/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230713.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, July 13, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 140
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Cox Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Dube Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Fambro Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Flores Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Hackett Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Hatfield Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Mahmoud Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Martinez Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Mears Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Meyer Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Moretti Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
ACME MARKETS: Gerretz Sues Over Unlawful Number of Work Hours
ACME MARKETS: Torres Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania
AL-RAHMAN USA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hester Alleges
ALBANY EMPIRE: Faces Class Suit Over Bounce Paychecks
AMERILIFE LLC: Costa Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing
ANCESTRY.COM: Shebesh Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
APRIA HEALTHCARE: Curry Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information
ARKK FOOD: Browne Sues Over Wahlburgers Pickles' Deceptive Labels
ARROW FINANCIAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Aug. 22
ASCENSION HEALTH: Faces Lopez Class Suit Over Privacy Law Violation
ASTELLAS US: Agrees to Settle Aon 401(k) Class Suit for $9.5M
ASTOR WINES & SPIRITS: Black Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
AVALON PS HM: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
AVOCADEMY INC: Harris Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma
AVOCADEMY INC: Lopez Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma
BARKLEY & ASSOCIATES: Decosta Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
BEACONS CLOSET: Black Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BELLEVILLE BOOT: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BIG O TIRES LLC: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BIGELOW TRADING: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BILLYS WESTERN: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BILTWELL CUSTOM: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BISSELL BROTERS INC: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BLAIRS WESTERN WEAR: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS: Cano Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
BOOT WORLD INC: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BPI SPORTS: Bilbao Sues Over Unlawful Telephonic Sales Calls
C & H SUGAR: Facility Emits Toxic Odors, Gutierrez Alleges
CALENERGY OPERATING: Valenzuela Suit Removed to S.D. California
CALL TRADER LLC: Human TCPA Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
CALVERT MANOR: Faces Espinoza Suit Over Bakers' Unpaid Wages
CGM LLC: Williams Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
CHRISTINE FARAZLI: Ont. Superior Court Rejects HIV Exposure Suit
CLEO AI INC: Hoover Sues Over Improper Business Practices
CNB BANK: Faces Proposed Class Action Over Improper Overdraft Fees
COMOTO HOLDINGS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CONCHO RESOURCES: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
CRUNCH LLC: Bradford Suit Removed to C.D. California
CVS HEALTH: Baker Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
DEBLEX LLC: Gutierrez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
DENNEY TRANSPORT: Faces Fowler Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
DISH NETWORK: Jodeh Files Suit Over Data Breach
E-TELEQUOTE INSURANCE: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Ford Says
EUROMARKET DESIGNS: Black Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
FCA US LLC: Utter Suit Removed to C.D. California
FIRST REPUBLIC: Faces Alcorn Suit Over Share Price Drop
FIRST SOLAR: Wins Class Action Suit Over Securities Fraud
FISKER INC: Nicholson Suit Removed to E.D. Oklahoma
GARMIN USA INC: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GDS HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Aug. 21
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS: Zukas Files Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
GOLDEN STAR DELI: Faces Guevara Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
GREATER LOVE: Carrington Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
HAMPDEN CLOTHING: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HMB LLC: Aguirre-Villanueva Suit Removed to D. Nevada
HOME DEPOT: Agrees to Settle Labor Class Suit in Calif. for $72.5M
HOWARD COUNTY, MD: Receives $562,000 in Meijer Opioid Settlement
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Faces Addi Suit for Illegal Wiretapping
INYO INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kline Suit Alleges
J.M. SMUCKER: Court Dismisses Carroll Suit Over VPPA Violations
JSL MECHANICAL: Coyle Sues Over Unpaid Overtime and Retaliation
MDL 2262: Fact Discovery in Berkshire v. BoA Due April 4, 2024
MDL 2262: Fact Discovery in Charles Schwab v. BoA Due April 4, 2024
MDL 2262: Fact Discovery in Goldsleler v. BoA Due April 4, 2024
MDL 2262: Fact Discovery in LACERA V. BoA Due April 4, 2024
NOVOCURE LTD: Faces Bazzelle Suit Over Misleading Study Results
NUTRACEUTICAL WELLNESS: Sheehan Suit Removed to S.D. New York
ODP CORPORATION: Pai Suit Removed to N.D. California
PEOPLENET CORP: Settles BIPA Class Action Suit for $4.75-Mil.
PERFECT DAY: Zakay Law Files Labor Class Action in Calif.
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Faces Pipes Class Suit Over Third-Party Access
PUBLISHERS CLEARING: To Settle Deceptive Acts Suit for $18.5M
SAFEWAY CONSTRUCTION: Court OK's Extension to Complete Discovery
SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Court OK's Second Bid for Class Certification
ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, IN: Faces Class Suit Over Portage Manor
TZUMI INNOVATIONS: Settles Proskin False Ads Class Suit for $2-M
UNITED WATER: Filing of Class Cert Bid Set Due August 14
UNITED WATER: Parties Seek to Adopt Class Certification Sched Order
VISION MECHANICAL: Moody Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
VOLVO CARS: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 1
VSS-SOUTHERN THEATERS: Ct. Extends Deadline to File Class Cert Bid
WASTE PRO: Court Dismisses Wright Class Suit Over Unpaid OT
WELLS FARGO: Sued for Alleged Discrimination in the Workplace
WHALECO INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Johnson Alleges
WSE PROPERTY: Settlement Reached in Class Suit Over Rental Charges
*********
3M COMPANY: Cox Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Cox, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-03092-RMG (D.S.C., June 28, 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 during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with prostrate
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:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Dube Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yvan Dube, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-03051-RMG (D.S.C., June 27, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Fambro Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alton Fambro, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-03073-RMG (D.S.C., June 28, 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 during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with Hashimoto's 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:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Flores Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Flores, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-03074-RMG (D.S.C., June 28, 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 during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with Hashimoto's 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:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Hackett Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Hackett, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-03075-RMG (D.S.C., June 28, 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 during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with
hyperthyroidism 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:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Hatfield Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Hatfield, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-03173-RMG (D.S.C., June 30, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Mahmoud Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wael Mahmoud, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARKEMA, INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; 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 PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-02788-RMG
(D.S.C., June 17, 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 during the Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with prostate
cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Martinez Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Raul Martinez, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-02809-RMG (D.S.C., June 19, 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 during the Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with Graves disease
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:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Mears Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Keith Mears, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-02761-RMG (D.S.C., June 15, 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 prostate cancer
as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Meyer Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Meyer, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-02740-RMG (D.S.C., June 15, 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 hypothyroidism 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:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Moretti Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------
John Moretti, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-02741-RMG (D.S.C., June 15, 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 testicular 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:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
ACME MARKETS: Gerretz Sues Over Unlawful Number of Work Hours
-------------------------------------------------------------
Angie Gerretz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ACME MARKETS, INC., d/b/a Acme Markets, Case No.
230602842 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, Philadelphia Cty., June 29,
2023), is brought under the Fair Workweek law as a result of the
Defendant's unlawful number of work hours.
Unfair scheduling practices hurt American workers by reducing their
income security and preventing them from attending to their
obligations outside of work--their own and their families, health,
education, and wellbeing. As a result, the City of Philadelphia
enacted the Fair Workweek law to address employers abusive
practices like unstable scheduling that wreak havoc on people's
lives and leave them unable to predict their monthly incomes.
The Defendant did not provide Plaintiff with a written good faith
estimate that included the average number of work hours she could
expect to work, whether she could expect to work on-call shifts,
and a subset of days and times or shifts she could typically expect
either to work or be scheduled not to work.
Since January 1, 2021, Defendant failed to always provide Plaintiff
with 14 days. written notice of her work schedule. During
Plaintiff.s employment, Defendant, at times, changed Plaintiff.s
schedule by more than 20 minutes and failed to pay her
predictability pay. During Plaintiff.s employment, Defendant, at
times, added hours to her posted schedule without obtaining her
written consent.
During Plaintiff.s employment, Defendant, at times, scheduled
Plaintiff to work less than 9 hours after the end of the previous
day shift or during the 9 hours following the end of a shift that
spanned two days without her written consent and without providing
Plaintiff with $40 for each such shift. The Defendant failed to
always provide Plaintiff with written notice of available work
shifts before hiring new employees, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
The Defendant is a retail grocery chain that operates stores in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephanie L Solomon, Esq.
HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
21 South 11th Street, Suite 324
Philadelphia, PA 19107
220 Grant St., Suite 401
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: (412) 760-7802
Email: ssolomon@hkm.com
ACME MARKETS: Torres Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Ricardo Torres, individually, and on behalf
of all those similarly situated v. ACME MARKETS, INC., was removed
from the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Pennsylvania, to
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania on June 30, 2023, and assigned Case No.
1:23-cv-01103-CCC.
On March 20, 2023, Plaintiff Ricardo Torres filed a complaint on
behalf of a purported class against Albertsons Companies, Inc.
("ACI"), alleging violations of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act
("PMWA") and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law
("WPCL") in the Court of Common Pleas for Franklin County,
Pennsylvania (the "State Court Action").[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Lucas Liben, Esq.
Christopher S. Bouriat, Esq.
Joshua R. Sallmen, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
Reed Smith Centre
225 Fifth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 288-4041/4119/5446
Fax: (412) 288-3063
Email: lliben@reedsmith.com
cbouriat@reedsmith.com
jsallmen@reedsmith.com
AL-RAHMAN USA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hester Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
KETH HESTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AL-RAHMAN (USA) INC., d/b/a JB ONE; and
MUHAMMAD ASLAM, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04110 (N.D. Ill., July
27, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Hester was employed by the Defendants as a cook.
AL-RAHMAN (USA) INC. own and operate JB One, a restaurant located
at Grove Blvd., Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant:
Alexandros Stamatoglou
GARFINKEL GROUP, LLC
701 N. Milwaukee Avenue, The CIVITAS
Chicago, IL 60642
Telephone: (312) 736-7991
Facsimile: (312) 549-9623
Email: alex@garfinkelgroup.com
ALBANY EMPIRE: Faces Class Suit Over Bounce Paychecks
-----------------------------------------------------
Jason Hall of KFI AM 640 reports that former All-Pro wide receiver
Antonio Brown is facing a potential class-action lawsuit from
several players and coaches from the Albany Empire, the National
Arena League team he owns, the Times Union reports.
The Empire were recently kicked out of the league after it claimed
the team had "exhausted all avenues," according to a news release
shared on its official website on June 15. Players and coaches
claimed they discovered that paychecks received from their final
ga,e were bulled from their bank accounts, which was initially
reported by WTEN.
"I'm frustrated," Empire head coach Moe Leggett said via the Times
Union. "I'm frustrated. I tried to give (Brown) the benefit of the
doubt. I tried to work with him. I was trying to be the peacemaker,
the mediator to make sure things ran smoothly and just under the
radar. But I can no longer do that."
Brown, 34, also recently was "fined $1,000 for Conduct Detrimental
to the League" for comments he recently made and refused to pay the
fine, according to the league.
"After acquiring the Albany Empire, new team owner Antonio Brown
paid the Empire's April assessment," the news release stated. "The
team then failed to make their May 15th assessment payment and last
week just before the Empire's game in Orlando, the league was
notified that the April assessment was being challenged. That
payment was subsequently credited back to Mr Brown.The league
informed his accountant, Alex Gunaris, who in previous
communications requested that the league communicate directly with
Mr Gunaris regarding financial obligations with the Empire. Mr
Gunaris was informed of the league's attempts to collect the
delinquent assessments and he communicated to the league that it
didn't seem like Mr Brown was going to pay the assessment or fine.
"Once the league was alerted of Mr Brown's intentions, an emergency
conference call was set up. During the call, it was decided to give
the Empire until June 29, 2023 at noon to make their payment, after
which time the league would be forced to cancel their home game
with Jacksonville, and terminate their membership in the National
Arena League effective immediately. Unfortunately, Mr Brown has
failed to meet the deadline to his teams required financial
obligations, and as a result the league has terminated his
membership Agreement."
Brown purchased a majority stake in the Empire, the two-time
defending Arena League champions, in April and the team had
struggled after his purchase. The 34-year-old hasn't played in a
professional football game since storming off the field during the
third quarter of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers game against the New York
Jets on January 2, 2022, having been released by the Bucs hours
after the incident.
Brown was selected by the Pittsburgh Steelers at No. 196 overall in
the sixth-round of the 2010 NFL Draft and quickly emerged as a
perennial Pro Bowl selection before demanding a trade amid a
contract dispute prior to the 2019 season. The Miami native was
later cut by Pittsburgh's trade partner, the then-Oakland Raiders,
prior to ever appearing in a regular-season game.
Brown spent several games in 2019 with the New England Patriots and
two seasons with the Buccaneers, with both tenures ending in
controversy. The former Central Michigan standout was a four-time
First-team All-Pro (2014-17), a Second-team All-Pro in 2013 and a
seven time Pro Bowl selection (2011, 2013-18), having led all NFL
players in receiving yards twice (2014, 2017), receptions twice
(2014, 2015) and receiving touchdowns in 2018.[GN]
AMERILIFE LLC: Costa Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing
----------------------------------------------------
Daniel Costa, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
AMERILIFE, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, AMERILIFE
DIRECT, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, EBACHE, LLC a
Florida limited liability company, Case No. 8:23-cv-01451-VMC-AAS
(M.D. Fla., June 29, 2023), is brought to obtain redress for the
Defendant's illegal telemarketing and is consistent both with the
private right of action afforded by the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA").
The Plaintiff brings this action to enforce the consumer-privacy
provisions of the TCPA alleging that the Defendants made
telemarketing calls to numbers on the National Do Not Call
Registry, including his own. Because telemarketing campaigns
typically use technology capable of generating thousands of similar
calls per day, Plaintiff sues on behalf of a proposed nationwide
class of other persons who received similar calls, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff's telephone number is a residential cellular
telephone line.
AMERILIFE is a Florida limited liability company located in
Clearwater, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charlotte F. Kelly, Esq.
FERNEE KELLY LAW
1600 E. 7th Ave. A200
Tampa, FL 33605
Email: charlotte@ferneekellylaw.com
- and -
Allison B. Duffie, Esq.
DUFFIE LAW
2234 North Federal Highway Suite 1196
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Email: allison@duffie.law
ANCESTRY.COM: Shebesh Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ancestry.com, et al.
The case is styled as Ethan Shebesh, individually and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated individuals v. Ancestry.com,
Geneanet, S.A., Case No. 1:23-cv-04195 (N.D. Ill., June 29, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Personal
Injury.
Ancestry.com LLC -- https://www.ancestry.com/ -- is an American
genealogy company based in Lehi, Utah.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas M. Hanson, Esq.
LOEVY & LOEVY
311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd FL.
Chicago, IL 60607
Phone: (312) 243-5900
Fax: (312) 243-5902
Email: hanson@loevy.com
APRIA HEALTHCARE: Curry Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information
------------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Curry, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Apria Healthcare, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01153-RLY-KMB
(S.D. Ind., June 29, 2023), is brought against Defendant's failure
to properly safeguard the Private Information entrusted to it, and
to remedy the harms suffered by the Plaintiff and those similarly
situated caused by this failure.
On September 1, 2021, the Defendant received a notification
regarding access to select Defendant systems by an unauthorized
party (the "Data Breach"). The Defendant took immediate action to
mitigate and investigate the incident. The follow up investigation
determined that information potentially access in the incident
varied for each individual and may have included personal, medical,
health insurance or financial information, and in some limited
cases, Social Security numbers (collectively, "Private
Information"). Defendant sent a notice of data security letter
("Notice of Data Breach") on June 6, 2023.
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. Despite its
duties to Plaintiff and Class Members to secure and safeguard the
PII entrusted to it, Defendant stored this Private Information on a
database that was negligently and/or recklessly configured.
Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class
Members' Private Information and failed to encrypt or redact this
highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted Private
Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligence, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is the Defendant's customer and has purchased
products and services from the Defendant.
The Defendant is a leading provider of home medical equipment and
clinical support.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. 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 -
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 339-7300
Fax: (612) 336-2940
Email: bbliechner@chestnutcambronne.com
pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com
- and -
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
THE LYON FIRM, LLC
2754 Erie Ave.
Cincinnati, Ohio 45208
Phone: (513) 540-3618
Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
ARKK FOOD: Browne Sues Over Wahlburgers Pickles' Deceptive Labels
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAMANY BROWNE, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. ARKK FOOD COMPANY, and WAHLBURGERS
I, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04603 (E.D.N.Y., June 21,
2023) is a class action lawsuit regarding Defendants' alleged false
and misleading distribution, advertising, marketing, labeling, and
sale of Wahlburgers pickles in violation of the New York General
Business Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants' Wahlburgers pickles are
sold in grocery stores nationwide and marketed as, among other
things, "fresh," "all natural," and containing "no preservatives."
The Defendants are allegedly liable to Plaintiff and Class members
for selling the pickles without disclosing that the products
contained or risked containing an artificial chemical preservative,
sodium benzoate, designed to lengthen the pickles' shelf life, in
contravention of their stated representations and omissions.
As a result of Defendants' acts and practices in violation of GBL,
Plaintiff and class members are entitled to monetary and
compensatory damages, restitution, and disgorgement of all monies
obtained using Defendants' unlawful conduct, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs, as well as statutory damages, the suit
asserts.
Arkk Food Company creates and produces food products and is the
distributor for Wahlburgers Pickles and the exclusive licensee of
Wahlburgers' retail products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles D. Moore, Esq.
REESE LLP
121 N. Washington Ave, 4th Floor
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
E-mail: cmoore@reesellp.com
- and -
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
- and -
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (215) 789-4462
E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
ARROW FINANCIAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Aug. 22
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP reminds investors that a shareholder filed a class
action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Arrow Financial Corp. securities between March
12, 2022 and May 12, 2023. Arrow Financial Corporation is a bank
holding company that provides commercial and consumer banking, as
well as financial products and services.
For more information, submit a form, email Aaron Dumas, Jr., or
give us a call at (800) 350-6003.
What is this Case About: Arrow Financial Corp. (AROW) had Defective
Disclosure Controls and Procedures and Internal Controls over
Financial Reporting
According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
failed to disclose that Arrow maintained defective disclosure
controls and procedures and internal controls over financial
reporting. As a result, the Company was at an increased risk of not
timely filing one or more of its periodic financial reports with
the SEC as required by the NASDAQ's listing requirements and at an
increased risk of being delisted from the NASDAQ. Even after the
Company disclosed deficiencies in its disclosure controls and
procedures and internal controls over financial reporting, Arrow
downplayed the severity of these issues and the associated risks.
When defendants finally disclosed Arrow's inability to file its
annual and quarterly reports with the SEC due to lack of internal
controls over financial reporting, Arrow's stock declined, harming
shareholders.
What Now: Similarly situated shareholders may be eligible to
participate in the class action against Arrow Financial Corp.
Shareholders who want to act as lead plaintiff for the class must
file their papers by August 22, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the
case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no
action, you can remain an absent class member. For more
information, click here.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.
To be notified if a class action against Arrow Financial Corp.
settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage
in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]
ASCENSION HEALTH: Faces Lopez Class Suit Over Privacy Law Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that A proposed class
action lawsuit claims private hospital Ascension Saint
Joseph-Chicago and parent corporation Ascension Health have
unlawfully captured, stored and shared employee fingerprint scans
without consent.
The 23-page lawsuit says that the defendants have breached the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by collecting,
storing and disseminating workers' fingerprint scans to third-party
vendors via biometric-enabled, automated medication dispensing
systems, including the Pyxis MedStation ES System, without express
written consent.
In addition, the suit alleges that Ascension and its Chicago
hospital have violated the BIPA by failing to disclose how long and
for what purpose employees' biometric information will be stored
and used, and by failing to provide public guidelines that detail
data retention and destruction policies.
According to the case, employees are required to scan their
fingerprints on a Pyxis device each time they need to dispense
medicine or other items for patient care. Per the complaint,
employee fingerprints -- protected as "biometric identifiers" under
the BIPA -- are stored in the Pyxis system servers, which the
defendants use to monitor access to medications.
As biometrics are unique to each individual, a consumer faces
greater risk of identity theft, fraud and other misuse by
unauthorized third parties if this personal data is compromised,
the filing relays.
"Unlike ID badges or key fobs -- which can be changed or replaced
if stolen or compromised -- fingerprints are unique, permanent
biometric identifiers associated with each employee," the lawsuit
explains. "This exposes employees who are required to use biometric
devices, like the Pyxis devices, as a condition of their employment
to serious and irreversible privacy risks."
The plaintiff, an Illinois resident, worked as an inventory
coordinator at Ascension Saint Joseph-Chicago between March 2020
and 2022, the case says. Like other employees, the man was
regularly required to scan his fingerprint on a Pyxis device in
order to access medications and other pharmaceutical products, the
complaint shares.
However, the plaintiff never consented to the capture, storage and
dissemination of his biometric data, nor was he ever informed why
or for how long the defendants would keep the information, or when
it would be deleted, the filing claims.
The lawsuit looks to represent any Illinois employees of Ascension
Health or Ascension Saint Joseph-Chicago whose fingerprints were
obtained or disclosed by the defendants during the applicable
statutes of limitations period. [GN]
ASTELLAS US: Agrees to Settle Aon 401(k) Class Suit for $9.5M
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille of Bloomberg Law reports that Astellas US LLC workers
negotiated a $9.5 million class settlement in their lawsuit
challenging a 2016 redesign of their 401(k) plan that introduced
Aon Investments USA Inc. funds they say performed badly while
charging high fees.
The deal is expected to benefit about 4,000 people who were covered
by the Astellas 401(k) plan between October 2016 and March 2023. It
requires Astellas to use a competitive bidding process for the
plan's investment advisory services and to instruct the plan's
recordkeeper that it can't use participant data to market unrelated
products and services. [GN]
ASTOR WINES & SPIRITS: Black Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Astor Wines &
Spirits, Inc. The case is styled as Jahron Black, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Astor Wines & Spirits,
Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04920-DG-CLP (E.D.N.Y., June 30, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Astor Wines & Spirits, Inc. -- https://astorwines.com/ -- is New
York City's largest wine & spirits store online.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
AVALON PS HM: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avalon PS HM, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Breanne Celeste Sanchez, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Avalon PS HM,
LLC, Proper Hospitality, LLC, Case No. CVRI2303306 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Riverside Cty., June 29, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Avalon Hospitality Group -- https://www.avalon-hotel.com/ -- is a
nationwide full-service, and turn-key operator focused entirely in
the; management, development and capital improvements within the
hospitality industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 510
Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145
Phone: 213-381-9988
Fax: 213-381-9989
Email: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com
AVOCADEMY INC: Harris Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Megan Harris, individually and on behalf of
other similarly situated v. AVOCADEMY, INC., Case No. CJ-2023-2891
was removed from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma,
to the United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma on June 30, 2023, and assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00579-R.
The Plaintiff alleges Avocademy sent at least one text message to
her telephone in violation of the Oklahoma Telephone Solicitation
Act (OTSA). In support of her class claims, Ms. Harris alleges
Avocademy sends such messages "en masse" with "equipment capable of
making numerous calls or texts simultaneously."[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael J. McKleroy, Esq.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP
1717 Main Street, Suite 3625
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 945-229-6380
Facsimile: 312-704-3001
Email: mmckleroy@hinshawlaw.com
AVOCADEMY INC: Lopez Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Juan Angel Lopez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. S E PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, a California Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case
No. 37-2023-00016037-CU-OE-CTL was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of San Diego, to the
United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
on June 30, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01228-JO-DDL.
The Complaint asserts causes of action for Defendant's alleged
failure to adhere to specific requirements under the California
Labor Code including: Labor Code sections 510 and 1194 for
Defendant's failure to provide Plaintiff and other aggrieved
employees with overtime and minimum wages; Labor Code §§ 201,
202, and 203 for Defendant's failure to pay all wages upon
termination, resignation, or end of employment as a result of
failure to pay minimum and overtime wages for all hours worked:
Labor Code section 204 for Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and
other aggrieved employees with wages owed to them; Labor Code §§
226, 226.3, 1174.5, and 1198 for failure to maintain records and
provide accurate itemized wage statements to Plaintiff and other
aggrieved employees; and Labor Code section 2802 for Defendant's
failure to reimburse Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees for
expenses incurred in the discharge of their duties.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Erick J. Becker, Esq.
Garrett M. Fahy, Esq.
CUMMINS & WHITE, LLP
2424 S.E. Bristol Street, Suite 300
Newport Beach, CA 92660-0764
Phone: (949) 852-1800
Facsimile: (949) 852-8510
Email: ebecker@cwlawyers.com
gfahy@cwlawyers.com
BARKLEY & ASSOCIATES: Decosta Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
IAN WILSON DECOSTA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BARKLEY & ASSOCIATES, INC; a
California Corporation and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No.
23STCV14292 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 20, 2023) arises
from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violation of the
California Labor Code and the Business and Professions Code.
The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to provide compliant
meal and rest periods, failure to furnish itemized wage statements,
failure to pay all wages owed at the conclusion of employment, and
engagement in unfair competition.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from September 7, 2022
to February 27, 2023 as nonexempt, hourly employee.
Barkley & Associates, Inc. is a California-based company which
provides nurse practitioner education, certification, and clinical
updates courses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manny Starr, Esq.
Daniel Ginzburg, Esq.
FRONTIER LAW CENTER
23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2074
Calabasas, CA 91302
Telephone: (818) 914-3433
Facsimile: (818) 914-3433
E-mail: manny@frontierlawcenter.com
dan@frontierlawcenter.com
BEACONS CLOSET: Black Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beacons Closet, Inc.
The case is styled as Jahron Black, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Beacons Closet, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-04938 (E.D.N.Y., June 30, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Beacons Closet, Inc. -- https://beaconscloset.com/ -- buy, sell, +
trade, vintage + modern clothing, 7 days, on a walk in basis.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
BELLEVILLE BOOT: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Belleville Boot
Manufacturing Company. The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Belleville Boot
Manufacturing Company, Case No. 1:23-cv-05580 (S.D.N.Y., June 29,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Belleville Boot Company -- https://www.bellevilleboot.com/ -- is
the largest manufacturer of military boots.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
BIG O TIRES LLC: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Big O Tires, LLC. The
case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Big O Tires, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-05673-MKV (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Big O Tires, LLC -- https://www.bigotires.com/ -- is one of North
America's largest retail tire franchisors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
BIGELOW TRADING: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bigelow Trading, Ltd.
The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Bigelow Trading, Ltd., Case No.
1:23-cv-05583 (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bigelow Trading -- https://www.bigelowtrading.com/ -- represents
the world's finest heritage brands in beauty, grooming and personal
care.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
BILLYS WESTERN: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Billys Western Wear,
LLC. The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Billys Western Wear, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-05583 (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Billy's -- https://billyswesternwear.com/ -- is a specialty western
wear store that reflects style and echo's country elegance, being
sophisticated, edgy, traditional, and true to the western
life-style.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
BILTWELL CUSTOM: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Biltwell Custom
Motorcycle, Corp. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Biltwell Custom
Motorcycle, Corp., Case No. 1:23-cv-05591-JMF (S.D.N.Y., June 29,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Biltwell -- https://www.biltwellinc.com/ -- is building future ics
in the motorcycle world with products like their famous Gringo
helmets, comfortable Kung-Fu grips and their stylish custom
motorcycle handlebars.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
BISSELL BROTERS INC: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bissell Broters,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Maria Del Refugio Sanchez
Garcia, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bissell
Broters, Inc., a corporation, H.N.W Building Maintenance Inc., Does
1-10, Case No. 23CV003964 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., June
30, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Bissell Broters, Inc. is a local craft brewery featuring a bustling
warehouselike taproom with indoor & outdoor seating.[BN]
BLAIRS WESTERN WEAR: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blairs Western Wear,
Inc., II. The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Blairs Western Wear, Inc., II,
Case No. 1:23-cv-05588 (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Blair's Western Wear -- https://www.blairswesternwearsanangelo.com/
-- is a western store that sells high-quality western apparel,
boots, western graphic tees, bags, purses, and jewelry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS: Cano Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Yoni Cano, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS, Case No. 2:23-at-00631
(E.D. Cal., June 29, 2023), is brought to recover wages, overtime
compensation, penalties, interest, injunctive relief, damages, and
reasonable attorney fees and costs under Cal. Lab. Code and the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
The gravamen of this action is that Blue Diamond, an American
agricultural cooperative, implemented an illegal policy requiring
non-exempt workers to undergo a health screen for COVID-19 before
every shift without pay. This practice required the Employees to
wait and submit to a COVID-19 symptom check prior to clocking-in
before every shift. These screenings were a uniform practice and
policy in all Blue Diamond locations. The screenings are done
solely for the benefit of Blue Diamond, and thus constitute
compensable time worked by Plaintiff and the Class Members. Blue
Diamond's conduct also violates the FLSA, which requires non-exempt
employees to be compensated for all hours in excess of 40 in a
workweek at one and one-half times their regular rate, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Blue Diamond as machine operator,
roasting almonds in its downtown Sacramento, California.
Blue Diamond is known for producing almonds.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
Luke W. Sironski-White, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
bscott@bursor.com
lsironski@bursor.com
BOOT WORLD INC: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boot World, Inc. The
case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Boot World, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-05590
(S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Boot World -- https://bootworld.com/ -- is the leader in safety
toe, slip resistant, and sheepskin boots & shoes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
BPI SPORTS: Bilbao Sues Over Unlawful Telephonic Sales Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Axel Bilbao, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BPI SPORTS, LLC, Case No. CACE-23-015233 (Fla. 17th
Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., June 29, 2023), is brought for
injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations of
the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act
("FTSA").
The FTSA's Caller ID Rules require that persons making Telephonic
Sales Calls transmit--to the consumer's caller identification
service--a telephone number that is capable of receiving telephone
calls. And, unlike claims for damages for text message
solicitations the called party does not consent to receive, claims
for violations of the Caller ID Rules are equally applicable to all
Telephonic Sales Calls (phone calls, text messages, or voicemails),
regardless of whether they are solicited or consented to, and
irrespective of whether the offending phone call, text message or
voicemail is traditional, automated, or recorded.
In direct contravention of the Caller ID Rules, however, many
callers, such as Defendant, make Telephonic Sales Calls a central
part of their marketing strategy, and in doing so, intentionally
transmit telephone numbers to recipient's Caller ID services that
are not capable of receiving telephone calls. As such, Plaintiff,
brings this action alleging that Defendant violated the FTSA's
Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number that was not capable
of receiving phone calls when it made Telephonic Sales Calls by
text message ("Text Message Sales Calls"). Specifically, Defendant
made Text Message Sales Calls that promoted BPI Sports ("BPI Sports
Text Message Sales Calls") and violated the Caller ID Rules when it
transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a
telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is the regular user of a cellular telephone number
that receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls.
The Defendant is registered as a Florida Limited Liability Company,
which sells various goods to persons throughout the country through
its online store.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
Shawn A. Heller, Esq
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Phone: (202) 709-5744
Fax: (866) 893-0416
Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com
shawn@sjlawcollective.com
C & H SUGAR: Facility Emits Toxic Odors, Gutierrez Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
FREDDY GUTIERREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. C & H SUGAR, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 4:23-cv-03192 (N.D. Cal., June 27, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for its release of noxious odors onto the
Plaintiff's property.
According to the complaint, the Defendant operates the Facility
located at 830 Loring Avenue, Crockett, CA 94525, which offloads,
stores and refines 800,000 tons of raw sugar annually and includes
an industrial and municipal wastewater treatment plant. The
Defendant's sugar refining process produces a waste sludge, called
"mud," which produces large quantities of hydrogen sulfide and is
highly odiferous. The "mud" generated through Defendant's refining
process is treated at the wastewater treatment plant at the
Facility, along with municipal wastewater, which contains sewage
and is also highly odiferous. When the mud and other waste
byproducts from Defendant's refining plant and municipal wastewater
are combined for treatment at the Facility, the resultant
wastewater mixture produces extremely noxious odors, says the
suit.
The Defendant's Facility allegedly releases noxious off-site odors
onto the Plaintiff's property causing damages through nuisance and
negligence.
C&H SUGAR COMPANY, INC. produces and sells cane sugar and molasses.
The Company offers granulated, baking, natural, and organic sugar,
as well as provides sweeteners and syrups. C&H Sugar serves
customers in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mike M. Arias, Esq.
Arnold C. Wang, Esq.
M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq.
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS, LLP
6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Telephone: (310) 844-9696
Facsimile: (310) 861-0168
- and -
Steven D. Liddle, Esq
Laura L. Sheets, Esq.
Matthew Z. Robb, Esq.
LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON P.C.
975 E. Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48207
Telephone: (313) 392-0015
Facsimile: (313) 392-0025
CALENERGY OPERATING: Valenzuela Suit Removed to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jose Valenzuela, as an individual and on
behalf of all other similarly situated v. CALENERGY OPERATING
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. ECU002863 was removed from the Imperial County
Superior Court, to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California on June 29, 2023, and assigned Case
No. 3:23-cv-01204-BEN-DDL.
The Complaint in this case, Plaintiff alleges causes of action on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, for various
alleged violations of the Labor Code and Business and Professions
Code, by CalEnergy.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
James P. Carter, Esq.
Jonathan R. Stilz, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: (949) 885-1360
Facsimile: (949) 885-1380
Email: james.carter@jacksonlewis.com
jonathan.stilz@jacksonlewis.com
CALL TRADER LLC: Human TCPA Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Daniel Human, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Call Trader, LLC doing business as:
TheHealthScout.com, Brook Whitmore, Shivani Gupta, John Dougherty,
Kiran Mathew Dialer Management, John and Jane Does 1 through 8,
Case No. 23SL-CC02139 was removed from the Circuit Court of the
County of St. Louis, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri on June 30, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-00843-JMB to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Call Trader LLC -- https://www.calltrader.com/ -- is a leading
customer acquisition company generating hundreds of thousands of
calls and leads for our clients around the globe.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin V. Butler, II, Esq.
BUTLER LAW GROUP LLC
1650 Des Peres Road, Suite 220
Des Peres, MO 63131
Phone: (314) 504-0001
Email: edbutler@butlerlawstl.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Madelaine Newcomb, Esq.
MANATT AND PHELPS LLP - Chicago
151 N. Franklin St., Suite 2600
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 477-4766
Email: mnewcomb@manatt.com
CALVERT MANOR: Faces Espinoza Suit Over Bakers' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
IVAN ESPINOZA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CALVERT MANOR BAGELS INC. a New York
corporation, and RALPH FACCHINI, an individual, Defendants, Case
No. 2:23-cv-04597 (E.D.N.Y., June 21, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, for violations of the New York Labor Law,
and for violations of the "spread of hours" and overtime wage
orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor, including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from approximately December
2019 through the end of April 2023 as a baker at the Defendants'
bagel shop and bakery. He asserts that the Defendants
intentionally, willfully, and repeatedly harmed him and similarly
situated individuals by engaging in a pattern, practice, and/or
policy of violating the FLSA and the NYLL.
Calvert Manor Bagels Inc. owns and operates a bagel shop and bakery
located in Seaford, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Erik M. Bashian, Esq.
BASHIAN & PAPANTONIOU, P.C.
500 Old Country Road, Ste. 302
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 279-1554
Facsimile: (516) 213-0339
E-mail: eb@bashpaplaw.com
CGM LLC: Williams Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CGM, LLC. The case is
styled as Charles Williams, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CGM, LLC doing business as: CGM, Inc.,
Case No. 1:23-cv-02924-SEG (N.D. Ga., June 30, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Fiduciary Duty.
CGM -- https://www.cgmllc.net/ -- is a software development firm
that develops and produces software solutions for CLECs and other
telecom service providers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory John Bosseler, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, PLLC - ATL
191 Peachtree Street Northeast, Suite 4200
Atlanta, GA 30303
Phone: (404) 496-7318
Email: gbosseler@forthepeople.com
- and -
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Ra O. Amen, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 223-5505
Fax: (813) 222-2434
Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
ramen@forthepeople.com
CHRISTINE FARAZLI: Ont. Superior Court Rejects HIV Exposure Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Dino at lawtimesnews.com reports that the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice has refused to allow a class action to proceed
against an Ottawa clinic that exposed its patients to a low risk of
hepatitis and HIV.
In McGee v. Dr. Farazil, 2023 ONSC 3671, Dr. Christine Farazli
operates an endoscopy clinic in Ottawa inspected by the public
health authorities. Following the regulatory check, officers found
lapses in the sterilization protocols at the clinic, exposing some
6,800 patients to a very low risk of Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, or
HIV. The health authorities sent a letter to all the patients who
had undergone an endoscopy at the clinic between 2002 and 2011. The
letter advised the patients that blood testing was available to
assess their viral status. The Ottawa Public Health (OPH)
eventually confirmed that there was "no transmission of Hepatitis B
or C or HIV. . . .within the Clinic where the lapse occurred."
Fern McGee was one of the patients who received a notification
letter. She commenced a class action seeking compensation for
exposure to an enhanced risk of infection and for the shock,
trauma, and inconvenience she experienced when she received the
notification letter and the following testing. A judge certified
her class action, allowing it to proceed.
The defendants appealed, arguing that an action for increased risk
cannot be certified without proof that the defendants' conduct had
caused an actual infection. The defendants alleged that such
evidence is unavailable and there is no possibility it will become
available. The court noted that as of the date of the certification
motion, no one who was found to be infected in the testing could
establish that the lapses at the clinic caused their infection.
The plaintiff presented an expert who conceded that the passage of
time since the infection control lapses made it impossible to link
any infections to the clinic. While the expert believed that the
clinic's lapses caused the patients to be infected, he agreed that
no method is available to establish such a link.
The defendants asserted that the plaintiff's claim is one for
psychological harm and economic losses based on an increased risk
of infection in a situation where there is no possibility of
proving that the risk has ever materialized or will ever
materialize. Based on the case law, the defendants claimed that
there is no cause of action for damages for exposure to increased
risk of harm. Consequently, they argued that McGee's claim should
not have been certified.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice noted that the defendants
conceded that the cause of action criterion was satisfied. However,
as the court explained, this does not mean that they acknowledged
that there was some factual basis to support the other aspects of
the test for certification, including the requirement that the
class members' claims raised common issues. The court acknowledged
the expert evidence confirming that while the defendants had caused
infections, no methodology was available to prove this was the
case.
The court stressed that without establishing by evidence that the
defendants' action had caused or would cause infections, the
plaintiff's claim becomes one for damages caused by the speculative
notion that she was at risk of increased infection.
The court cited jurisprudence, stating that a claim for economic
losses that arise in response to an increased risk of harm is not
sustainable as there is no cause of action for an increased risk of
harm. The court further said that any anxiety experienced as a
result of receiving notices from a governmental authority about an
increased risk of a medical condition would be unlikely to pass the
threshold for compensation set out by the Supreme Court of Canada.
The court emphasized that the law does not compensate for the
anxiety, upset and fear people often encounter. The psychological
injury must rise to severe trauma or illness level to be
compensable. The court held that the anxiety caused by undergoing
the medical tests, in this case, would unlikely rise to this level.
Finally, the court said that the quantum of economic damages might
not pass the de minimus threshold set in case law.
The court ultimately concluded that the certification judge made an
error in certifying a common issue based on a claim for increased
risk of harm. Consequently, the court set aside the certification
order.[GN]
CLEO AI INC: Hoover Sues Over Improper Business Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
KAREN HOOVER; TOM BAKER; and VERA BECKFORD, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CLEO AI
INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01067-MEM (M.D. Pa., June 27,
2023) alleges violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law, Loan Interest and Protection Law, Consumer Discount
Company Act, Truth-in-Lending Act, and Electronic Funds Transfer
Act.
According to the complaint, Cleo advertises its advances as "free,"
"no interest," and "0 percent interest." This claim is
untrue—Cleo's cash advances have significant costs. To obtain
cash advances, Cleo charges a $5.99 to $14.99 monthly fee. To
obtain cash advances quickly, Cleo charges a $3.99 "Express Fee."
Most borrowers pay "Express Fees" because they need cash advances
quickly—indeed, consumers use cash advance apps, like Cleo,
specifically because they need cash quickly. Cleo does not disclose
the APRs of its advances before, during, or after any transaction,
which allows Cleo to mislead borrowers to believe its cash advances
are "free," "no-interest," and "0 percent interest," says the
suit.
CLEO AI INC. provides software solutions. The Company develops a
money management mobile application for customers. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
Kevin Tucker, Esq.
Chandler Steiger, Esq.
Stephanie Moore, Esq.
EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC
6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215
Pittsburgh, PA 15208
Telephone: (412) 223-5740
Facsimile: (412) 626-7101
Email: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com
ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com
csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com
smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com
CNB BANK: Faces Proposed Class Action Over Improper Overdraft Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Haydock at cookcountyrecord.com reports that CNB Bank faces a
proposed class action over its alleged practice of charging $32
overdraft fees to customers whose accounts contain sufficient funds
to cover individual transactions.
In a complaint filed June 15 in Cook County Circuit Court, Sandra
Neumann, on behalf of herself and others, accuses CNB Bank & Trust
(CNB) of allegedly breaching the terms of its customer account
agreement through improper assessment of overdraft and ATM fees.
According to the lawsuit, CNB is accused of routinely breaching its
customer account agreement terms as they apply to overdraft fees.
Specifically, CNB's terms state that overdraft fees will only be
assessed when there are not sufficient funds to cover a
transaction. The complaint contends that CNB is charging improper
overdraft fees on accounts where funds are available to cover a
given transaction, and allegedly misleading consumers with their
ATM fee structure..
CNB has historically charged overdraft fees on what they coined as
an "Authorize Positive, Settle Negative" transactions (APSN). In
the suit, these transactions result from a customer completing a
transaction when there is an available balance that subsequently
proceeds with a second transaction which, after completed, leaves
the account in a negative balance, thus generating the overdraft
fees.
Plaintiffs are contending that CNB is essentially allegedly
double-dipping by holding funds in reserve, while allegedly also
charging overdraft fees on APSN transactions.
The suit is also accusing CNB of excessive ATM fees by allegedly
assessing a separate ATM fee when a customer is making multiple
transactions, specifically in regards to balance inquiries in
connection with a withdrawal transaction. The claim alleges that
typically, an accountholder who unsuspectingly checks the account
balance as part of a cash withdrawal transaction at an out of
network ATM machine could expect to pay multiple fees to the tune
of between $4.00 and $6.00 in fees on a typical $20 transaction.
With excessive fees becoming a growing trend in the banking
industry, critics contend these fees are assessed
disproportionately, allegedly hitting low income, young or minority
customers. They have become an increasing topic of recent
litigation on similar complaints against BofA, Wells Fargo, Ally,
and Alliant. Most recently, Ally Bank announced their plans to
eliminate overdraft fees altogether.
Plaintiffs are demanding a trial by jury, restitution of alleged
improperly charged fees, court costs and legal fees.
Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys David Cates, Katie E. St.
John, of the Cates Law Firm, of Swansea; Christopher D. Jennings,
Tyler B. Ewigleben, of the Johnson Firm, of Little Rock, Arkansas;
and Amanda J. Rosenberg, Jeffrey D. Kaliel, and Sophia G. Gold,
of Kalielgold PLLC, of Washington, D.C. [GN]
COMOTO HOLDINGS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Comoto Holdings, LLC.
The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Comoto Holdings, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-05640 (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Comoto -- https://ridecomoto.com/ -- is America's largest
powersports aftermarket retailer serving motorcycle enthusiasts
everywhere through Cycle Gear, J&P Cycles and RevZilla.com.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
CONCHO RESOURCES: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shweta Watwe of Bloomberg Law reports that Western Texas oil and
natural gas company Concho Resources Inc. failed to convince a
federal judge to dismiss a securities fraud class action alleging
it made misrepresentations about a large-scale multi-well project.
Led by Utah Retirement Systems and the Construction Laborer's
Pension Trust for Southern California, the suit centers on Concho's
statements about completing a drilling program with tightly spaced
wells. The class includes those who bought Concho stock between
Feb. 21, 2018, when Concho said it's multi-well projects would
continue to drive growth, and July 31, 2019, when it said some of
its wells were too close together. [GN]
CRUNCH LLC: Bradford Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Maiya Bradford; Aprel Knight; Michael
Bradley; Herman Hawkins; and Amani Jackson, individually, and on
behalf all others similarly situated v. CRUNCH, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; CASEY CALLANGAN, an individual; JONATHAN
MOSOFF, an individual; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No.
23STCV11163 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
June 30, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-05199.
On May 17, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
complaint against the Defendants alleging fifteen causes of action
for: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages;
Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Breaks;
Improper Wage Statements; Waiting Time Penalties; Failure to Pay
Business Expenses; Improper Deductions from Wages; Unfair
Competition; Civil Penalties Under The Private Attorneys General
Act; Failure to Maintain Records; Failure to Provide Records;
Retaliation under Government Code; Hostile Work Environment; and
Failure to Take Steps to Prevent Discrimination.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Mia Farber, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
Phone: (213) 689-0404
Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
Email: Mia.Farber@Jacksonlewis.com
- and -
Shannon B. Nakabayashi, Esq.
Kevin Ha, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
50 California Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Phone: (415) 394-9400
Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
Email: Shannon.Nakabayashi@jacksonlewis.com
Kevin.Ha@jacksonlewis.com
CVS HEALTH: Baker Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Brendan Baker, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, Case No.
2384CV00993BLS2 was removed from the Superior Court of Suffolk
County, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on June 30, 2023,
and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-11483-PBS.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of "all persons
who applied for a Massachusetts CVS position whose application did
not contain a written disclosure concerning their rights regarding
lie detector tests."[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Anthony S. Califano, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
Seaport East, Suite 1200, Two Seaport Lane
Boston, MA 02210-2028
Phone: (617) 946-4800
Facsimile: (617) 946-4801
Email: acalifano@seyfarth.com
- and -
James J. Swartz, Jr., Esq.
Andrew McKinley, Esq.
1075 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2500
Atlanta, GA 30309-3958
Phone: (404) 885-1500
Facsimile: (404) 892-7056
Email: jswartz@seyfarth.com
amckinley@seyfarth.com
DEBLEX LLC: Gutierrez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Omar Gutierrez, and other similarly situated individuals v. DEBLEX
LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-22445-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 30, 2023), is
brought to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages under
United States laws pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("the
Act").
While employed by Defendant, Plaintiff worked regularly five days
per week. From Monday to Friday an average of 40 hours weekly.
Plaintiff has deducted 2.5 hours of lunchtime (30 minutes x 5 days=
2.5 hours). However, in high season, which totaled approximately 12
weeks, Plaintiff worked an average of 57.5 hours weekly. Plaintiff
has deducted 2.5 hours of lunchtime. Plaintiff was paid for all his
hours but at his regular rate. Plaintiff worked in excess of 40
hours, but he was not paid for overtime hours as required by law.
Plaintiff clocked in and out, and Defendant was in absolute control
of Plaintiff's schedule and activities. Defendant knew the hours
that Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals were
working. Therefore, Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff
overtime wages, at the rate of time and a half his regular rate,
for every hour that he worked in excess of 40, in violation of the
Act, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempted,
full-time warehouse employee.
The Defendant is a shipping company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
DENNEY TRANSPORT: Faces Fowler Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER FOWLER, on behalf of herself and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. DENNEY
TRANSPORT, LTD., a Colorado limited liability company, Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-01581 (D. Colo., June 21, 2023) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Colorado Minimum and Pay Standards Order and the Colorado Wage Act
and as an individual claim under the CWA due to Defendant's failure
to tender final wages.
Plaintiff Fowler is a former employee of the Defendant who was
employed from approximately March 9, 2020 to June 2, 2023. In
approximately March 2020, Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a
mechanic. In approximately June 2020, Plaintiff was moved to the
phone representative position. She asserts that over the course of
her entire employment as a PR with Denney, she did not receive
overtime premiums. When she inquired with Denney as to why she did
not receive overtime for hours worked over 40, Denney advised her
that they were not legally required to pay overtime unless and
until Plaintiff worked at least 50 hours.
Denney Transport, Ltd. owns and operates trucking company that
engages in delivery of refrigerated cargo. Denney operates
throughout the state of Colorado and also maintains offices in
Omaha, Nebraska and Riverside, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
BILLHORN LAW FIRM
53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312)-853-1450
- and -
John William Billhorn, Esq.
BILLHORN LAW FIRM
7900 E. Union Ave., Suite 1100
Denver, CO 80237
Telephone: (720) 386-9006
DISH NETWORK: Jodeh Files Suit Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------
AARON E. JODEH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DISH NETWORK, L.L.C., a Colorado limited
liability corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01546 (D. Colo.,
June 19, 2023) seeks redress against the Defendant for alleged
reckless and negligent violation of the privacy rights of Plaintiff
and similarly situated persons.
On February 23, 2023, DISH experienced a network outage that
affected its internal servers and IT telephony. During and as a
result of this alleged incident, unauthorized third-party hackers
were able to access DISH's internal data servers and extract the
personal identifying information of 296,851 of DISH's employees and
subscribers.
As a result of DISH's wrongful actions and inactions, Plaintiff's
and Class Members' PII was stolen. The Plaintiff and Class Members
who have had their PII compromised by nefarious third-party
hackers, have had their privacy rights violated, have been exposed
to the risk of fraud and identify theft, and have otherwise
suffered damages. The Plaintiff and Class Members who are
subscribers of DISH have lost the benefits of their bargains with
DISH, as they would not have entered into agreements and paid money
for DISH's services had they known that DISH would not implement
reasonable and adequate data security safeguards to protect the PII
that they entrusted to it, says the suit.
Plaintiff Jodeh, a Littleton, Colorado resident, has been a
subscriber to Defendant's satellite television services for 20
years.
DISH Network L.L.C. is an American satellite television
provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Fl.
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
E-TELEQUOTE INSURANCE: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Ford Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
TWILA FORD, AND BRANDY FOUNTAIN (f.k.a. LATRICE ANDREWS-CARTER),
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs v. E-TELEQUOTE INSURANCE, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 8:23-cv-01393 (C.D. Fla., June 21, 2023) arises from the
Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Nev. Rev. Stat., and common law due to alleged unlawful labor
policies and practices.
Plaintiffs Ford and Fountain worked for Defendant as agents from
April 2020 until November 2020 and from April 2020 until June 2020,
respectively. They assert that they regularly worked overtime and
non-overtime hours for which they were not paid. During the weeks
that they do not work over 40 hours in a workweek, the outcome of
Defendant's policies and practices is a deprivation of
straight-time wages, in breach of Defendant's contracts with them,
assert the Plaintiffs.
e-Telequote Insurance, Inc. maintains call centers and allows for
remote work, which provides customer, sales, and claims support to
customers throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bradley W. Butcher, Esq.
BUTCHER & ASSOCIATES, P.L.
6830 Porto Fino Circle, Suite 2
Fort Myers, FL 33912
Telephone: (239) 322-1650
E-mail: bwb@b-a-law.com
- and -
Jason T. Thompson, Esq.
Kathryn E. Milz, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
kmilz@sommerspc.com
EUROMARKET DESIGNS: Black Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Euromarket Designs,
Inc. The case is styled as Jahron Black, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Euromarket Designs, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-04943 (E.D.N.Y., June 30, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Euromarket Designs Inc., doing business as Crate & Barrel, is an
international furniture and home decor retail store headquartered
in Northbrook, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
FCA US LLC: Utter Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Bill Utter, an individual; Jacquelyn Utter,
an individual v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV11769 was removed
from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on June 29, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-05158.
The Plaintiffs filed the State Action on May 24, 2023, asserting
breach of express warranty under California's Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act against FCA.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David N. Barry, Esq.
THE BARRY LAW FIRM
11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 1270
Los Angeles CA 90064
The Defendant is represented by:
Matthew M. Proudfoot, Esq.
GATES, GONTER, GUY, PROUDFOOT & MUENCH, LLP
38 Discovery, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: (949) 753-0255
Facsimile: (949) 753-0265
Electronic Service: eservice@g3pmlaw.com
FIRST REPUBLIC: Faces Alcorn Suit Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------
ROY H. ALCORN, individually on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIRST REPUBLIC BANK, JAMES H. HERBERT, II,
HAFIZE GAYE ERKAN, MICHAEL J. ROFFLER, OLGA TSOKOVA, MICHAEL D.
SELFRIDGE, NEAL HOLLAND, and KPMG, LLP, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-03013 (N.D. Cal., June 20, 2023) is a securities class
action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired First Republic
securities between January 14, 2021 and May 1, 2023, inclusive,
seeking to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Throughout the Class Period, First Republic and its executives
repeatedly touted the Company's "safe and sound" business model,
assuring investors that First Republic was strongly-positioned --
particularly due to its purportedly "diversified deposit base" --
to weather a variety of economic conditions, and downplayed the
risks that rising interest rates posed to the Company's net
interest income and net interest margin -- critical financial
metrics that calculated the income generated on the Company's
interest-earning assets -- and the value of the Company's mortgage
loan portfolio.
On October 14, 2022, Plaintiff and other members of the Class began
to learn the truth about the risks the Company faced from the Fed
increasing the federal funds rate when the Company announced
disappointing third quarter 2022 financial results, reporting that
First Republic's net interest income growth had slowed to 20.6%
year-over-year (down from 24.1% year-over-year growth the prior
quarter) and its NIM had plummeted to 2.71% (down from 2.80% the
prior quarter). First Republic attributed the decrease in the
Company's net interest margin to "average funding costs increasing
more rapidly than the offsetting increase in the average yields on
interest-earning assets."
Then, on May 2, 2023, during pre-market hours, the New York Stock
Exchange announced that it was immediately suspending trading in
First Republic shares and commencing proceedings to delist those
shares. On this news, the price of First Republic's common stock
declined by $3.18 per share, or 90.6%, from a closing price of
$3.51 per share on March 1, 2023 and March 2, 2023 (when trading
was suspended pre-market), to a closing price of $0.33 per share on
May 3, 2023, when trading of First Republic shares resumed on the
over-the-counter market after being delisted from the NYSE, the
suit alleges.
Kraemer North America LLC was founded in 2015. The company's line
of business includes providing general contracting services such as
constructing bridges and tunnels.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
PORTNOY LAW FIRM
1800 Century Park East, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 692-8883
E-mail: lesley@portnoylaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
Eitan Kimelman, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
FIRST SOLAR: Wins Class Action Suit Over Securities Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------
Shweta Watwe of Bloomberg Law reports that First Solar Inc. dodged
a securities fraud class action because the Florida pension fund
that brought the suit didn't show the company had an intent to
defraud or concealed any risks that could have diminished the stock
price.
Palm Harbor Special Fire Control & Rescue District Firefighters
Pension Plan alleged First Solar misled investors about
developments with its solar module, Series 6, meant to result in a
40% reduction in cost-per-watt compared to an earlier model.
The pension fund argued First Solar knew about problems with the
Series 6 modules because problems were discussed at town hall
meetings. [GN]
FISKER INC: Nicholson Suit Removed to E.D. Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jon Nicholson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Fisker, Inc., Case No. CJ-23-178
was removed from the District Court of Muskogee County, State of
Oklahoma, to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Oklahoma on June 30, 2023, and assigned Case No.
6:23-cv-00215-JAR.
The Plaintiff's single-count Petition seeks relief from Defendant,
on behalf of himself and a putative class of similarly-situated
persons, for allegedly making or causing to be made unlawful
"commercial telephonic sales calls" without the "prior express
written consent" of Plaintiff and the putative class members,
purportedly violating the Oklahoma Telephone Solicitation Act
("OTSA").[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Larry G. Ball, Esq.
HALL ESTILL HARDWICK GABLE GOLDEN & NELSON
100 N. Broadway Ave. Suite 2900
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Phone: 405-553-2828 F: 405-553-2855
Email: lball@hallestill.com
- and -
John W. McGuinness, Esq.
A. Paul Heeringa, Esq.
MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20036
Phone: 202-585-6500
Facsimile: 202-585-6600
Email: jmcguinness@manatt.com
GARMIN USA INC: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Garmin USA Inc. The
case is styled as Frank Senior, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Garmin USA Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-05605 (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Garmin USA Inc. -- https://www.garmin.com/en-US/ -- is delivering
innovative GPS-enabled technology across diverse markets, including
sports and fitness, outdoor recreation, marine, automotive, and
aviation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
GDS HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Aug. 21
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of GDS Holdings Limited
(NASDAQ: GDS) and Arrow Financial Corporation. Stockholders have
until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead
plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at
the link provided.
GDS Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: GDS)
Class Period: April 12, 2021 - April 3, 2023
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 21, 2023
On April 4, 2023, GDS announced on Form 20-F that Chief Executive
Officer ("CEO"), William Wei Huang, entered into pre-paid forward
sale contract transactions, which the Company previously omitted.
The Form 20-F states that "Mr. Huang has in the past entered into,
and may in the future enter into, certain transactions from time to
time, including derivative transactions, that have and could have
the effect of reducing Mr. Huang's beneficial ownership in our
company. Mr. Huang informed our company that certain variable
pre-paid forward sale contract transactions in respect of
42,457,504 ordinary shares beneficially owned by him, which
transactions he originally entered into between May 2020 and June
2022, would expire between March 2023 and December 2023. If Mr.
Huang chooses to settle these transactions by transferring
ownership of the 42,457,504 ordinary shares to the counterparties,
his beneficial ownership interest in our total issued share capital
may decrease to below 5%, which would trigger an automatic
conversion event, unless the 5% threshold contained in our Articles
of Association is reduced or he otherwise acquires beneficial
ownership of additional shares to keep his beneficial ownership at
or above 5% or such other threshold if so reduced.
Should this happen, all Class B ordinary shares would automatically
convert into Class A ordinary shares, and the dual-class share
structure would thereby be terminated. This would constitute a
change of control for the purposes of certain of our, or our
subsidiaries' and the consolidated entities', sales agreements and
domestic loan facility agreements, and if such provisions under the
domestic loan agreements are triggered, which could give the
lenders the right to demand early repayment under these domestic
loan agreements. Such change of control may result in actual,
potential or alleged breaches or early termination of other
contracts or agreements. The change of control potentially may also
have implications for the purposes of China's national security
review regime and anti-monopoly merger filing requirements, if
applicable. The occurrence of any of the foregoing may have a
material and adverse effect on our business development, financial
condition and future prospects."
On this news, GDS' American depositary receipt ("ADR") price fell
$0.74 per ADR, or 3.99%, to close at $17.80 per ADR on April 4,
2023.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose,
among other things, that: (1) Defendant Huang had engaged in
undisclosed pre-paid forward sale contract transactions as early as
May 2020; (2) this presented a risk of Defendant Huang's ownership
going below 5% of the Company's outstanding shares; (3) if Huang's
ownership dipped below 5%, it would result in a change of control
of the Company which, as the Company admitted, could result in
disastrous consequences; and (4); as a result, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
For more information on the GDS class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/GDS
For more information on the Arrow class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/AROW
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com [GN]
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS: Zukas Files Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Generac Power Systems
Inc. The case is styled as James (Tim) Zukas, Jeffrey Johnson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Generac Power Systems Inc., Generac Holdings Inc., Case No.
2:23-cv-00874-LA (E.D. Wis., June 30, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability for
Contract Default.
Generac Power Products -- https://www.generac.com/ -- offers the
most reliable, durable, and efficient generators and power
equipment with factory direct prices and fast, direct
shipping.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas E Fairweather, Esq.
HAWKS QUINDEL SC
409 E Main St.
PO Box 2155
Madison, WI 53701-2155
Phone: (608) 257-0040
Fax: (608) 256-0236
Email: nfairweather@hq-law.com
GOLDEN STAR DELI: Faces Guevara Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marta Guevara, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
in this proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. Golden Star
Deli Inc., and Sidiq Mohamed Alrobeyee, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-05258 (S.D.N.Y., June 21, 2023) seeks injunctive and
declaratory relief and to recover Plaintiff's unpaid minimum wages,
overtime wages, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the
NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act.
Plaintiff Guevara was employed as a general worker at Defendants'
deli known as "Golden Star Deli" from February 2023 to, through and
including, April 2023.
Golden Star Deli Inc. owns, operates and controls a deli
restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0046
E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com
GREATER LOVE: Carrington Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Loren Carrington, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
employees v. GREATER LOVE INTERNATIONAL, Case No. 2:23-cv-02508
(E.D. Pa., June 29, 2023), is brought against the Defendant seeking
all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),
and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA") by failing to pay
overtime wages.
Like other home care workers, Plaintiff often worked over 40 hours
per week. Defendant paid Plaintiff and other home care workers an
hourly wage for their work. For most of Plaintiff's employment,
Defendant paid her $15.00/hour. During the three-year period
covered by this lawsuit, Defendant generally has paid Plaintiff and
other home care workers their straight-time hourly wage for all
hours worked, including hours worked over 40 per week. For example,
during the two-week period between April 9, 2023 and April 22,
2023, Defendant credited Plaintiff with working 158 hours and paid
her $15.00 for every hour worked. No overtime premium pay was
provided, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a home care worker.
The Defendant owns and operates a business that provides home
health care services to clients in southeastern Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
Michelle Tolodziecki, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Phone: (215) 884-2491
Email: mtolodziecki@winebrakelaw.com
HAMPDEN CLOTHING: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hampden Clothing,
LLC. The case is styled as Seana Cromitie, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Hampden Clothing, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-05589 (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Hampden -- https://hampdenclothing.com/ -- is a luxury designer
boutique located in Charleston, South Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
HMB LLC: Aguirre-Villanueva Suit Removed to D. Nevada
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Victor Aguirre-Villanueva, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HMB LLC d/b/a and
a/k/a SERVEHZAH BOTTLE SHOP AND TAP ROOM; EMPLOYEE(S)/AGENT(S) DOES
1-10; and ROE CORPORATIONS 11-20, inclusive, Case No. A-23-871519-C
was removed from the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, to the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada on June 29,
2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01001.
In the Complaint, the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly
situated individuals, alleges three claims for relief against
Defendant: Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA")--Unlawful Confiscation of Tips Conversion and Unjust
enrichment. The Plaintiff alleges Defendant, who is his former
employer, violated the FLSA by applying a mandatory tip pooling and
tip confiscation policy that deprived Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees of earned tips.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jennifer K. Hostetler, Esq.
LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER LLP
3993 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Phone: (702) 949.8200
Facsimile: (702) 949.8378
Email: jhostetler@lewisroca.com
HOME DEPOT: Agrees to Settle Labor Class Suit in Calif. for $72.5M
------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Payne of Hardlines reports that Home Depot will pay US$72.5
million to settle a long-standing class action lawsuit from 272,000
employees in California.
The grievances from employees, which date back to 2012, include the
company making employees wait, unpaid, while stores were locked at
the end of shifts, the suit alleges. Employees were told to be
off-the-clock while they collected and put on aprons, the lawsuit
also claims. Home Depot, contrary to state law, also allegedly
rounded clock-in and clock-out times to the nearest quarter hour.
Home Depot denies the claims, but will settle. [GN]
HOWARD COUNTY, MD: Receives $562,000 in Meijer Opioid Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Juranovich of Yahoo! News reports that Howard County is
receiving more than half a million dollars in additional opioid
settlement money.
The Howard County Board of Commissioners last week unanimously
approved establishing a fund to deposit $562,000 from a national
class action lawsuit against Meijer Inc., the Michigan-based
superstore chain, that the county joined.
The county has received the money in one lump sum, County Attorney
Alan Wilson said, and will have to spend at least 85% of the funds
on opioid use and addiction abatement. The other 15% can be spent
at the commissioners' discretion. How exactly that money will be
spent has not yet been decided.
Meijer, like many other pharmacies across the country, were sued by
communities for their alleged role in contributing to the opioid
epidemic. Meijer specifically was alleged to have "contributed to
the opioid crisis by creating a public nuisance through its
distribution of prescription opioid medications sent to the
pharmacies it owns and operates in its stores," according to the
class action lawsuit.
Meijer denied those allegations and is not admitting any guilt in
choosing to settle the lawsuit. The total amount for the settlement
was $35 million.
This marks at least the second time Howard County has received
settlement money related to lawsuits filed over the opioid
epidemic.
The county will also receive a total of $4.3 million through 2038
from a separate national settlement with drug manufacturer Johnson
& Johnson and national distributors Cardinal Health, McKesson and
Amerisource Bergen.
In December, the commissioners approved allocating the first two
years (2022 and 2023) worth of that opioid settlement money,
totaling more than $982,562, to five local organizations, including
Turning Point -- A System of Care, Howard County Drug Free Task
Force, Valley of Grace, Gilead House and Family Service Association
of Howard County.
Tyler Juranovich can be reached at 765-454-8577, by email at
tyler.juranovich@kokomotribune.com or on Twitter at
@tylerjuranovich. [GN]
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Faces Addi Suit for Illegal Wiretapping
---------------------------------------------------------------
LISA ADDI, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The International Business
Machines, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 7:23-cv-05203 (S.D.N.Y., June
20, 2023) is a class action suit brought against the Defendant for
the wiretapping of electronic communications of visitors to
Weather.com by third party Oracle America, Inc., in violation of
the Maryland Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and a class
of all persons whose electronic communications were intercepted by
Oracle on the Weather.com website. During the months of May and
June 2023, Plaintiff visited the Website and during these visits,
Oracle, as procured by Defendant, recorded and thereby intercepted,
Plaintiff's electronic communications in real time with Defendant,
notes the complaint.
Specifically, through its Blue Kai Pixel, Oracle, as procured by
IBM, secretly observed, recorded, and otherwise intercepted
Plaintiff and other website visitors' electronic communications
with Defendant and used that data to improve its own marketing and
analytical capabilities, as well as those of Defendant, the
complaint adds.
The International Business Machines Corporation, nicknamed Big
Blue, is an American multinational technology corporation
headquartered in Armonk, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
jdiamond@bursor.com
- and -
Christopher R. Reilly, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Ave., Suite 1420
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
E-mail: creilly@bursor.com
INYO INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kline Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA KLINE; JACOB GIRONZA; and JUSTINE SANCHEZ, individually, and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. INYO INC.,
doing business as INYO, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-11539-LJM-CI
(E.D. Mich., June 27, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as servers.
INYO INC. operates a high-end restaurant offering Chinese,
Vietnamese, and Korean food. The Company also offers catering
services for both large and small functions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Wahl, Esq.
STERLING ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.C.
33 Bloomfield Hills Pkwy, Ste. 205
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-2913
Telephone: (248) 633-8916
Email: gwahl@sterlingattorneys.com
- and -
Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
ASH LAW, PLLC
402 W. Liberty St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48178
Telephone: (734) 234-5583
Email: cash@nationalwagelaw.com
J.M. SMUCKER: Court Dismisses Carroll Suit Over VPPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alice Phillips of Lexology reports that A Northern District of
California court recently dismissed a putative California class
action against The J.M. Smucker Company ("J.M. Smucker") for lack
of personal jurisdiction because it did not purposefully target
California in operating its marketing website for the Folgers
coffee brand. See Carroll v. J.M. Smucker Co., No. 3:22-cv-08952
(N.D. Cal. June 15, 2023).
Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against J.M. Smucker, an
Ohio company, in the Northern District of California, alleging that
J.M. Smucker's use of pixel technology on its website for the
Folgers brand, www.folgerscoffee.com, violated the federal Video
Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA"). The putative class representatives
were Virginia and California residents. The plaintiffs claimed that
the data collected about their browsing activity on the Folgers
site by the pixel software was disclosed to the third-party service
provider in violation of the VPPA.
J.M. Smucker moved to dismiss both for lack of personal
jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. District Judge
William Alsup granted the motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction. The court found that plaintiffs' claims sounded in
tort, so plaintiffs needed to allege that the Ohio company had
purposefully directed its activities at California, rather than
that J.M. Smucker had purposefully availed itself of California,
which would be the appropriate inquiry if the claims sounded in
contract.
The court found that although the Folgers website is interactive in
several respects, including by inviting users to sign up to receive
emails, allowing users to perform keyword searches, and offering a
"Live Chat" feature, none of these interactive features was
sufficiently targeted at California to give rise to specific
personal jurisdiction over J.M. Smucker in the state. The court
found persuasive the fact "any website feature plaintiffs point to
. . . appears to have offered an identical experience regardless of
the forum of access." Further, consumers cannot purchase products
directly through that website—they would need to navigate to a
separate online store to make a purchase.
The court granted the motion to dismiss without further leave to
amend, noting that "the jurisdictional showing here is so deficient
that any sought amendment would be futile." The court also declined
to permit jurisdictional discovery because the jurisdictional
discovery sought by plaintiffs—online sales figures for
California versus nationwide figures—would not cure the
complaint's jurisdictional deficiencies. [GN]
JSL MECHANICAL: Coyle Sues Over Unpaid Overtime and Retaliation
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN COYLE, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. JSL MECHANICAL, INC., STEVEN T. LLOYD, JOSHUA BENTON
and JEFFREY LLOYD, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02378 (E.D. Pa.,
June 21, 2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor
policies and practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants for over three years as an
HVAC installer. He alleges the Defendants' failure to provide
timely payment of overtime wages and for unlawful termination in
retaliation for complaining of FLSA violations. He further asserts
that he was entitled to compensation for hours worked in excess of
40 hours in a workweek at a rate of one-and-a-half times the rate
at which he was regularly employed.
JSL Mechanical, Inc. provides air conditioning, heating and
plumbing services in Lancaster and Berks Counties in
Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
M. Frances Ryan, Esq.
WUSINICH, SWEENEY & RYAN, LLC
102 Pickering Way, Suite 403
Exton, PA 19341
Telephone: (610) 594-1600
E-mail: mfrancesryan@wusinichsweeney.com
MDL 2262: Fact Discovery in Berkshire v. BoA Due April 4, 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as The Berkshire Bank v. Bank
of America Corporation et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-05723 (S.D.N.Y.,
Filed July 25, 2012), the Hon. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald entered a
scheduling order as follows:
-- Deadline for substantial completion Sept. 7,
2023
of Defendants rolling production of
all document discovery relating to the
Upstream Issues and class certification
in the OTC action:
-- Close of fact discovery (including April 4,
2024
depositions) concerning the Upstream Issues
and class certification in the OTC action:
-- Close of expert discovery (including Sept. 13,
2024
depositions) concerning the Upstream Issues
and class certification in the OTC action:
-- Deadline to file summary judgment motions Oct. 4, 2024
on the Upstream Issues, Deadline for
Plaintiffs to file motion to certify the
OTC class with respect to the Foreign
Defendants, Deadline to file motions to
exclude experts concerning the Upstream
Issues and OTC class certification:
-- Deadline for service of privilege logs, Oct. 10,
2023
if any, concerning the Upstream Issues and
class certification in the OTC action:
-- Deadline to serve Hague requests to obtain Oct. 23,
2023
testimony abroad concerning the Upstream
Issues or class certification in the OTC
Action:
-- Deadline for parties to propound Jan. 19,
2024
interrogatories and RFAs concerning the
Upstream Issues or class certification in
The OTC action:
-- Deadline to notice fact depositions Feb. 2, 2024
concerning the Upstream Issues or class
certification in the OTC action:
-- Close of fact discovery (including Feb. 4, 2024
depositions) concerning the Upstream
Issues and class certification in the
OTC action:
-- Deadline for parties to serve April 19,
2024
opening expert reports concerning
the Upstream Issues and OTC class
certification:
-- Deadline for parties to serve rebuttal June 18, 2024
Expert reports concerning the Upstream
Issues and OTC class certification:
The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act and
Racketeering (RICO) Act.
The Berkshire case is consolidated in Libor-Based Financial
Instruments Antitrust Litigation MDL No. 2262.
The Plaintiffs argue that their actions involve a primarily local
transaction between an Ohio business and its local bank, and that
the action does not involve any antitrust claims. These arguments
are unconvincing. A review of the Cicchini Enterprises complaint
demonstrates that the action shares multiple issues with actions
already in the MDL concerning alleged manipulation of the London
Interbank Offered Rate (Libor), the Court says.
The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational
investment bank and financial services holding company
headquartered at the Bank of America Corporate Center in Charlotte,
North Carolina, with investment banking and auxiliary headquarters
in Manhattan.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/447Rwvt at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2262: Fact Discovery in Charles Schwab v. BoA Due April 4, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Charles Schwab
Corporation, etal., v. Bank of America Corporation et al., Case No.
1:13-cv-07005 (S.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 3, 2013), the Hon. Judge Naomi
Reice Buchwald entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- Deadline for substantial completion Sept. 7,
2023
of Defendants rolling production of
all document discovery relating to the
Upstream Issues and class certification
in the OTC action:
-- Close of fact discovery (including April 4,
2024
depositions) concerning the Upstream Issues
and class certification in the OTC action:
-- Close of expert discovery (including Sept. 13,
2024
depositions) concerning the Upstream Issues
and class certification in the OTC action:
-- Deadline to file summary judgment motions Oct. 4, 2024
on the Upstream Issues, Deadline for
Plaintiffs to file motion to certify the
OTC class with respect to the Foreign
Defendants, Deadline to file motions to
exclude experts concerning the Upstream
Issues and OTC class certification:
-- Deadline for service of privilege logs, Oct. 10,
2023
if any, concerning the Upstream Issues and
class certification in the OTC action:
-- Deadline to serve Hague requests to obtain Oct. 23,
2023
testimony abroad concerning the Upstream
Issues or class certification in the OTC
Action:
-- Deadline for parties to propound Jan. 19,
2024
interrogatories and RFAs concerning the
Upstream Issues or class certification in
The OTC action:
-- Deadline to notice fact depositions Feb. 2, 2024
concerning the Upstream Issues or class
certification in the OTC action:
-- Close of fact discovery (including Feb. 4, 2024
depositions) concerning the Upstream
Issues and class certification in the
OTC action:
-- Deadline for parties to serve April 19,
2024
opening expert reports concerning
the Upstream Issues and OTC class
certification:
-- Deadline for parties to serve rebuttal June 18, 2024
Expert reports concerning the Upstream
Issues and OTC class certification:
The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act and
Racketeering (RICO) Act.
The Charles Schwab case is consolidated in Libor-Based Financial
Instruments Antitrust Litigation MDL No. 2262.
The Plaintiffs argue that their actions involve a primarily local
transaction between an Ohio business and its local bank, and that
the action does not involve any antitrust claims. These arguments
are unconvincing. A review of the Cicchini Enterprises complaint
demonstrates that the action shares multiple issues with actions
already in the MDL concerning alleged manipulation of the London
Interbank Offered Rate (Libor), the Court says.
The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational
investment bank and financial services holding company
headquartered at the Bank of America Corporate Center in Charlotte,
North Carolina, with investment banking and auxiliary headquarters
in Manhattan.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JEB7GX at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2262: Fact Discovery in Goldsleler v. BoA Due April 4, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Goldsleler v. Bank of
America Corporation et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-07720 (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald entered a scheduling order as
follows:
-- Deadline for substantial completion Sept. 7,
2023
of Defendants rolling production of
all document discovery relating to the
Upstream Issues and class certification
in the OTC action:
-- Close of fact discovery (including April 4,
2024
depositions) concerning the Upstream Issues
and class certification in the OTC action:
-- Close of expert discovery (including Sept. 13,
2024
depositions) concerning the Upstream Issues
and class certification in the OTC action:
-- Deadline to file summary judgment motions Oct. 4, 2024
on the Upstream Issues, Deadline for
Plaintiffs to file motion to certify the
OTC class with respect to the Foreign
Defendants, Deadline to file motions to
exclude experts concerning the Upstream
Issues and OTC class certification:
-- Deadline for service of privilege logs, Oct. 10,
2023
if any, concerning the Upstream Issues and
class certification in the OTC action:
-- Deadline to serve Hague requests to obtain Oct. 23,
2023
testimony abroad concerning the Upstream
Issues or class certification in the OTC
Action:
-- Deadline for parties to propound Jan. 19,
2024
interrogatories and RFAs concerning the
Upstream Issues or class certification in
The OTC action:
-- Deadline to notice fact depositions Feb. 2, 2024
concerning the Upstream Issues or class
certification in the OTC action:
-- Close of fact discovery (including Feb. 4, 2024
depositions) concerning the Upstream
Issues and class certification in the
OTC action:
-- Deadline for parties to serve April 19,
2024
opening expert reports concerning
the Upstream Issues and OTC class
certification:
-- Deadline for parties to serve rebuttal June 18, 2024
Expert reports concerning the Upstream
Issues and OTC class certification:
The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act and
Racketeering (RICO) Act.
The Goldsleler case is consolidated in Libor-Based Financial
Instruments Antitrust Litigation MDL No. 2262.
The Plaintiffs argue that their actions involve a primarily local
transaction between an Ohio business and its local bank, and that
the action does not involve any antitrust claims. These arguments
are unconvincing. A review of the Cicchini Enterprises complaint
demonstrates that the action shares multiple issues with actions
already in the MDL concerning alleged manipulation of the London
Interbank Offered Rate (Libor), the Court says.
The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational
investment bank and financial services holding company
headquartered at the Bank of America Corporate Center in Charlotte,
North Carolina, with investment banking and auxiliary headquarters
in Manhattan.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44oiRta at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2262: Fact Discovery in LACERA V. BoA Due April 4, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Los Angeles County
Employees Retirement Association v. Bank of America Corporation et
al., Case No. 1:13-cv-00398 (S.D.N.Y., Filed Jan. 17, 2013), the
Hon. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald entered a scheduling order as
follows:
-- Deadline for substantial completion Sept. 7,
2023
of Defendants rolling production of
all document discovery relating to the
Upstream Issues and class certification
in the OTC action:
-- Close of fact discovery (including April 4,
2024
depositions) concerning the Upstream Issues
and class certification in the OTC action:
-- Close of expert discovery (including Sept. 13,
2024
depositions) concerning the Upstream Issues
and class certification in the OTC action:
-- Deadline to file summary judgment motions Oct. 4, 2024
on the Upstream Issues, Deadline for
Plaintiffs to file motion to certify the
OTC class with respect to the Foreign
Defendants, Deadline to file motions to
exclude experts concerning the Upstream
Issues and OTC class certification:
-- Deadline for service of privilege logs, Oct. 10,
2023
if any, concerning the Upstream Issues and
class certification in the OTC action:
-- Deadline to serve Hague requests to obtain Oct. 23,
2023
testimony abroad concerning the Upstream
Issues or class certification in the OTC
Action:
-- Deadline for parties to propound Jan. 19,
2024
interrogatories and RFAs concerning the
Upstream Issues or class certification in
The OTC action:
-- Deadline to notice fact depositions Feb. 2, 2024
concerning the Upstream Issues or class
certification in the OTC action:
-- Close of fact discovery (including Feb. 4, 2024
depositions) concerning the Upstream
Issues and class certification in the
OTC action:
-- Deadline for parties to serve April 19,
2024
opening expert reports concerning
the Upstream Issues and OTC class
certification:
-- Deadline for parties to serve rebuttal June 18, 2024
Expert reports concerning the Upstream
Issues and OTC class certification:
The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act and
Racketeering (RICO) Act.
The Los Angeles case is consolidated in Libor-Based Financial
Instruments Antitrust Litigation MDL No. 2262.
The Plaintiffs argue that their actions involve a primarily local
transaction between an Ohio business and its local bank, and that
the action does not involve any antitrust claims. These arguments
are unconvincing. A review of the Cicchini Enterprises complaint
demonstrates that the action shares multiple issues with actions
already in the MDL concerning alleged manipulation of the London
Interbank Offered Rate (Libor), the Court says.
The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational
investment bank and financial services holding company
headquartered at the Bank of America Corporate Center in Charlotte,
North Carolina, with investment banking and auxiliary headquarters
in Manhattan.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PAr6hJ at no extra charge.[CC]
NOVOCURE LTD: Faces Bazzelle Suit Over Misleading Study Results
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM E. BAZZELLE, SR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NOVOCURE LIMITED, WILLIAM DOYLE,
and ASAF DANZIGER, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-05146 (S.D.N.Y.,
June 19, 2023) is brought by the Plaintiff pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated
who purchased or otherwise acquired NovoCure securities between
January 5, 2023 to June 5, 2023, inclusive.
On January 5, 2023, the Defendants announced topline results from
the Company's LUNAR Study. The announcement disclosed positive data
while at the same time concealing negative data. The market did not
discover this negative data, which significantly undermined and
detracted from the previously reported positive data, until the
Company revealed it during a presentation at the 2023 ASCO Annual
Meeting exactly five months later.
According to the complaint, NovoCure provided the market with false
and misleading study results in order to prop up investor
expectations and share prices. Several of the Defendants even
bought and sold NovoCure's stock while in possession material,
non-public information about the LUNAR Study's results, reaping
significant profits at the expense of ordinary investors. On June
5, 2023, after making numerous statements assuring investors that
the LUNAR Study produced unqualified positive results, the Company
revealed additional information that undermined its previous
reports rendering the data unreliable, much less overwhelmingly
positive. In particular, the Company revealed that a relatively
small percentage of study participants had been receiving standard
of care therapy (i.e., immune checkpoint inhibitors), thereby
rendering the study's results unreliable in terms of demonstrating
clinical efficacy.
Throughout the Class Period, NovoCure's stock price remained
relatively steady, propped up by false information. When the truth
of the LUNAR study results was revealed on June 5, 2023, NovoCure's
shareholders immediately lost billions of dollars on extremely
heavy volume, says the suit.
NovoCure Limited is a commercial stage oncology company developing
a profoundly different cancer treatment centered on a proprietary
therapy called Tumor Treating Fields, the use of electric fields
tuned to specific frequencies to disrupt solid tumor cancer cell
division.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam M. Apton, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
55 Broadway, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: aapton@zlk.com
NUTRACEUTICAL WELLNESS: Sheehan Suit Removed to S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Erin Sheehan snd Kelly Casanova, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. NUTRACEUTICAL
WELLNESS, INC., d/b/a NUTRAFOL, Case No. 030687/2023 was removed
from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
Rockland, to the United States District Court for Southern District
of New York on June 30, 2023, and assigned Case No. 7:23-cv-05652.
The Plaintiffs allege Defendant's marketing and sale of Nutrafol
Women (the "Product") violates New York General Business Law
("GBL") sections 349 and 350 and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
William A. Delgado, Esq.
Grace Schmidt, Esq.
DTO LAW
27 E. 28th St., Suite 15019
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (213) 335-6999
Facsimile: (213) 335-7802
Email: wdelgado@dtolaw.com
- and -
Megan O'Neill, Esq.
Erik P. Mortensen, Esq.
2400 Broadway, Suite 200
Redwood City, CA 94063
Phone: (415) 630-4100
Facsimile: (415) 630-4105
Email: moneill@dtolaw.com
emortensen@dtolaw.com
ODP CORPORATION: Pai Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Benson Pai, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE ODP CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation; VEYER, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 23CV034482 was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Alameda, to the United States District Court for Northern District
of California on June 30, 2023, and assigned Case No.
3:23-cv-03279-SK.
Through the Complaint, Plaintiff alleged Defendants failed to pay
minimum wages; failed to pay overtime wages; failed to provide meal
periods or compensation in lieu thereof; failed to provide rest
periods or compensation in lieu thereof; violated Labor Code
Section 226; failed to timely pay all wages due upon separation of
employment; failed to reimburse business expenses; and engaged in
unfair competition. In addition to the statutory penalties
available under Section 226, Plaintiff seeks civil penalties,
restitution, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Barbara J. Miller, Esq.
Kevin J. Bohm, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
Phone: +1.714.830.0600
Fax: +1.714.830.0700
Email: barbara.miller@morganlewis.com
kevin.bohm@morganlewis.com
PEOPLENET CORP: Settles BIPA Class Action Suit for $4.75-Mil.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that PeopleNet agreed to pay $4.75
million as part of a settlement to resolve claims it failed to
comply with Illinois biometric laws when using biometric time
clocks.
The settlement benefits individuals who had a finger, hand, facial
or other biometric data scan collected by PeopleNet in Illinois
between April 2, 2016, and March 21, 2023. PeopleNet used the
following time clock systems: Tempo PN-2000, Tempo PN-1000 and
Optima.
Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim that PeopleNet failed
to comply with Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA)
when using biometric timekeeping systems for its employees. BIPA
requires certain disclosures and other policies so that consumers
know how their biometric information is being used and stored.
PeopleNet is a subsidiary of Bullhorn, a company that offers
timekeeping, scheduling and other human resources software.
PeopleNet hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $4.75
million settlement to resolve the BIPA class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the PeopleNet settlement, class members can
receive an equal share of the net settlement fund.
Exact payment amounts will vary, but each claimant is expected to
receive between $500 and $1,000.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is July 3, 2023.
The final approval hearing for the PeopleNet settlement is
scheduled for Aug. 9, 2023.
In order to receive a payment, class members must submit a valid
claim form by July 24, 2023.
Who's Eligible
Individuals who had a finger, hand, facial or other biometric data
scan collected by PeopleNet in Illinois between April 2, 2016, and
March 21, 2023, using one of the following time clock systems:
Tempo PN-2000, Tempo PN-1000 or Optima
Potential Award
$500-$1,000
roof of Purchase
N/A
Claim Form
CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM »
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
07/24/2023
Case Name
King v. PeopleNet Corp., Case No. 2021-CH-01602, in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois
Final Hearing
08/09/2023
Settlement Website
PeopleNetBIPASettlement.com
Claims Administrator
PeopleNet Corporation BIPA Settlement
c/o Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 2570
Portland, OR 97208-2570
claims@PeopleNetBIPASettlement.com
888-817-5562
Class Counsel
Evan M Meyers
Timothy P Kingsbury
Brendan Duffner
Chandne Jawanda
MCGUIRE LAW PC
Defense Counsel
Elizabeth B Herrington
Gregory T Fouts
Alborz Hassani
Staci Holthus
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP [GN]
PERFECT DAY: Zakay Law Files Labor Class Action in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
The Northern California labor law attorneys, at Zakay Law Group,
APLC and JCL Law Firm, APC, filed a class action complaint against
Perfect Day, Inc. ("Perfect Day") for allegedly failing to
accurately pay employees' wages for all their time worked. The
Perfect Day class action lawsuit, Case No. 23CV033079, is currently
pending in the Alameda County Superior Court of the State of
California. A copy of the Complaint can be read here.
According to the lawsuit, Perfect Day allegedly violated California
Labor Code Sections Sec 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510,
512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802 by failing to: (1) pay
minimum wages; (2) pay overtime wages; (3) provide required meal
and rest periods; (4) pay wages when due; (5) provide accurate
itemized wage statements; and (6) reimburse for required business
expenses;
California Labor Code Section 226 requires an employer to furnish
its employees an accurate itemized wage statement in writing
showing (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked, (3) the
number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece-rate,
(4) all deductions, (5) net wages earned, (6) the inclusive dates
of the period for which the employee is paid, (7) the name of the
employee and only the last four digits of the employee's social
security number or an employee identification number other than a
social security number, (8) the name and address of the legal
entity that is the employer and, (9) all applicable hourly rates in
effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours
worked at each hourly rate by the employee. Perfect Day allegedly
failed to provide its employees with accurate itemized wage
statements that complied with all the requirements of California
Labor Code Section 226.
If you would like to know more about the Perfect Day lawsuit,
please contact Attorney Jackland Hom by calling (619) 255-9047.
Zakay Law Group, APLC and JCL Law Firm, APC are labor and
employment law firms with offices located in California that
dedicate their practices to fighting for employees who have been
wronged by their employers due to unfair employment practices.
Contact one of their attorneys if you need help with workplace
issues regarding wage and hour, wrongful termination, retaliation,
discrimination, and harassment. [GN]
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Faces Pipes Class Suit Over Third-Party Access
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keymonte Avery of Brproud reports that a Louisiana man launched a
potential class-action lawsuit against the software company that
was entrusted with the Louisiana Office of Motor Vehicles data and
hacked. The data breach could affect any resident who uses OMV
services, including driver's license holders.
Christopher Pipes, a Louisiana resident, filed the class complaint
against defendants, Ipswitch, Inc. and Progress Software
Corporation, on behalf of himself and others who have had their
personal information exposed after a MOVEit data breach. MOVEit is
a third-party data transfer service.
Although Pipes lives in Calhoun, Louisiana, the suit was filed U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, where Progress
Software Corporation is located, and requests a jury trial.
The Governor's Office of Homeland Security and Emergency
Preparedness alerted Louisianans to the Office of Motor Vehicles
data breach on June 15, adding that there weren't any clear signs
that users' information was sold, used, or shared. GOHSEP said the
breach specifically affected those with a Louisiana state-issued
driver's license, photo ID or car registration.
According to a lawsuit, Progress Software did not take preventive
measures before the cyber attack.
Pipes reported spending about three hours setting up credit freezes
with credit bureaus and checking for fraudulent activity. In the
suit, he estimates another hour a week will be spent monitoring his
information.
The lawsuit accuses the company of negligence, and users are asking
the court to:
Declare this a class-action case.
Order a change in the company's business practices to close any
security loopholes.
Award plaintiffs the maximum amount of damages.
A website called nextsteps.la.gov was created to answer Louisiana
residents' questions and provides steps to take after the data
breach. [GN]
PUBLISHERS CLEARING: To Settle Deceptive Acts Suit for $18.5M
-------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Pequeno IV of Forbes reports that Publishers Clearing House
will refund customers $18.5 million to settle a Federal Trade
Commission lawsuit alleging deceptive business practices --
familiar ground for the marketing and sweepstakes firm.
The FTC alleged Publishers Clearing House tricked customers into
making purchases by using "dark patterns" -- design practices that
manipulate consumers into making potentially harmful or uninformed
decisions.
Specifically, the FTC claimed the company used deceptive website
design to convince consumers that making purchases was required to
either win a sweepstakes or increase their chances of winning one.
The FTC also claimed Publishers Clearing House tacked on surprise
shipping fees to purchases -- something the company will have to
stop under the terms of the settlement.
In addition to the $18.5 million being refunded to customers,
Publishers Clearing House will also have to display clear
disclosures on its website that inform customers their purchases
are not needed to win or increase their chances of winning a
sweepstakes.
Publishers Clearing House did not immediately respond to a request
for comment.
The FTC lawsuit is not the first time Publishers Clearing House has
dealt with litigation regarding their business practices. In 2000,
a $30 million settlement was approved for a class-action lawsuit
that claimed the company misled customers into buying magazines --
purchases made with the belief it would increase their chances of
winning a sweepstakes. The federal judge who approved the
settlement said as much as $21 million would be paid in claims and
that claimants would get full refunds of what they paid to the
company. Publishers Clearing House also paid $18 million in a
settlement from the same year that also alleged customers were
misled into thinking their purchases of merchandise would increase
their chances of winning a sweepstakes. In 2018, similar
allegations were filed against the company in a class-action
lawsuit that also claimed that Publishers Clearing House was
selling consumers' personal information.
Scams using the Publishers Clearing House name have gained
significant attention from government entities. The FTC and the
U.S. Postal Service have both published alerts informing consumers
about signs of scams using Publishers Clearing House's name. The
non-governmental Identity Theft Resource Center identified a 240%
increase last year in scams pretending to represent PCH. [GN]
SAFEWAY CONSTRUCTION: Court OK's Extension to Complete Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Amigon v. Safeway
Construction Enterprises LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-05222
(E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 29, 2020), the Hon. Judge Peggy Kuo entered
an order on motion for extension of time to complete discovery.
-- The parties are encouraged to file their motion papers only
when
the motion for class certification is fully briefed.
-- If the parties follow this practice, the motion and all
supporting papers are to be served on the other parties along
with a cover letter setting forth whom the movant represents
and
the papers being served.
-- Only a copy of the cover letter should be filed
electronically,
as a letter, not as a motion. On the day the motion is fully
briefed, the parties shall electronically file their
respective
motion papers.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Safeway Construction is a site development and utilities
contractor.[CC]
SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Court OK's Second Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARLON JOHNSON;
CHRISTOPHER CROWELL; KIMBERLY JEAN McLEOD; SHAUNA LEE LANDIS;
JANIELLE GUZMAN; GERALD WAYNE CRUTCHER; and RAFAEL DIAZ on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF SAN
BERNARDINO; SAN BERNARDINO SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; SHERIFF JOHN
MCMAHON, individually; PAUL WYNN, individually; JOE BILLINGS,
individually; RICK BESSINGER, individually; ROBERT GUILLEN,
individually; Does 1 through 10,Case No. 5:18-cv-01121-GW-AFM (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge George H. Wu entered an order approving the
plaintiffs' second motion for class certification.
The Plaintiffs second motion for class certification seeks:
(1) Certification of class 2 pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) for the
issues of liability and damages on the fifth cause of action for
violation of California Penal Code section 4030;
(2) Certification of Classes 1, 2, 3, and 4 and Subclasses 3A, 3B,
4A, and 4B pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4) for the issue of liability on
the first and second causes of action (42 U.S.C. section 1983) and
the fifth cause of action (Penal Code section 4030); and
(3) Certification of Classes 1, 2, 3, and 4 and Subclasses 3B and
4B pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) for injunctive relief.
The Plaintiffs define the classes and subclasses, which the Court
now adopts, as follows:
The Class Period for all classes and subclasses other than Class 2
is the period May 25, 2016, to the date the classes are certified,
which the Plaintiffs assert is extended (for each class and
subclass member) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
section 352.1 and Government Code section 945.3.
The dates and tolling issues will be subject of the Defendants'
Summary Judgment Motion or the Court’s Order on the position
papers submitted by the parties.
The Class Period for Class 2 is the period May 25, 2015, to the
date Class 2 is certified, which the Plaintiffs assert is extended
(for each Class 2 member) pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure section 352.1 and Government Code section 945.3.
The dates and tolling issues will be subject of the Defendants'
Summary Judgment Motion or the Court's Order on the position papers
submitted by the parties.
-- Class 1: those persons who were in the custody of the
Defendant
County during the Class Period, were eligible for release,
were
strip and visual-body-cavity searched (collectively "strip
search") before their arraignment, and were cited and
released,
released on bail, or released on their own recognizance.
-- Class 2: those persons who were in the custody of County in
the
Class Period on a misdemeanor or infraction, not including
those
involving weapons, controlled substances, or violence, were
strip
searched prior to placement in the general jail population
without the prior written authorization of the supervising
officer on duty, and for whom no peace officer determined,
based
on specific and articulable facts, that there was reasonable
suspicion to believe that person was concealing a weapon or
contraband, and that a strip search will result in the
discovery
of the weapon or contraband.
-- Class 3: those persons who were in the custody of County in
the
Class Period and were strip searched at a location that did
not
provide privacy from other persons not involved in the search.
Subclass 3A: those persons who were in the custody of County
in
the Class Period at the WVDC, and were strip searched prior to
October 1, 2018, at a location that did not provide privacy
from
other persons not involved in the search.
-- Subclass 3B: those persons who were in the custody of
County
in the Class Period at the WVDC, and were strip searched
after
October 1, 2018, at a location that did not provide privacy
from other persons not involved in the search.
-- Class 4: those persons who were in the custody of County in
the
Class Period and strip searched in a group. Here, group means
an
"assembly of two or more individuals."
-- Subclass 4A: those persons who were in the custody of
County
in the Class Period at the WVDC and were strip searched in
a
group before October 1, 2018.
-- Subclass 4B: those persons who were in the custody of
County
in the Class Period at the WVDC and were strip searched in
a
group after October 1, 2018.
The Court now finds that the Plaintiffs have submitted evidence
sufficient to support a positive numerosity finding with respect to
each of the Classes/Subclasses.
As for Class 2, the Court ordered the Defendants to produce to the
Plaintiffs, the Jail Information Management System (JIMS) charging
data for the 133 Strip Search Authorization forms attached as
Exhibit 13 to Matthew Falkenstein's Declaration in Support of the
Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification. The Court finds
numerosity is satisfied for Class 2.
San Bernardino is a county located in the southern portion of the
U.S. state of California, and is located within the Inland Empire
area
A copy of the Court's order dated June 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JCsGM7 at no extra charge.[CC]
ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, IN: Faces Class Suit Over Portage Manor
----------------------------------------------------------
WSBT reports that a lawsuit has been filed as a final effort to
keep Portage Manor open.
The attorney filed the suit in federal court on behalf of the
people living in the assisted living facility.
The suit names St. Joseph County government, along with County
Commission President Carl Baxmeyer and County Council President
Mark Root.
Its claim is that closing the facility will threaten the health of
its residents.
The St. Joseph County Council voted 5-4 to close the county's only
publicly owned assisted living facility on June 13.
Community members have been trying to push against the facility's
closure by forming a task force back in March to create proposals
to save Portage Manor.
The proposals were sent to St. Joseph County Commissioners back in
May, but were ultimately denied.
Portage Manor is set to close July 31. [GN]
TZUMI INNOVATIONS: Settles Proskin False Ads Class Suit for $2-M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Tzumi Innovations agreed to a $2
million nationwide class action lawsuit settlement to resolve
claims it used false marketing to lead consumers to incorrectly
believe its Wipe Out! products were safe and legal to use as
surface disinfectants. No proof of purchase is required for
consumers to benefit from the Wipe Out! settlement.
The settlement benefits anyone who purchased Wipe Out! Wipes, Wipe
Out! Multi-Surface Wipes or Wipe Out! Multi-Surface Decontaminant
Spray in the United States on or before April 19, 2023.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit alleged that, during the COVID-19
public health crisis, Tzumi Innovations engaged in deceptive
business practices by intentionally deceiving consumers into
thinking its Wipe Out! products were approved pesticide products
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had found to be safe and
effective on surfaces when the company had not submitted them to
the EPA for registration.
Tzumi Innovations denies any wrongdoing and denies the allegations.
Tzumi is a New York-based retail company that distributes an array
of sanitizing products, including vacuums, wipes and masks.
In order to receive a Wipe Out! settlement payment, class members
must submit a claim for each of the products purchased during the
class period.
Class members who have valid proof of purchase will be entitled to
submit a claim for $3 per product purchased, up to a maximum of
$15.
Those who do not have proof of purchase are entitled to submit a
claim for $2 per product purchased, up to $6 in cash.
If the total dollar amount of all valid claims is more than the
available portion of the settlement fund, the payout will be
proportionally decreased to account for the available portion of
the fund. If the total amount of all valid claims is lower than the
settlement fund, the maximums will be increased to $50 for those
with proof of purchase and $25 for those without.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is July 3, 2023.
The final approval hearing for the Tzumi settlement is scheduled
for Aug. 28, 2023.
To receive benefits under the Tzumi settlement, class members must
submit a valid claim form by July 18, 2023.
Who's Eligible
Anyone who purchased Wipe Out! Wipes, Wipe Out! Multi-Surface Wipes
or Wipe Out! Multi-Surface Decontaminant Spray in the United States
on or before April 19, 2023.
Potential Award
$50
Proof of Purchase
Name, address and proof of purchase including receipts showing
price paid, date purchased, and location purchased.
Claim Form
CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM »
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
07/18/2023
Case Name
Proskin, et al. v. Tzumi Innovations LLC, Case No. 22-cv-05919-JSR
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Final Hearing
08/28/2023
Settlement Website
WipeOutSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Wipe Out Settlement
c/o Settlement Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Info@WipeOutSettlement.com
833-680-0311
Class Counsel
Russell Busch
Nick Suciu III
Rachel Soffin
Trenton R. Kashima
Hunter Bryson
Zoe T. Aaron
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
Joel Smith
BURSOR & FISHER P.A.
Defense Counsel
Jeffrey J Greenbaum
William R Tellado
Katherine M Lieb
SILLS CUMMIS & GROSS PC [GN]
UNITED WATER: Filing of Class Cert Bid Set Due August 14
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON KNOTT, et al, v.
UNITED WATER SYSTEM, INC., et al., Case No. 6:23-cv-00401-DCJ-CBW
(W.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Carol Whitehurst entered a class
certification scheduling order as follows:
Deadline to exchange Initial Disclosures: Aug. 7,
20231
Deadline for the Plaintiff to file Motion for Aug. 14, 2023
Class Certification:
Fact and Expert Discovery will commence Aug. 17, 2023
on Class Certification:
Deadline for Fact Discovery related to March 1, 2024
Class Certification:
Deadline for the Plaintiff's Expert Reports April 1, 2024
and FRCP 26 Expert Disclosures for Class
Certification:
Deadline for the Defendants' Expert Reports May 1, 2024
and FRCP 26 Expert Disclosures for
Class Certification:
Deadline for Expert Discovery, including June 12,
2024
depositions, for Class Certification:
Deadline for filing Dispositive Motions June 26, 2024
and Daubert Motions on Class Certification
Experts:
Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file Amended July 24, 2024
Motion for Class Certification:
Deadline for filing Opposition to July 24, 2024
Dispositive Motions and Daubert Motions
on Class Certification Experts:
Deadline for filing Reply to Dispositive Aug. 21, 2024
Motions and Daubert Motions on
Class Certification Experts:
The Defendants' deadline to file Opposition to Aug. 21,
2024
Class Certification:
The Plaintiff's deadline for filing a Reply Sept. 4,
2024
for Class Certification and Motion to
Set Class Certification Hearing is due no
later than:
United Water provides residential and commercial water treatment
solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 15, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pf19tq at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED WATER: Parties Seek to Adopt Class Certification Sched Order
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON KNOTT, et al, v.
UNITED WATER SYSTEM, INC., et al., Case No. 6:23-cv-00401-DCJ-CBW
(W.D. La.), the Parties file a joint motion to adopt the Class
Certification Scheduling Order.
The Plaintiffs are Aaron Knott, Michael Carruth, Karen Carruth,
Christina Sonnier and Christine Olivier.
The Defendants are United Water System, Inc. and American
Alternative Insurance Corporation.
United Water provides residential and commercial water treatment
solutions.
A copy of the Parties motion order dated June 14, 2023, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42UN0ze at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gordon J. Schoeffler, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF GORDON JAMES SCHOEFFLER
730 Jefferson St. (70501)
Lafayette, LA 70502
Telephone: (337) 234-5505
Facsimile: (337) 261-0799
E-mail: gordon@gjslawoffice.com
- and -
Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq.
Adam R. Credeur, Esq.
Natalie M. DeJean, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W. DEJEAN
417 West University Avenue (70506)
Lafayette, LA 70502
Telephone: (337) 235-5294
Facsimile: (337) 235-1095
E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com
adam@kwdejean.com
natalie@kwdejean.com
- and -
Jacques Pierre Soileau,Esq.
SOILEAU & CO.
405 W. Main St., Ste. 200
Lafayette, LA 70501
Telephone: (337) 769-3312
Facsimile: (337) 680-4853
E-mail: jacquotsoileau@gmail.com
The Defendants are represented by:
John E.W. Baay II, Esq.
J. Michael Digiglia, Esq.
GIEGER, LABORDE & LAPEROUSE, LLC
701 Poydras Street, Suite 4800
New Orleans, LA 70139-4800
Telephone: (504) 561-0400
Facsimile: (504) 561-1011
Email: jbaay@glllaw.com
mdigiglia@glllaw.com
- and -
Nicholas P. Arnold, Esq.
Bette R. Metheny, Esq.
Hailey E. Lyonnais, Esq.
BLUE WILLIAMS, LLC
3421 N. Causeway Boulevard, Suite 900
Metairie, LA 70002
Telephone: (504) 831-4091
Facsimile: (504) 837-1182
E-mail: narnold@bluewilliams.com
bmatheny@bluewilliams.com
hlyonnais@bluewilliams.com
VISION MECHANICAL: Moody Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vision Mechanical,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Michael Moody, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. Vision
Mechanical, Inc., Ward mechanical, Inc., Does 1-10, Case No.
23CV003778 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., June 27, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Vision Mechanical, Inc. -- https://visionmechanical.com/ -- is one
of the regions leading mechanical contractors.[BN]
VOLVO CARS: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 1
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNER v. VOLVO CARS OF
NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-06152-CCC-JBC (D.N.J.), the
Parties have met and conferred, and jointly propose the following
briefing schedule relating to class certification, including any
Daubert motions:
-- The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Sept. 1, 2023
Certification and Supporting
Memorandum of Law:
-- The Defendant's Opposition to Nov. 3, 2023
the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification:
-- The Plaintiff's Reply in Support Dec. 8, 2023
of Motion for Class Certification
-- Parties' Opening Daubert Motions: Dec. 8, 2023
-- Oppositions to Daubert Motions: Jan. 12, 2024
-- Replies in Support of Daubert Feb. 9, 2024
Motions:
-- Motions' Return Date: Feb. 20, 2024
Volvo Cars manufactures, markets, and sells automobiles.
A copy of the Parties motion dated June 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PxhOmp at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
Telephone: (973) 639-9100
VSS-SOUTHERN THEATERS: Ct. Extends Deadline to File Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY HOGE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VSS-SOUTHERN
THEATERS LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00346-WO-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Hon.
Judge William Lindsay Osteen, Jr. entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's consent motion to extend class certification motion
deadline.
The Plaintiff shall have until 120-days after the court enters a
Rule 26(f) Scheduling Order in which to file his motion for class
certification, the Court says.
VSS-Southern Theatres is a movie theater chain based in New
Orleans, Louisiana.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 15, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44lJzT4 at no extra charge.[CC]
WASTE PRO: Court Dismisses Wright Class Suit Over Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Tabakman of JD Supra reports that I am always interested in
statute of limitations issues and cases because it is the first
defense I look to when defending a FLSA case. On occasion, a suit
will be dismissed in one court for one reason or another and then
the focus is on whether the plaintiff(s) file the suit in the
correct jurisdiction and in a timely manner. A very recent case
illustrates the principle that a dismissal in one court may prompt
a statute of limitations defense in another. This case is even more
interesting because the initial lawsuit was dismissed without
prejudice, The case is entitled Wright v. Waste Pro USA, Inc., and
issued from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
The named plaintiff, a driver, filed a class action seeking
overtime wages. He filed against the parent company, Waste Pro, and
the subsidiary, Waste Pro Florida in South Carolina. The companies
then moved to dismiss these claims because the South Carolina
courts did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendants. The
South Carolina federal court agreed and dismissed the lawsuit.
Then, two years later, the plaintiff filed the same suit in federal
court in the Southern District of Florida. The two-year statute of
limitations had expired and his only hope of saving his case was to
hope for a finding of "willfulness," which would allow a third year
of recovery. The plaintiff and defendant agreed that his claims
would be otherwise untimely if the willfulness standard did not
apply. The federal Judge in Florida ruled the claims were not
tolled in Florida during the period of time the South Carolina case
took to work its way through and dismissed the case with prejudice.
The Court found there was no basis for equitable tolling, which
would have saved the lawsuit for the plaintiff.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The Court agreed that
the suit was not tolled during the time the South Carolina case
weaved through the system. The Court noted these were separate
cases and stated that "for purposes of a limitations period, an
action that is dismissed without prejudice is ordinarily treated as
never filed. The Court explicitly stated that cases brought under
the FLSA "are not an exception to that rule." The Court also would
not allow equitable tolling to bring the case within the time
limits, as that was an extraordinary remedy only allowed if there
was no other remedy at law, which the named plaintiff did in fact
have, e.g., filing a "placeholder" suit in Florida to keep the
Florida claims from fading away.
The Takeaway
This is an instance where a scheming plaintiff tried to play both
ends down the middle and lost. He tried to hedge his bets by filing
in one State and keeping the other jurisdiction in his back pocket.
I am especially happy about the Eleventh Circuit shooting down the
equitable tolling allegations. That doctrine is to be invoked only
in extraordinary circumstances and happily the Court found these
machinations did not fall into that narrow crevice. [GN]
WELLS FARGO: Sued for Alleged Discrimination in the Workplace
-------------------------------------------------------------
kens5.com reports that a newly filed class-action lawsuit alleges
Wells Fargo discriminated against Mexican employees at a San
Antonio customer service center while also directing workers "to
offer predatory lending options" to the bank's Spanish-speaking
customers.
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in San Antonio by
Lawrence Morales II, an Alamo City attorney. The plaintiffs are
seeking actual, consequential and compensatory damages.
According to the complaint, Wells Fargo managers in 2022 created a
program whereby bilingual customer service representatives were
told to offer cash-out products to Spanish-speaking customers
"without directly mentioning the substantial financial cost of the
product to borrowers," effectively leaving those customers on the
hook for later payments ranging between $5,000 and $10,000 that
they weren't expecting to make.
Employees were even equipped with physical laminated cards
reminding them to "Assume the transaction will be cash out DO NOT
ask if they want cash out," the suit alleges.
The second major allegation of discrimination outlined in the suit
pertains to Hispanic employees themselves, claiming they were
barred from joining a pilot program that included opportunities to
collect commission.
"Only members of the English-only team were permitted to join the
pilot program" which launched in 2021, the suit states, adding that
members of the Wells Fargo bilingual team suffered financial
hardship as a result.
The plaintiffs named in the suit are all from Mexico, and claimed
being denied entry into the pilot program. At least 11 members of
the bilingual team have sued Wells Fargo for discrimination in
connection with the class-action suit.
A Wells Fargo spokesperson said they "don't have anything to add to
the story at this time."
Just last month, the bank – which services 70 million customers
in 35 countries – agreed to pay $1 billion to settle with
shareholders who alleged it made misleading statements about its
compliance with federal regulators. In December it agreed to pay a
$3.7 billion settlement amid allegations it charged illegal fees
and interest on auto loans and mortgages. [GN]
WHALECO INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Johnson Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
THERESA JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WHALECO, INC. d/b/a TEMU, Defendant, Case
No. 5:23-cv-00403-GAP-PRL (M.D. Fla., June 27, 2023) seeks to stop
the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.
WHALECO, INC. d/b/a TEMU is an online marketplace offering
merchandise from suppliers and brands to consumers at wholesale
prices anytime, anywhere, and in any quantity. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Eisenband, Esq.
EISENBAND LAW P.A.
515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 533-4092
Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com
- and -
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
WSE PROPERTY: Settlement Reached in Class Suit Over Rental Charges
------------------------------------------------------------------
wflx.com reports that a settlement has been reached with WSE
Property Management, LLC ("WSE") in a class action lawsuit about
whether it withheld security deposits, overcharged for actual
utility usage and contracted utility amounts, and failed to honor
leases with special provisions for month-to-month rentals.
You are included in the Settlement if you had a rental agreement
for real property with WSE and either: (1) had all or some of your
security deposit withheld, at least in part, due to alleged damage
to the premises or otherwise were charged for alleged damages; had
all or some of your security deposit retained between September 17,
2000 and the Final Approval Hearing date; and did not receive a
list of alleged damage within 30 business days of occupancy
termination ("Security Deposit Class"); or (2) had a lease that
contained a provision that you would be charged only for your
actual sub-metered utility usage, yet were charged an amount for
utilities based on an estimate that was greater than your utility
usage between September 17, 2014 and the Final Approval Hearing
date ("Utility Meter Class"); or (3) were charged fees, including
"administrative fees" associated with the collection of utility
payments that were greater than the amount on your contract between
September 17, 2014 and the Final Approval Hearing date ("Utility
Fees Class"); or (4) had a lease with a "Special Provision"
providing that if the lease goes month-to-month, you will be
charged a $200 surcharge in addition to market rent; and your lease
went month-to-month; but you were charged more than $200 above your
previous monthly rent, between September 17, 2014 and the Final
Approval Hearing date ("Holdover Rent Class").
If you submit an approved Claim Form, you will receive a payment
based on your Settlement Class. Security Deposit Class members will
receive the portion of their security deposit that was withheld for
alleged damage; Utility Meter Class members will receive $10;
Utility Fees Class members will receive a refund of all fees
charged to them for collection of utilities beyond the amount
disclosed and agreed to in the lease; and Holdover Rent Class
members will receive the difference between
their-previous-monthly-rent-plus-$200 and the monthly rent actually
charged. Payment amounts may be reduced on a pro rata basis, if
needed. Claim Forms are due October 30, 2023. [GN]
*********
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 ***