUND and CITY OF PONTIAC REESTABLISHED
GENERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN
CORPORATION, ALAN H. SHAW, JAMES A. SQUIRES, MARK R. GEORGE, CLYDE
H. ALLISON, JR., THOMAS D. BELL, JR., MITCHELL E. DANIELS, JR.,
MARCELA D. DONADIO, JOHN C. HUFFARD, CHRISTOPHER T. JONES, THOMAS
C. KELLEHER, STEVEN F. LEER, MICHAEL D.L OCKHART, AMY E. MILES,
CLAUDE MONGEUA, JENNIFER F. SCANLON, JOHN R. THOMPSON, BOFA
SECURITIES, INC., MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, WELLS FARGO SECURITIES,
LLC, CAPITAL ONE SECURITIES, INC., FIFTH THIRD SECURITIES, INC.,
MUFG SECURITIES AMERICA, INC., PNC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, SIEBERT
WILLIAMS SHANK & CO., LLC, SMBC NIKKO SECURITIES AMERICA, INC.,
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC., GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, and U.S.
BANCORP INVESTMENTS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04068
(S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2023) assert claims for violations of the
Securities Act of 1933.
Allegedly, Norfolk Southern's January 2023 Offering Documents
contained false and misleading statements as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about Company's lack of focus on
safety and environmental protection. The documents failed to
disclose that PSR strategy had led to increased train derailments
and an increased risk of future derailments. They also failed to
disclose that the PSR strategy undermined worker safety and the
company's purported "commitment to an injury-free workplace"
because the Company's PSR plan prioritized reducing expenses
through fewer personnel, longer trains, and less spending on safety
training, technology, and equipment. In addition, the offering
documents failed to disclose material facts necessary to apprise
purchasers of the Norfolk Southern Senior Notes of the true risks
inherent in investing in the company in violation of Item 303 and
Item 105 of Securities and Exchange Commission Regulation S-K, says
the suit.
Norfolk Southern is a major rail transportation company. Norfolk
Southern is primarily focused on the rail transportation of raw
materials, intermediate products, and finished goods across the
Southeast, East, and Midwest United States. The Company further
facilitates transport to the remainder of the United States through
interchange with other rail carriers and serves overseas transport
through several Atlantic and Gulf Coast ports. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Francis P. McConville, Esq.
Guillaume Buell, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 8180-0477
E-mail: fmcconville@labaton.com
gbuell@labaton.com
- and -
Cynthia Billings-Dunn, Esq.
ASHERKELLY, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
25800 Northwestern Highway, Suite 1100
Southfield, MI 48075
Telephone: (248) 746-2747
E-mail: cbdunn@asherkellylaw.com
NUTRISHUS BRANDS: Zarzuela Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nutrishus Brands,
Inc. The case is styled as Jose Zarzuela, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nutrishus Brands, Inc.,
Case No. 1:23-cv-04048-RA (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Nutrishus Brands, Inc. doing business as RxSugar --
https://therxsugar.com/ -- is a producer of natural sugar used to
serve it as a healthy alternative.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
ONNIT LABS: Martin Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as Ruth Martin, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Onnit Labs Inc., Case No. 23STCV06839
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on May 16, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-03737-FWS-KES to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Onnit Labs LLC -- http://www.onnit.com/-- manufactures fitness
products. The Company offers supplements, foods, apparel,
accessories, and other athletes related products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Megan O'Neill, Esq.
Erik Paul Mortensen, Esq.
DTO LAW
2400 Broadway, Suite 200
Redwood City, CA 94063
Phone: (415) 630-4100
Fax: (415) 631-4105
Email: moneill@dtolaw.com
emortensen@dtolaw.com
OPENDOOR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in AZ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Opendoor Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the consolidated securities class
suits in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona.
On October 7, 2022 and November 22, 2022, purported securities
class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Arizona, captioned Alich v. Opendoor
Technologies Inc., et al. (Case No. 2:22-cv-01717-JFM) ("Alich")
and Oakland County Voluntary Employee's Beneficiary Association, et
al. v. Opendoor Technologies Inc., et al. (Case No.
2:22-cv-01987-GMS) ("Oakland County"), respectively. The lawsuits
were consolidated into a single action, captioned In re Opendoor
Technologies Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No.
2:22-CV-01717-MTL).
The consolidated amended complaint names as defendants the Company,
Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. II ("SCH"), certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors and the
underwriters of a securities offering the Company made in February
2021. The complaint alleges that the Company and certain officers
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, and
that the Company, SCH, certain officers and directors and the
underwriters violated Section 11 of the Securities Act, in each
case by making materially false or misleading statements related to
the effectiveness of the Company's pricing algorithm.
The plaintiffs also allege that certain defendants violated Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Section 15 of the Securities Act,
respectively, which provide for control person liability.
The complaint asserts claims on behalf of all persons and entities
that purchased, or otherwise acquired, Company common stock between
December 21, 2020 and November 3, 2022 or pursuant to offering
documents issued in connection with our business combination with
SCH and the secondary public offerings conducted by the Company in
February 2021.
The plaintiffs seek class certification, an award of unspecified
compensatory damages, an award of interest and reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees, and other and
further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
The Company believes that the allegations in the complaints are
without merit and it intends to vigorously defend ourselves in the
matter.
Opendoor was formerly known as SCH and operated as a SPAC, also
called a blank-check company, which is a development stage
company.[BN]
OUTER INC: Lovette Files Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Outer Inc. The case
is styled as Octavius Lovette, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Outer Inc., Case No.
2:23-cv-02495-PA-AGR (C.D. Cal., April 3, 2023).
The nature suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Outer Inc. -- https://liveouter.com/ -- offers premium quality,
sustainable outdoor furniture.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 357-2107
Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Bety Javidzad, Esq.
DENTONS US LLP
601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5704
Phone: (213) 623-9300
Fax: (213) 623-9924
Email: bety.javidzad@dentons.com
PARAGON DIE: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Langerak Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
ABIGAIL LANGERAK, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. PARAGON DIE & ENGINEERING
COMPANY d/b/a PARAGON D&E, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-00508-RJJ-PJG (W.D. Mich., May 16, 2023) alleges that the
Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to
provide Plaintiff compensation for overtime hours and rest
periods.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an accounts payable
specialist from May 20, 2022, to March 10, 2023. Allegedly, the
Defendant has a standard practice in which it automatically deducts
20 minutes from its employees' workdays for lunch. In addition, the
Defendant denied Plaintiff at least 100 minutes of compensable
overtime work per week on average during her employment, says the
Plaintiff.
Paragon Die & Engineering Company is a for profit corporation with
its principal place of business in Grand Rapids, Michigan, which is
located in Kent County. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noah S. Hurwitz, Esq.
HURWITZ LAW PLLC
340 Beakes St. Ste. 125
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Telephone: (844) 847-9489
E-mail: Noah@hurwitzlaw.com
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Faces Class Suit Over Bike Recall Notice
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shweta Watwe at news.bloomberglaw.com reports that Peloton
Interactive Inc. faces a class action over bikes recalled this
month because the seat post could break unexpectedly.
Brandy Miller seeks to represent a nationwide class and a South
Carolina sub-class of consumers who bought a Peloton bike between
January 2018 and May 2023, the recall period.
According to the recall notice, "Peloton has received 35 reports of
the seat post breaking and detaching from the bike during use,
including 13 reports of injuries including a fractured wrist,
lacerations and bruises due to falling from the bike."[GN]
PERFECT CORP: Thomas Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Thomas, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. PERFECT CORP., Case No. 2023LA000506 (Ill. 18th Judicial Ct.,
DuPage Cty., May 16, 2023), is brought for violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") for damages and
other legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal
actions of Defendant in collecting, storing, and using Plaintiff's
and other similarly situated individuals' biometric identifiers and
biometric information (referred to collectively as "biometrics")
without obtaining the requisite prior informed written consent or
providing the requisite data retention and destruction policies, in
direct violation of BIPA.
In direct violation of each of the foregoing provisions of BIPA,
the Defendant is actively collecting, storing, and using--without
providing notice, obtaining informed written consent, or publishing
data retention policies--using the face geometry and associated
personally-identifying information of thousands of Illinois
residents who have used the website, https://www.clinique.com (the
"Website"), in Illinois.
Clinique, a large cosmetics and beauty retailer, offers a "try it
on" option ("virtual try-on") for website users to see how cosmetic
products look on their faces. The "try it on" feature makes use of
software developed and administered by Defendant, a "software as a
service" company.
The virtual try-on works by extracting the biometric face geometry
of website users by scanning their faces. Defendant then uses this
face geometry data and proprietary software to digitally apply
cosmetics to live images of the Website user's face. This allows
website users to digitally see what the cosmetics look like on
their faces without needing to visit a physical store.
Using its virtual try-on software, Defendant possesses, captures,
collects, stores, and/or otherwise obtains Website users' face
geometry and related biometric information without complying with
BIPA's requirements. If Defendant's database of website users' face
geometry were to fall into the wrong hands, by data breach or
otherwise, individuals to whom these sensitive biometric
identifiers belong could have their identities stolen or their
financial and other highly personal information breached and used
for nefarious purposes.
BIPA confers on Plaintiff and all other similarly situated Illinois
residents a right to know of such risks inherent to the collection
and storage of biometrics, and a right to know how long such risks
will persist after their use of the website. Yet, Defendant never
adequately informed any of its website users of its biometrics
collection practices, never obtained written consent from any of
the website users regarding their biometric practices prior to
collecting, storing, or otherwise obtaining website users'
biometrics, and never provided any data retention or destruction
policies to any of its website users at the time they first
possessed the biometrics. Plaintiff brings this action to prevent
Defendant from further violating the privacy rights of Illinois
residents, and to recover statutory damages for Defendant's
unauthorized collection, storage, and use of these individuals'
biometrics in violation of BIPA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff used the virtual try-on feature on the Clinique
website to see how lipstick and eyeshadow would look on her.
Perfect Corp. owns and operates virtual try on software for third
party cosmetics retailers.[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 -
Philip L. Fraietta, 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: pfraietta@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
PILOT CATASTROPHE: Clark Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Selina Clark, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Pilot Catastrophe Services, Inc., Case No.
2:23-cv-02083-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill., April 6, 2023), is brought in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to remedy
violations of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL") as a result of
the Defendants failure to pay overtime wages.
The Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees were required
by the Defendant to perform unpaid work before clocking in each
day, including but not limited to starting and logging into and/or
shutting down and logging out the Defendant's computer systems,
numerous software applications, and call system. The Defendant
arbitrarily failed to count this work performed by the Plaintiff
and other similarly-situated employees as "hours worked." The
Defendant utilized a timekeeping system such that the Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees are not paid for all hours worked. The
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees are not compensated for
the time spent working on numerous tasks that were necessary for
their job duties.
As a result of the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees
not being paid for all hours worked, the Plaintiff and other
similarly-situated employees were not paid overtime compensation
for all of the hours they worked over 40 each workweek. The
Defendant failed to make, keep and preserve records of the unpaid
work performed by the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated
employees when not clocked in. The Defendant knowingly and
willfully engaged in the above-mentioned violations of the FLSA,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a claims
specialist/insurance adjustor from February 12, 2019 to January 7,
2021 and the again between October 25, 2021 and August 31, 2022.
Pilot Catastrophe is a corporation for profit with a principal
place of business in Alabama.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L Fradin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN
8401 Crawford Ave., Suite 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Phone: 847/986-5889
Facsimile: 847/673-1228
Email: mike@fradinlaw.com
PLAYTIKA HOLDING: Continues to Defend Bar-Asher Class Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Playtika Holding Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from Bar-Asher class suit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
On November 23, 2021, the Company, its directors and certain of its
officers were named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(Bar-Asher v. Playtika Holding Corp. et al.).
The complaint is allegedly brought on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the Company's securities between January 15, 2021 and
November 2, 2021, and alleges violations of federal securities laws
arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions by the defendants
during the alleged class period.
On March 10, 2022, the court appointed LBMotion Ltd as lead
plaintiff, and the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 6,
2022. The amended complaint alleges violations of Section 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeks, among other things,
damages and attorneys’ fees and costs on behalf of the putative
class. The amended complaint also added the companies that served
as underwriters for the Company's IPO as defendants in the lawsuit.
On September 15, 2022, in accordance with local rules of the Court,
the Company and other defendants in the case filed a letter
notifying the Court of defendants' service upon plaintiffs of,
among other things, a notice of motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
amended complaint and memorandum of law in support of the
defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint, and on
November 30, 2022, the Company filed with the Court the motion to
dismiss.
As the case is in preliminary stages, the Company cannot estimate
what impact, if any, the litigation may have on its results of
operations, financial condition or cash flows.
The Company has defended this case vigorously and will continue to
do so.
PLAYTIKA HOLDING CORP. operates as a digital entertainment
company.
The Company specializes in the development and publication of free
to play mobile games. [BN]
PNC BANK: Court Narrows Claims in Ratulowski Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VINCENT I. RATULOWSKI, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. PNC BANK,
N.A., d/b/a PNC AUTO FINANCE, Case No. 2:22-cv-00004-PPS-APR (N.D.
Ind.), theg Hon. Judge Philip P. Simon entered an order granting in
part and denying in part PNC's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
First Amended Multi-State Class Action Complaint Pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6):
-- Count II (money had and received) and Count III (declaratory
judgment) are dismissed without prejudice.
-- PNC's Motion to Strike Class Allegations from the
Plaintiff’s
First Amended Multi-State Class Action Complaint is granted.
-- Ratulowski will be given 30 days from the date of this order
in
which to file a an amended complaint.
A final issue is worth noting at this point. Ratulowski admittedly
did not reside in or purchase a GAP product in any state other than
Indiana, yet he seeks to represent a Multi-State Class of consumers
in five other states. At this juncture I will withhold judgment on
the propriety of Ratulowski asserting class claims on behalf of
customers
aggrieved by violations of consumer protection laws in states in
which he does not reside and has never purchased a GAP product.
However, the First Amended Complaint does not appear to allege a
personal injury-in-fact in the five other states included in the
putative Multi-State Class, Judge Simon says.
Ratulowski seeks to assert claims on behalf of a Multi-State Class
consisting of:
"All persons (1) who entered into finance agreements with GAP
addendums in an Automatic Refund State that were assigned to
PNC;
(2) who paid off their finance agreements before the end of the
contract term during the time period that the applicable
Automatic
Refund Law was in effect; and (3) who did not receive a credit
or
refund of the unearned GAP fees and/or the accrued interest on
those unpaid amounts."
The class period is based on the applicable statutes of
limitations in each of the Automatic Refund States.
He further seeks to assert claims on behalf of an Indiana
Subclass consisting of:
All persons (1) who entered into finance agreements with GAP
addendums in the State of Indiana that were assigned to PNC; (2)
who paid off their finance agreements before the end of the
contract term during the time period that an Automatic Refund
Law
was in effect; and (3) who did not receive a credit or refund of
the unearned GAP fees and/or the accrued interest on those
unpaid
amounts. The class period is based on the applicable statutes of
limitations in Indiana.
In sum, the putative Multi-State Class and Indiana Subclass are
defined to include only those individuals who entered finance
agreements with GAP addendums in an Automatic Refund State, and who
paid off their finance agreement early during the time period that
the applicable Automatic Refund Law was in effect.
The Plaintiff Vincent Ratulowski claims that PNC Bank knowingly
collects and unlawfully retains unearned insurance fees that are
sold as an add-on to automobile finance agreements. He brings three
claims: one for breach of contract; a second under an obscure
equitable concept known as "money had and received"; and finally,
he seeks a declaratory judgment relating to the parties’ rights
and obligations under contracts of insurance. Ratulowski also
brings class claims on behalf of both a Multi-State Class and
Indiana Subclass consisting of similarly aggrieved auto finance
customers.
The case is about "GAP fees" -- shorthand for "Guaranteed Asset
Protection" fees -- and a creditor's legal obligation to remit any
such fees paid by a customer but "unearned" by the creditor. Let's
start by explaining what GAP fees are. Anybody who has visited a
car lot is familiar with the idea of financing the purchase of a
new car.
PNC Bank offers a wide range of personal banking services including
checking and savings accounts, credit cards, mortgage loans, auto
loans and much more.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 10, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pXJaaI at no extra charge.[CC]
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Faces Young Suit Over Unlawful Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Accounts Recovery reports that we have seen plenty of lawsuits
filed due to the lack of a date on the Model Validation Notice, but
this might be one of the first claiming the defendant failed to
document the information in the itemization table correctly. A
class-action lawsuit has been filed in Washington federal court
accusing a collector of violating the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act because it allegedly "lumped" the principal and
interest together instead of breaking it out separately in a Model
Validation Notice.
A copy of the complaint, filed in the District Court for the
Western District of Washington, can be accessed using case number
23-cv-05410.
The plaintiff received the Model Validation Notice from the
defendant last August. It informed the plaintiff that the balance
on the debt was $3,491.65. The itemization table listed that amount
on the "As of August 31, 2020, you owed:" line of the table. The
remaining lines -- interest, fees, and any amount that was credited
to the account -- were all listed as $0.00. But, the plaintiff
claims, there had been interest that was charged by the defendant
or one of the debt's previous owners. The complaint doesn't include
any substantiation or corroboration to that claim; it's just noted
as being "upon information and belief."
The Model Validation Notice also does not indicate whether interest
is continuing to accrue on the balance, which the plaintiff claims,
is deceptive and misleading.
The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692e,
1692e(2), 1692e(5), 1692e(10), and 1692g of the FDCPA. It seeks to
include anyone else who received a Model Validation Notice from the
defendant who received a similar notice where it claimed the entire
balance owed included $0.00 of interest, despite some interest
having accrued on the debt. [GN]
ROBESON HEALTH CARE: McKenzie Files Suit in E.D. North Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Robeson Health Care
Corporation. The case is styled as Julianna Laura McKenzie, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Robeson
Health Care Corporation, Case No. 7:23-cv-00979-FL (E.D.N.C., May
15, 2023).
The nature suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Robeson Health Care Corporation -- https://www.rhcchealth.org/ --
provides medical practices such as dental, breast, and cervical
cancer control programs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN PHILLPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Phone: (919) 600-5000
Fax: (919) 600-5035
Email: sharris@milberg.com
SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CA: Barnes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against County of Sacramento,
et al. The case is styled as Jael Barnes, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. County of Sacramento, Does 1-50,
Case No. 34-2023-00337769-CU-CR-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento
Cty., April 11, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Sacramento County -- https://www.saccounty.net/ -- is a county
located in the U.S. state of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott B Rapkin, Esq.
RAPKIN & ASSOCIATES, LLP
475 Washington Blvd.
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-5287
Phone: 310-319-5465
Fax: 310-306-1339
Email: scottrapkin@rapkinesq.com
- and -
Barrett S Litt, Esq.
MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT LLP
975 E Green St.,
Pasadena, CA 91106-2410
Phone: 626-844-7660
Fax: 626-844-7670
Email: blitt@mbllegal.com
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CA: Patron Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against County of San
Joaquin. The case is styled as Nivea Patron, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. County of San Joaquin, Case
No. STK-CV-UCR-2023-0003647 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty.,
April 11, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil - Civil Rights."
San Joaquin County -- https://www.sjgov.org/ -- officially the
County of San Joaquin, is a county located in the U.S. state of
California.[BN]
SANDERSON FARMS: Broiler Class Settlement Final Hearing Set Aug. 25
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that the final approval hearing for the
broiler chicken growers settlement is scheduled for Aug. 25, 2023
in the captioned - case In re: Broiler Chicken Grower Antitrust
Litigation (No. II), Case No. 6:20-2977-RJS-CMR.
Sanderson Farms agreed to a $17.75 million settlement to resolve
claims it violated federal antitrust laws by working with other
chicken companies to short-change broiler chicken growers.
The settlement benefits individuals and entities who were paid for
broiler grow-out services by any defendant or alleged
co-conspirator between Jan. 27, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2019.
Defendants in the case are Tyson, Pilgrim's Pride, Perdue, Koch and
Sanderson Farms.
Alleged co-conspirators in the case are Agri Stats Inc., Foster
Farms, Mountaire Farms, Wayne Farms, George's Inc., Peco Foods
Inc., House of Raeford Farms, Simmons Foods, Keystone Foods
Fieldale Farms Corp., O.K. Industries, Case Foods, Marshall Durbin
Companies, Amick Farms Inc., Mar-Jac Poultry Inc., Harrison Poultry
Inc., Claxton Poultry Farms and Norman W. Fries Inc.
According to the class action lawsuit from broiler chicken growers,
Tyson, Pilgrim's Pride, Perdue, Koch and Sanderson Farms violated
antitrust laws by conspiring together to suppress the value of
chicken growing services. As a result of this alleged scheme,
broiler chicken growers were compensated at a lower rate than they
would have been in a competitive market, the growers claim.
Sanderson Farms is a chicken company that sells various chicken
cuts. Like other chicken sellers, Sanderson Farms contracts broiler
chicken growers to raise chickens.
Sanderson hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $17.75
million settlement to resolve the broiler chicken antitrust class
action lawsuit claims. Other settlements have been reached in the
same case with Koch, Tyson and others.
Under the terms of the settlement, broiler chicken growers can
receive a share of the settlement fund based on the amount they
received in payments from the defendants for broiler grow-out
services. Growers who received a larger share of these payments
will receive a larger share of the net settlement fund.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is July 31, 2023.
The final approval hearing for the broiler chicken growers
settlement is scheduled for Aug. 25, 2023.
In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit
a valid claim form by Dec. 13, 2023.
Who's Eligible
Individuals and entities who were paid for broiler grow-out
services by any defendant or alleged co-conspirator between Jan.
27, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2019.
Defendants: Tyson, Pilgrim's Pride, Perdue, Koch and Sanderson
Farms.
Alleged co-conspirators: Agri Stats Inc., Foster Farms, Mountaire
Farms, Wayne Farms, George's Inc., Peco Foods Inc., House of
Raeford Farms, Simmons Foods, Keystone Foods Fieldale Farms Corp.,
O.K. Industries, Case Foods, Marshall Durbin Companies, Amick Farms
Inc., Mar-Jac Poultry Inc., Harrison Poultry Inc., Claxton Poultry
Farms and Norman W. Fries Inc.
Potential Award
Varies.
Proof of Purchase
Documentation of payments received for broiler grow-out services.
Claim Form Deadline
12/13/2023
Case Name
In re: Broiler Chicken Grower Antitrust Litigation (No. II), Case
No. 6:20-2977-RJS-CMR, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Oklahoma
Final Hearing
08/25/2023
Settlement Website
BroilerGrowersAntitrustSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
In re Broiler Chicken Grower Antitrust Litigation (Sanderson
Settlement)
c/o Settlement Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Info@BroilerGrowersAntitrustSettlement.com
833-907-3700
Class Counsel
Eric L Cramer
Patrick F Madden
David A Langer
Ellen T Noteware
Michaela L Wallin
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
Michael D Hausfeld
James J Pizzirusso
Melinda R Coolidge
Samantha S Derksen
Gary I Smith Jr
Kyle G Bates
HAUSFELD LLP
Defense Counsel
Christopher E Ondeck
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP [GN]
SBM SITE: Arredondo-Macias Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Virginia Arredondo-Macias, an individual and class
representative on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated non-exempt former and current employees, Plaintiffs v. SBM
Site Services, LLC, a Oregon Corporation; ABM Industry Groups, LLC,
a Delaware Corporation; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 23STCV05624, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on May 11, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-03599 to the proceeding.
In this complaint, the Plaintiff brings eight claims: (1) failure
to provide required meal periods; (2) failure to provide required
rest periods; (3) failure to pay overtime wages; (4) failure to
maintain required records; (5) waiting time penalties; (6) failure
to furnish accurate itemized statements; (7) unfair and unlawful
business practices; (8) Private Attorneys General Act.
SBM Site Services, LLC provides building maintenance services.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Laura Fleming, Esq.
Alejandro G. Ruiz, Esq.
Connor L. Kridle, Esq.
PAYNE & FEARS LLP
4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
Irvine, CA 92614
Telephone: (949) 851-1100
Facsimile: (949) 851-1212
E-mail: lf@paynefears.com
agr@paynefears.com
clk@paynefears.com
SEATGEEK INC: Settles Class Suit Over COVID–19 Event Ticket
Refunds
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that SeatGeek has agreed to a nationwide
class action settlement to end claims it did not provide customers
with full cash refunds for events canceled during the pandemic, in
violation of the law.
The settlement affects SeatGeek users who made a purchase of
tickets to a live event via SeatGeek's mobile website between Sept.
10, 2019, and March 17, 2020, where the event was canceled and not
rescheduled.
It applies only in cases where the purchaser received a credit from
SeatGeek without affirmatively opting to take the credit, where
they paid SeatGeek for the purchase, the purchase did not occur
after they had created a SeatGeek account, they did not already
receive a refund for the purchase and they did not use the credit
offered.
The lawsuit, originally filed by plaintiff Rebecca Vigil, alleged
SeatGeek did not provide customers with full cash refunds for
events canceled during the COVID-19 pandemic and that such refunds
were required by the company's Buyer Guarantee.
SeatGeek denies wrongdoing as part of the settlement, maintaining
it acted consistently with the terms of use published on its
website and through its mobile app and gave customers the option to
receive cash.
SeatGeek bills itself as the "web's largest event ticket search
engine" and went public in 2021 with a valuation of $1.35 billion.
It sells tickets nationwide for some of the country's biggest
music, sport and theater live events.
As a result of the settlement, each eligible class member is by
default entitled to receive a refund payment equal to the amount of
each transaction covered under the settlement. SeatGeek has a list
of eligible class members who it has sent notices to. Anyone who
receives a default refund will forfeit any previously issued
credits for covered transactions.
Class members can also apply to retain any unused credits issued by
SeatGeek for transactions covered under the settlement. Class
members who used the credits issued before the settlement date will
not be issued a refund.
Class members who do not submit a claim form by the response
deadline of Aug. 14 will automatically receive a refund payment and
will no longer have access to any previously received credits for
the covered transactions.
To choose between an extended credit or a refund, you must submit a
claim form at TicketLitigationSettlement.com or by postal mail.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Aug. 14, 2023.
The final approval hearing for the SeatGeek refunds settlement is
scheduled for Oct. 18, 2023.
To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by Aug. 14, 2023.
Who's Eligible
SeatGeek users who made a purchase of tickets to a live event via
SeatGeek's mobile website between Sept. 10, 2019, and March 17,
2020, and whose event was canceled and not rescheduled, where the
purchaser received a credit from SeatGeek without affirmatively
opting to take the credit, where they paid SeatGeek for the
purchase, the purchase did not occur after they had created a
SeatGeek account, they did not already receive a refund for the
purchase and they did not use the credit offered.
Potential Award
Varies
Proof of Purchase
Personal claim number
Claim Form Deadline
08/14/2023
Case Name
Vigil, et al. v. SeatGeek Inc., Case No. 20-cv-03248-JPC, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Final Hearing
10/18/2023
Settlement Website
TicketLitigationSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Vigil v. SeatGeek Claims Administrator
P.O. Box 301132
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1132
Class Counsel
Steven D Liddle
Nicholas A Coulson
LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON PC
Defense Counsel
N/A [GN]
SEC TRANSPORTATION: Trotter Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SEC Transportation,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Tara Trotter, Individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated employees v. SEC
Transportation, Inc., Stockton Educational Center, Inc., Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2023-0003641 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April
11, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
SEC Transportation, Inc. is a shipping company in Tennessee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin P. Rodriguez, Esq.
SHIMODA & RODRIGUEZ LAW, PC
9401 E Stockton Blvd., Ste. 120
Elk Grove, CA 95624-5050
Phone: 916-525-0716
Fax: 916-760-3733
Email: jrodriguez@shimodalaw.com
SHIFTPIXY INC: Faces Splond Labor Suit in Nevada Court
------------------------------------------------------
Shiftpixy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended February 28, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 14, 2023, that on April 8, 2019, claimant,
Corey Splond, filed a class action lawsuit, on behalf of himself
and other similarly situated individuals in the Eighth Judicial
District Court for the State of Nevada, Clark County, naming the
company and its client as defendants, and alleging violations of
certain wage and hour laws. Discovery is proceeding in the case,
and no trial date has been set.
Shiftpixy, Inc. provides human resources, employment compliance,
employment related insurance, payroll, and operational employment
services solutions based in Florida.
SIEGE ELECTRIC: O'Brien Sues Over Delayed Payment of Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
JAMES O'BRIEN, an individual; RICKY JORDAN, an individual; TIM
MATTHES, an individual; JEREMY BURTON, an individual; GREGORY
DRUMMONDS, an individual; and JOSHUA WALTER, an individual,
Plaintiffs v. SIEGE ELECTRIC, INC., a corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 3:23-cv-00897-BAS-DEB (S.D. Cal., May 16, 2023) is a class
action arising out of the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the California Labor Code.
One of the Plaintiffs, James O'Brien, had been employed by
Defendant Siege from May 10, 2022 to August 16, 2022 as a
journeyman wireman. Beginning in June 2022, Defendant Siege
periodically failed to pay wages on the date they became due and
refused to ensure all future payments were paid on time.
Further, Defendant Siege, during the regular course of business,
paid the Plaintiffs wages by checks which were subsequently
returned for insufficient funds and failed to pay the Plaintiffs
the associated waiting time penalties owed as required by the
California Labor Code, says the suit.
Siege is a California corporation with its headquarters in San
Diego County. It is a construction industry employer and an
electrical contractor licensed by the state of California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ricardo Ochoa, Esq.
Ricardo Martinez, Esq.
OCHOA|LAW
3737 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 407
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 285-1662
E-mail: rochoa@union-attorneys.org
rmartinez@union-attorneys.org
SPIRIT AIRLINES: Mandeng Wiretapping Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KAYLA MANDENG, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC.
Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00233, was transferred from the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California to
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania on May 11, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00784-MJH to the proceeding.
This is a class action brought against Spirit for wiretapping the
electronic communications of Plaintiff and other visitors to its
website, www.spirit.com. Spirit procures third-party vendors, such
as FullStory, to embed snippets of JavaScript computer code on
Spirit's website, which then deploys on each website visitor's
Internet browser for the purpose of intercepting and recording the
website visitor's electronic communications with the Spirit
website, including their mouse movements, clicks, keystrokes (such
as text being entered into an information field or text box), URLs
of web pages visited, and/or other electronic communications in
real-time. Spirit's conduct violates the California Invasion of
Privacy Act and constitutes the torts of invasion of the privacy
rights and intrusion upon seclusion of website visitors, says the
suit.
Spirit Airlines, Inc. is a major United States ultra-low cost
airline headquartered in Miramar, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Pizzirusso, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street, Ste 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
- and -
Steven Nathan, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 357-1100
Facsimile: (212) 202-4322
E-mail: snathan@hausfeld.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Rebekah Strawn Guyon, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 586-7700
Facsimile: (310) 586-7800
E-mail: guyonr@gtlaw.com
SR1701 INSTALLATION: Villalobos Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Villalobos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SR1701 INSTALLATION INC. and JUAN SEBASTIAN RINCON, as
an individual, Case No. 1:23-cv-03648 (S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2023), is
brought to recover damages for the Defendants' egregious violations
of state and federal wage and hour laws, the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Laws arising out of the Defendants
failure to pay overtime wages.
Although Plaintiff regularly worked approximately 54 hours or more
hours each week from in or around March 2021 until in or around
March 2023, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at a wage rate of
time and a half for his hours regularly worked over 40 hours in a
work week, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained
in the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants.
SR1701 INSTALLATION INC., is a New York domestic business
corporation, organized under the laws of the State of New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Phone: 718-263-9591
SSM HEALTH: Hawkins' Suit Removed to E.D. Mo.
---------------------------------------------
The case styled TARA HAWKINS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SSM HEALTH CARE CORP. d/b/a
SSM HEALTH, SSM-SLUH, INC. d/b/a SSM HEALTH SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY
HOSPITAL, and SSM HEALTH CARE ST. LOUIS d/b/a SSM HEALTH ST. MARY'S
HOSPITAL-ST. LOUIS, Defendants, Case No. 2322-CC00706, was removed
from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri,
to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri on May 11, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:23-cv-00633 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff brought this action on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated alleging SSM engaged in unlawful practices by
failing to disclose to her and other patients certain fees for
emergency department visits. The petition asserts three causes of
action: violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act,
negligence per se, and unjust enrichment.
SSM Health Care Corp. provides health care services.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Kevin F. Hormuth, Esq.
Abby L. Risner, Esq.
GREENSFELDER, HEMKER & GALE, P.C.
10 South Broadway, Suite 2000
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 345-4785
Facsimile: (314) 345-5465
E-mail: kfh@greensfelder.com
alr@greensfelder.com
STANFORD HEALTH: Gibson Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DAVINA GIBSON, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STANFORD HEALTH
CARE, Defendant, Case No. 23CV413522, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on May 11, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:23-cv-02320 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff's three-count complaint purports to challenge
Stanford's routine on-line practices as various invasions of
privacy, including alleged violations of (1) the California
Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code Section 631(a); (2) the
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act Section 56.10; and (3)
California's Constitutional right to privacy.
Stanford Health Care operates a website, stanfordhealthcare.org
that, among other things, provides information to the public about
Stanford and allows patients to access their medical records
through a Stanford patient portal.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Teresa C. Chow, Esq.
Dyanne J. Cho, Esq.
Alexander Vitruk, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
Telephone: (310) 820-8800
Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
E-mail: tchow@bakerlaw.com
dcho@bakerlaw.com
avitruk@bakerlaw.com
SUCCESSFULMATCH.COM: Massel Sues Over BIPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
Michael Massel, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Successfulmatch.com d/b/a Millionaire Match;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
5:23-cv-02389-SVK (N.D. Cal., May 16,2023) arises out of the
Defendant's violations of the Biometric Information Privacy Act.
Plaintiff Massel alleges that Millionaire Match's unlawful
collection, obtainment, storage, and use of its users' biometric
data exposes them to serious and irreversible privacy risks since
facial geometry and fingerprint scans are unique, permanent
biometric identifiers cannot be changed or replaced if stolen or
compromised.
Millionaire Match is a California corporation which operates as the
largest millionaire dating service boasting over 5,000,000 active
users in its online dating community.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Leah M. Beligan, Esq.
Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq.
BELIGAN LAW GROUP, LLP
19800 MacArthur Blvd., Ste. 300
Newport Beach, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 224-3881
E-mail: lmbeligan@bbclawyers.net
jbeligan@bbclawyers.net
- and -
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
FRADIN LAW
8 N. Court St. Suite 403
Athens, OH 45701
Telephone: (847) 986-5889
Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
SIMON LAW CO.
5000 Rockside Road
Liberty Plaza - Suite 520
Independence, OH 44131
Telephone: (216) 816-8696
E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com
SUMMIT HEALTH: Stewart Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Deshanee Stewart, and Sevaria Wills, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. SUMMIT HEALTH MANAGEMENT, LLC, d/b/a
CITYMD and CITY PRACTICE GROUP OF NEW YORK LLC, d/b/a CITYMD, Case
No. 1:23-cv-04073 (S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2023), is brought pursuant to
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law
("NYLL"), that she is entitled to recover from Defendants: unpaid
wages, including overtime wages, due to timeshaving; compensation
for late payment of wages; statutory penalties; liquidated damages;
and attorney's fees and costs.
Throughout Plaintiffs' employment with Defendants and regardless of
location worked, Plaintiffs worked their scheduled hours, and then
worked hours beyond those hours, which went uncompensated. This
resulted in employees being shorted hours and missing pay.
Plaintiffs were forced to routinely correct Defendants' errors, and
Defendants failed to reimburse Plaintiffs for all missed payments.
a regular basis, Defendants also failed to timely pay Plaintiffs
their wages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were hired by Defendants to work as a patient care
representatives for the Defendants' Facility.
The Defendants own and manage CityMD facilities in New York
City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Phone: 212-465-1188
Fax: 212-465-1181
SUNLIGHT FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Fung Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunlight Financial Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from Fung securities fraud class suit in
the Southern District of New York.
On December 16, 2022, Kathie Fung filed a putative securities fraud
class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York (Case No.
1:22-cv-10658) against the Company and certain of our current and
former officers and directors.
The lawsuit alleges that the defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material
adverse facts about Sunlight's business, operations, and financial
prospects.
Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that Sunlight's positive
statements about Sunlight's business, operations, and financial
prospects were materially misleading because Sunlight allegedly
lacked effective internal controls and oversight that led to
Sunlight taking a non-cash advance receivables impairment charge
exceeding $30 million in September 2022.
The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages and the recovery of fees,
including attorneys' fees. After the complaint was filed, Matthew
Millunchick was named as lead plaintiff.
An amended complaint is due May 22, 2023 and the Company's
subsequent response is due on or before July 21, 2023.
Sunlight believes the lawsuit and the allegations contained therein
are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the
litigation.
Sunlight claims to be a business-to-business-to-consumer POS
financing platform that provides residential solar and home
improvement contractors the ability to offer seamless POS
financing
to their customers when purchasing residential solar systems or
other home improvements.[BN]
SUNLIGHT FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Mumpower Class Suit in NC
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sunlight Financial Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from Mumpower class suit in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North
Carolina.
On March 10, 2023, a group of plaintiffs, including Claude
Mumpower, among others, filed a putative class action lawsuit in
the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of
North Carolina (Case No. 22-50228) against Power Home Solar LLC,
Jayson Waller, Sunlight Financial LLC, Dividend Solar Finance LLC,
Goodleap LLC, Solar Mosaic Inc., Cross River Bank, Technology
Credit Union, Digital Federal Credit Union, Addition Federal Credit
Union, SLST Underlying Trust 2020-1, and Does 1-10.
The lawsuit alleges that sales representatives of Power Home Solar
LLC made materially false and/or misleading statements to consumers
about the efficiency, effectiveness, benefits, and costs of the
solar panel systems being sold by Power Home Solar LLC, and misled
consumers about the availability of federal solar tax incentives.
The lawsuit seeks to hold the defendants involved in financing
consumers' purchases of solar panel systems, including but not
limited to Sunlight, liable for these alleged misrepresentations.
The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, rescission, compensatory
damages, treble damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, and
the recovery of attorneys' fees.
Sunlight believes the lawsuit and the allegations contained therein
are without merit and plans to vigorously defend against them.
Sunlight claims to be a business-to-business-to-consumer POS
financing platform that provides residential solar and home
improvement contractors the ability to offer seamless POS
financing
to their customers when purchasing residential solar systems or
other home improvements.[BN]
SYSCO CORPORATION: Trottier Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Trottier, Individually and behalf of all other similarly
situated v. SYSCO CORPORATION, Case No. 1:23-cv-00620 (E.D. Wis.,
May 16, 2023), is brought against Defendant for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information
("PII") of more than 71,000 individuals, including, but not limited
to: names, Social Security numbers, account numbers, other personal
information that Sysco had for payroll purposes, and other
information such as phone numbers, addresses, and email addresses.
Prior to March 5, 2023, Defendant obtained the PII of Plaintiff and
Class Members, including by collecting it directly from Plaintiff
and Class Members. Prior to March 5, 2023, Defendant stored the PII
of Plaintiff and Class Members, unencrypted, in an
Internet-accessible environment on Defendant's network. On March 5,
2023, Defendant learned of a data breach on its network that
occurred on or around January 14, 2023 to March 5, 2023 (the "Data
Breach"). Defendant determined that, during the Data Breach, an
unknown actor accessed and/or acquired the PII of Plaintiff and
Class Members.
On May 2, 2023, Defendant notified the US Securities and Exchange
Commission of the Data Breach. On May 3, 2023, Defendant began
notifying Plaintiff and Class Members of the Data Breach with an
internal memo and on May 5, 2023 with a Notice mailed to Plaintiff
and Class Members.
By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the
PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and
equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that
information from unauthorized access and intrusion. Defendant
admits that the unencrypted PII that was accessed and/or acquired
by an unauthorized actor included name, social security number,
account numbers, and other information such as phone number,
address, and email address.
The PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or
careless acts and omissions and the failure to protect the PII of
Plaintiff and Class Members. In addition to Defendant's failure to
prevent the Data Breach, Defendant waited around two months after
the Data Breach occurred to report it to the states Attorneys
General and affected individuals. Defendant has also purposefully
maintained secret the specific vulnerabilities and root causes of
the breach and has not informed Plaintiff and Class Members of that
information.
As a result of this delayed response, Plaintiff and Class Members
had no idea their PII had been compromised, and that they were, and
continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various
other forms of personal, social, and financial harm, including the
sharing and detrimental use of their sensitive information. The
risk will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff received a Notice Letter, via U.S. mail, directly
from the Defendant, dated May 5, 2023.
Sysco is the global leader in selling marketing and distributing
food products to restaurants, healthcare and educational
facilities, lodging establishments and other customers who prepare
meals away from home.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
Grossman, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP
818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
St. Louis, MO 63104
Phone: (314) 833-4825
Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com
TESLA MOTORS: Baer Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ELIJAH BAER, JOSHUA BAYANGOS, RONALD GRUEL, ISAIAH
HAMPTON, NATHAN JOHNSON, CHANDRASEKAR KUPPUCHAMY, DEREK LEWIS,
DESERIE MARTIN, JOSEPH MARTINEZ, MAYRENI MORALES, SHONTAE STEPHENS,
SIENNA STEPHENS, RUDY VALDEZ, JATEL VERCHER, and KAYLA WILLIAMS,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. TESLA MOTORS, INC., a California corporation, and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22CV024984, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on May 10, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-02274 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiffs' first amended complaint seeks damages and penalties
for Defendant's: (1) failure to pay minimum and straight time
wages; (2) failure to pay overtime wages; (3) failure to provide
meal periods; (4) failure to authorize and permit rest periods; (5)
failure to timely pay final wages at termination; (6) failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements; (7) failure to indemnify
employees for expenditures; and (8) unfair business practices; as
well as civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act.
Tesla Motors, Inc. is an American multinational automotive and
clean energy company.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
John S. Battenfeld, Esq.
Tuyet T. Nguyen Lu, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
Telephone: (213) 612-2500
Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
E-mail: john.battenfeld@morganlewis.com
tuyet.nguyen@morganlewis.com
- and -
J.P. Schreiber, Esq.
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 442-1000
Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
E-mail: jp.schreiber@morganlewis.com
TMX FINANCE: Berry Files Suit in S.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TMX Finance Corporate
Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Makecia Berry, Darryl
Fleming, Sofia Howey, Deann Cox, Derrick Norris, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TMX Finance Corporate
Services, Inc., TMX Finance, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00134-RSB-CLR
(S.D. Ga., May 16, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract
Default.
TMX Finance Corporate Services, Inc. --
https://www.tmxfinancefamily.com/ -- provides consumer credit
products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
29 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
Orlando, FL 32801
Phone: (407) 420-1414
Fax: (407) 245-3401
Email: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
TRANSDEV ALTERNATIVE: Gunawan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transdev Alternative
Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Felix Gunawan, Saif
Ahmed, Taje Fleming, Toma Stavrev, individuals, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v.
Transdev Alternative Services, Inc., Does 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. CGC23606561 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 15,
2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Transdev -- https://www.transdev.com/en/ -- is the largest private
sector operator of multiple modes of transit in North America,
providing bus, rail, paratransit, shuttle, sedan and taxi
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas James Blouw, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037-3107
Phone: 858-952-0354
Fax: 858-551-1232
Email: DeBlouw@bamlawca.com
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Thompson Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Regina Thompson, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated v. Travelers Indemnity Company, St. Paul
Protective Insurance Company, Case No. MID-L-02108-23 was removed
from the Superior Court, Law Division: Middlesex County, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on May 15, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-02630 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Account Receivable.
Travelers -- https://www.travelers.com/ -- provides commercial and
personal property and casualty insurance products and services to
businesses, government units, associations, and individuals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Galpern, Esq.
JAVERBAUM WURGAFT HICKS KAHN WIKSTROM &SININS
Laurel Oak Corporate Center
1000 Haddonfield-Berlin Road, Suite 203
Voorhees, NJ 08043
Phone: (856) 596-4100
Fax: (856) 702-6640
Email: mgalpern@lawjw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Erika Marie Lopes-Mcleman
DENTONS US LLP
101 JFL Parkway, Fourth Floor
Short Hills, NJ 07078
Phone: (973) 912-7100
Email: erika.lopes-mcleman@dentons.com
TUFTS MEDICAL CENTER: McManus Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Karen McManus, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. TUFTS MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Case No.
2384CV00930 was removed from the Superior Court of the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts for the County of Suffolk, to the District of
Massachusetts on May 16, 2023, and assigned Case No.
1:23-cv-11090-ADB.
The Plaintiff's Complaint purports to challenge Tufts MC's routine
on line practices as illegal wiretapping under the Massachusetts
Wiretap Act.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward F. Haber
Michelle H. Blauner
Patrick J. Valley
SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
One Boston Place, Suite 2600
Boston, MA 02108
Email: ehaber@shulaw.com
mblauner@shulaw.com
pvalley@shulaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
James H. Rollinson, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
127 Public Street, Suite 2000
Cleveland, OH 44116
Phone: (216) 621-0200
Fax: (216) 626-0740
Email: jrollinson@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1801 California Street, Suite 4400
Denver, CO 80202-2662
Phone: (303) 764-4013
Fax: (303) 861-7805
Email: pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Elizabeth A. Scully, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
Washington Square, Suite 1100
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-5304
Phone: (202) 861-1500
Fax: (202) 861-1783
Email: escully@bakerlaw.com
UNITED STATES: Alaimaleata Files Suit in D. Hawaii
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The United States of
America. The case is styled as Elisapeta Alaimaleata; Keresema
Alaimaleata; Benjamin Alaimaleata; Gregory Benton; Ana Benton;
In-Young Feist; A.F., S.F., Minors, by and through their Guardian
Ad Litem Joseph Feist; Fetuao Tuupo; M.T., a Minor, by and through
her Guardian Ad Litem Elisapeta Alaimaleata; individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. The United States of
America, Does 1 through 10, Case No. 1:23-cv-00164-LEK-KJM (D.
Hawaii, April 10, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Federal Tort Claims
Act.
The United States of America (U.S.A. or USA) --
https://www.usa.gov/ -- commonly known as the United States (U.S.
or US) or America, is a country primarily located in North
America.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert M. Hatch, Esq.
Margery S. Bronster, Esq.
BRONSTER FUJICHAKU ROBBINS
Pauahi Tower
1003 Bishop St, Ste 2300
Honolulu, HI 96813
Phone: 524-5644
Fax: 599-1881
Email: rhatch@bfrhawaii.com
mbronster@bfrhawaii.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Eric A. Rey, Esq.
Marianne F. Kies, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
175 N Street NE
11.123 3CON
Washington, DC 20002
Phone: (202) 616-4224
Email: Eric.A.Rey@usdoj.gov
Marianne.F.Kies@usdoj.gov
- and -
Sydney Spector, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
Prince Kuhio Federal Building
300 Ala Moana Blvd Ste 6100
Honolulu, HI 96850
Phone: (808) 541-2850
Fax: (808) 541-3752
Email: sydney.spector@usdoj.gov
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: PETA Appeals Prelim. Injunction Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
INTERVENOR-DEFENDANT PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS,
INC. (PETA) is taking an appeal from a court order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction in the lawsuit
entitled Jane Sullivan, et al., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. University of Washington,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00204-RAJ, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Jane Sullivan,
along with a current University's Committee member and a proposed
class of 73 individuals who were members, alternate members, or
former members of the Committee, filed a purported class action
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the PRA against the University and
Eliza Saunders in her official capacity. The complaint alleged
(among other things) that the disclosure would violate the
Committee members' right of expressive association under the
federal and state constitutions because the members' affiliation
with each other, and with the Committee, is a form of free
association and expression protected under the Constitutions of
Washington and the United States.
In addition, the complaint sought an injunction and declaratory
judgment on the grounds that the letters of appointment are exempt
from disclosure under the Public Records Act (PRA) because their
disclosure would violate the federal and state constitutions. The
members also sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) and
preliminary injunctive relief to prevent the University from
releasing the letters of appointment.
The University did not oppose the TRO or preliminary injunction.
After granting the Committee members' motion for a TRO, the
district court granted PETA's motion to intervene, and, over PETA's
opposition, granted the Committee members' motion for a preliminary
injunction. It determined that the Committee members raised a
serious question as to whether disclosure would violate their First
Amendment right of expressive association, which would allow them
to claim an exception to the disclosure requirements of the PRA.
PETA filed a timely interlocutory appeal. On appeal, PETA
challenges the district court's determination that there were
serious questions on the merits as to whether disclosure of the
members' letters of appointment would violate their right of
expressive association under the First Amendment. It argues that
the district court erred in holding that this First Amendment right
might exempt the University from the PRA's requirement to disclose
the requested letters.
The Ninth Circuit opined that because the Committee members'
association is pursuant to their official duties and not any
private expressive activities, it is not protected by the First
Amendment right of expressive association. The Committee members
may be engaged as individuals in other activities that are
expressive in nature. But the letters of appointment relate to the
Committee members' service on an official committee, and such an
activity is not protected by the right of expressive association.
Therefore, the Ninth Circuit held that the University's disclosure
of the Committee members' letters of appointment pursuant to the
PRA would not impermissibly burden any First Amendment right of
expressive association. Because the district court made a legal
error in concluding that, by serving on the Committee, the members
were thereby engaged in that First Amendment protected activity, it
abused its discretion.
For these reasons, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded.
On Apr. 6, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to modify
preliminary injunction, which the Court granted through an Order
entered by Judge Richard A. Jones.
The appellate case is captioned Jane Sullivan, et al. v. University
of Washington, et al., Case No. 23-35313, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 5, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees JANE SULLIVAN, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Darwin Paul Roberts, Esq.
GOLDFARB & HUCK ROTH RIOJAS, PLLC
925 4th Avenue, Suite 3950
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 794-7716
Defendants-Appellees UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, et al. are
represented by:
Jessica Creighton, Esq.
WASHINGTON STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
4333 Brooklyn Avenue, 18th Floor
Seattle, WA 98105
Telephone: (206) 685-9262
- and -
Nancy Sagor Garland, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE WASHINGTON ATTORNEY GENERAL (SEATTLE)
UW Box 359475
Seattle, WA 98195
Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF
ANIMALS, INC. is represented by:
Peter D. Hawkes, Esq.
ANGELI LAW GROUP LLC
121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 400
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 954-2232
VIENNA CONVALESCENT: Armas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vienna Convalescent
Hospital, Inc. The case is styled as Ana Armas, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated employees v. Vienna
Convalescent Hospital, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0003403 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April 6, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Vienna Convalescent Hospital, Inc., doing business as Vienna
Nursing and Rehabilitation Center --
http://viennanursingrehab.com/index.html-- provides healthcare
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin P. Rodriguez, Esq.
SHIMODA & RODRIGUEZ LAW, PC
9401 E Stockton Blvd., Ste. 120
Elk Grove, CA 95624-5050
Phone: 916-525-0716
Fax: 916-760-3733
Email: jrodriguez@shimodalaw.com
Website: www.shimodalaw.com
WALMART INC: Hearing for Class Certification Bid Set for July 7
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JINHUI KIM et al., v.
WALMART INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-08380-SB-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. entered an order granting in part
stipulation regarding briefing schedule for plaintiff's class
certification motion.
The Plaintiff Jinhui Kim filed a motion for class certification,
which she noticed for hearing on June 9, 2023. She later amended
the notice of motion to set the motion for hearing on July 7. The
parties have stipulated for the Defendant's opposition to the
motion to be due by June 9, 2023, and for the Plaintiff's reply to
be due by June 16.
The Court grants the stipulation in part. The Plaintiff's class
certification motion will be heard on July 7, 2023. The Defendant's
opposition is due by May 30, 2023.
Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores in the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 10, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ov21Ei at no extra charge.[CC]
WELLS FARGO: Faces Racist, Discriminatory Lending Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sophia Barberini at davisvanguard.org reports that a team of
attorneys and former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown joined a news
conference to announce a class action lawsuit against Well Fargo
bank over discriminatory and racist lending practices.
"I declare that discrimination in banking against Black and Brown
people is inherently un-American. Wells Fargo, I hope you make a
note of that," said civil rights Attorney Ben Crump at the media
event.
Attorney Crump was joined by a team of attorneys, former mayor of
San Francisco, Willie Brown, and some of the plaintiffs, to discuss
what Plaintiff Aaron Braxton called out as Wells Fargo's "blatant
discriminatory and racist practices."
And, according to Attorney Crump, "Wells Fargo systematically
denied Black Americans and other minorities mortgages, charged them
higher interest rates, refused to invest in their business
practices and opportunities, and denied Black Americans the
benefits the federal government intended for all Americans to
weather during the pandemic."
"I begin very straight forward," said Attorney Crump, "Wells Fargo
entered into a billion dollar class action settlement with
shareholders for allegations of unethical practices in the past. In
addition . . . they entered into a $3.7 billion settlement with
federal regulators because they took advantage of their customers'
auto loans, mortgages, and bank accounts."
Crump added, "It is long past time for Wells Fargo to enter into a
resolution with the people who are most affected by their unethical
practices, and that is the marginalized minorities who were denied
economic parity with white citizens and the minority customers of
Wells Fargo who still, every month, have to pay high interest
mortgage payments. That's what this is about. This is about
equality and fairness to all your customers, Wells Fargo."
Attorney Trent Copeland, of Ellis, George, Cipollone, O'Brien,
Annaguey LLP, reiterated Crump's claim, charging, "We are here on
the steps of the federal court house, not just on these steps as
visitors, but people here advocating for . . . the 750,000 other
putative plaintiffs, we're here advocating on their behalf and
asking for justice, and so while we stand on these steps of this
court house, we are truly at the intersection, at the crossroad, or
racial justice, equity, and inclusion as it relates to home
ownership."
According to Crump, Wells Fargo was denying Black and Brown people
mortgage loans during the pandemic, when interest rates were
exceptionally low.
"We all know that the pandemic took a disproportionate toll on
Black Americans, but if Wells Fargo had just extended the same
opportunities to Black customers as they did to white customers, we
could have enjoyed unprecedented progress in closing the
homeownership gap among Black Americans, building Black wealth and
family stability, driving investment opportunities in Black
neighborhoods and increasing intergenerational wealth for Black
families," said Crump.
Attorney Crump continued, "These were historic lows in the interest
rate . . . an opportunity for people . . . to capture an
opportunity where their mortgages would have been less than two
percent. (But) they will never get this opportunity again in the
foreseeable future. Many commentators who have observed these
factors have said this was the greatest loss of opportunity for
wealth for Black Americans in modern US history."
Crump added those denied loans and left with higher interest rates
were just as qualified as their white counterparts who were
receiving the opposite treatment.
"Our plaintiffs were in positions to secure these historic low
interest rates but they were unlawfully discriminated against
because of the color of their skin. We won't let this happen
anymore. Banks cannot treat Black people and Brown people like
second class citizens," asserted Crump.
Former SF Mayor and Speaker of the CA Assembly Brown echoed
Attorney Crump's sentiments.
"(T)hese are not people who are broke, these are people who have
earned money, they have worked hard to earn money, they want
equality, homeownership, but as they unfolded, even though they
qualified, they didn't qualify for legitimate consideration on
their loans. Yes, they could make a loan, but it will cost them a
hell of a lot more than their neighbor," said Brown.
"Homeownership is the heart of the American Dream and Wells Fargo
has pushed that dream out of reach for thousands of Black and Brown
Americans with their blatant discrimination loan practices. Just as
we have cried out against policing practices that kill Black people
and Brown people, so do we denounce Wells Fargo racially motivated
banking practices that kill Black and Brown opportunity," added
Crump.
Brown expressed the importance of action against these racist and
discriminatory practices by noting his own experiences when he
moved to San Francisco, explaining that when he learned about the
lawsuit against Wells Fargo, he was optimistic, like when he first
arrived in California.
"I left the world of discrimination that was part of a way of life
in Mineola, Texas, and I came here to San Francisco anticipating
that it was all behind me, but to my great surprise, it wasn't . .
. " said Brown.
Brown recounted the demonstration he conducted on the issue of
housing in San Francisco six decades ago, the first in the city,
and, referencing Wells Fargo, said he "would think that things
would have been learned by one of the premiere institutions in San
Francisco," by now.
One of the plaintiffs in the case, Christopher Williams, who has
two decades of experience in financial services, explained his
experience applying for a home equity loan with Wells Fargo.
"I had strong employment, good income, a low debt to income ratio,
and a strong equity position in my home, all of the factors that I
thought make me a well-qualified borrower. I did not consider one
factor, I did not consider the color of my skin, nor my race when I
thought about my qualifications," said Williams.
Williams' equity line of credit was approved. However, he was
informed that his rate was going to be prime plus three points.
Further, he found this was due to a discrepancy with his credit
score. Wells Fargo told Williams that his credit score was 101
points lower than what he knew it to be when he applied for the
loan.
When Wells Fargo could not provide him any reason or solution for
the discrepancy, he declined the loan and went to a different
lender with the same application where his line of credit was
approved for prime minus a quarter.
Williams informed Wells Fargo that he felt their practices were
discriminatory. The bank said they would launch an investigation
but, ultimately, returned to Williams claiming they had done
nothing wrong.
"They said there were 'other factors' that they considered when
approving loans. I asked what those other factors were . . . I
don't mind if you change the rules of the game, just let me know
what those rules are so that I can play them to my advantage,"
stated Williams.
Plaintiff Aaron Braxton had a similar experience with Wells Fargo
when he tried to lower his interest rate from "six percent to as
close to one percent as possible" and was given the "runaround for
a year and a half."
"I love the skin that I'm in, but let me just say it's tough being
an African American in this country," said Braxton. "When
attempting to refinance our homes, homes that are supposed to
represent the American Dream, and we're asked to send documents
after documents over and over and over again. Are they doing this
to everybody, or are they only doing this to Black folks?"
Braxton continued, "Wells Fargo, for centuries, has had a history
of raking in billions of dollars off the blatant discriminatory
practices against African Americans. The interesting thing is,
they've already calculated their risk. They know that the amount of
money they paid in compensatory damages is crumbs compared to the
amount of money they've made off of our backs, so they continue to
do it, because to them, discrimination is big business and
manipulation and isolation is one of their greatest weapons."
Braxton emotionally concluded, "It is time that we collectively say
enough is enough. It's time we send Wells Fargo a message that we,
as a nation of compassionate, hard-working individuals with
integrity and honor, will no longer stand for these blatant
discriminatory and racist practices. That when you come for one of
us, you come for all of us, and we will no longer stand for it."
Plaintiff Dr. Gia Gray also briefly shared her experience of
attempting to refinance her two homes, one in Northern California
and the other in Chicago. Dr. Gray explained that she "kept getting
the runaround about [her] Chicago property, which was not in an
all-white area," and knew that the process "should not take this
long."
"After learning that other people were also going through what I
was going through, I just feel as though now is my time to use my
voice to help others," stated Dr. Gray. "Wells Fargo has to be
accountable. We want action; we want action now."
"Justice delayed won't be justice denied in this instance because
we're going to get justice. Wells Fargo, we're gonna get justice,"
promised Crump.
Attorney Crump highlighted that press conference came on the 69th
anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision.
"Today we are fighting the 21st century battle in civil rights
which is one of economic justice, and I believe, just like Brown v
Board of Education was the seminal civil rights case in the 20th
century, we believe that this case for the bias and discriminatory
actions of this big bank, this bank too big to fail, is a seminal
case in the 21st century battle for civil rights," expressed
Crump.
Crump explained he wants to have hope that the new executives at
Wells Fargo will deliver the changes they have promised, but
maintained that he always thinks of his grandmother's teachings,
"Your actions speak so loud, I need not hear your words." [GN]
WIRELESS VISION: Turenne Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jephthe Turenne, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Wireless Vision Holdings, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03651
(E.D.N.Y., May 16, 2023), is brought under the New York Labor Law
("NYLL") for the Defendant's failure to pay minimum and overtime
wages.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant full time, working 5-6 days per
week, often more than 40 hours each week. The Plaintiff and the
Proposed Class were paid at or near minimum wage at all times. At
all times, Defendant paid Plaintiff on a bi-weekly basis. Defendant
required Plaintiff and the proposed class to wear a uniform
including shirt with T-Mobil logo. The Plaintiff's rate of pay was
always at or below the applicable minimum wage for a large employer
in New York City on a weekly basis accounting for all compensation
owed, including uniform maintenance pay. The Plaintiff was required
to wear a uniform at all times while employed by Defendant. The
Plaintiff did, in fact, wear the uniform every shift. The Defendant
did not launder Plaintiff's required uniforms, nor did Defendant
offer to launder the required uniforms. Defendant never paid any
uniform maintenance pay. The Plaintiff was entitled to additional
pay for time spent off the clock and money spent in laundering and
maintaining Defendant's uniform. Because of Defendant's improper
compensation policies, Plaintiff was deprived of pay, in direct
violation of the NYLL This pattern of conduct was continuous
throughout Plaintiff's employment, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from February 2016 until
November 2018, primarily in Kings County.
The Defendant operates approximately 71 T-Mobile wireless stores in
New York State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (718) 669-0714
Email: mgangat@gangatpllc.com
WITH PRIDE AIR: Nolasco Sues Over Installers' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
EMILIO NOLASCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WITH PRIDE AIR CONDITIONING & HEATING INC.
and MICHAEL DOLAN, as an individual, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-03631 (E.D.N.Y., May 16, 2023) arises out of the
Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a HVAC installer
while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants,
from May 2018 until August 2022. During the said period, the
Plaintiff was regularly required to work approximately 74 hours or
more hours each week. However, he was only compensated for his
first 40 hours and was not compensated at all for any of his
overtime work performed. Among other things, the Defendants
willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime
wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their
employment as required by both the NYLL and the FLSA, says the
Plaintiff.
WITH PRIDE AIR CONDITIONING & HEATING INC., is a New York domestic
business corporation, organized under the laws of the State of New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
ZOOX INC: Wei Files Suit v. Former Shareholders
-----------------------------------------------
JAMES WEI and YANXIN ZHANG, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JESSE LEVINSON, AICHA EVANS,
HEIDI ROIZEN, DANIEL COOPERMAN, LAURIE YOLER, CARL BASS, MICHAEL
CANNON-BROOKES and ZU LIU HU, Defendants, Case No. 2023-0521-KSJM
(Del. Ch., May 11, 2023) is a verified class action complaint
brought by the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly, Inc. situated against former common stockholders of
Zoox, Inc., for breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the
unfair sale of Zoox to Amazon.com.
On June 25, 2020, Zoox and Amazon announced that they had entered
into a definitive agreement pursuant to which Amazon would acquire
Zoox for $1.3 billion, of which Zoox's current common stockholders
would receive less than $100 million, with the rest going to
insiders, including directors, officers, and their affiliated
venture capital firms.
This case alleges breaches of fiduciary duty by Zoox's board of
directors and certain Zoox officers in connection with their
actions to bring about the unfair merger. The acquisition triggers,
and Defendants cannot satisfy, the entire fairness standard of
review, says the complaint. A majority of the Board was conflicted,
relative to common stockholders, with respect to the acquisition.
In addition, Zoox fiduciaries, including Levinson and Evans, did
not strive in good faith to pursue the best transaction reasonable
available; instead, they appear to have steered the transaction
process in favor of Amazon to further their personal interests,
adds the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were beneficial owners of Zoox common stock at the
relevant time.
Zoox, Inc. was a private company incorporated in Delaware and
headquartered in Foster City, California. Now an Amazon subsidiary,
Zoox is developing an autonomous mobility ecosystem that includes
self-driving vehicles, control systems, AI and a ride-sharing
service all designed to improve urban mobility.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joel Friedlander, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gorris, Esq.
David Hahn, Esq.
FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS, P.A.
1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2200
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 573-3500
- and -
Randall J. Baron, Esq.
David A. Knotts, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
- and -
Christopher H. Lyons, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-2203
*********
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 ***